How Do You Argue?
As the community is growing and the threads (especially in the Reader Blogs) are getting long, I've been thinking a lot about how we can encourage a culture of discussion here at TPMCafe. Rules and software tools are good (and I'm sure some folks will have advice on that count), but I'm of the school of thought that you should only go there if you can't solve the problem with community culture. In other words, if we can collectively come to an understanding of what you can and can't do here, and collectively push back when folks violate TPMCafe cultural norms, explicit management moderation or comment ratings may not be necessary.
Then this morning, I found a chart (after the break).
(Chart from Web Strategy)
It struck me as a perfect guide to good commenting. Reach for the top of the pyramid, and all will be well.
The bottom two I thought were fairly obvious. Calling people names, ad hominem. This is obviously worthless to the community. And the top three obviously quite valuable. The tone argument doesn't always bother me, but it's worth pinpointing for what it is.
I actually find contradiction the most irritating. When someone just writes "you're wrong, x is true," it makes me want to tear my hair out. It's purely a way for the commenter to register disapproval and gives the opponent no means of defending themselves by not offering any counter argument. It's the lazy coward's way of commenting.
What do you guys think? Are there other comment types missing from the pyramid? Do you agree on contradiction?
Comments (258)
F@$#k you!!!!
May 22, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to start the thread Memekiller.
May 22, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't give her/himself the handle "memekiller" for nothing...
May 22, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of usernames...
Just ran across "HillaryClinton08", which would seem to be representative of an official campaign posting username. If it is official, fine, if not, I think it misrepresents, and such usernames should not be allowed.
Seems to be easy to grab usernames around here that might misrepresent, though, as I've seen others, some used in jest, but crossing the line of credibility.
I'd like to see more scrutiny there, to set community standards a bit higher than they are at the moment.
May 22, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
would crossing that line of credibility have anything to do with stepping over the political borders of your given state (or even of indiana)?
May 22, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
May 23, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. If one is going to tighten up moderation, it has to be sweeping not piecemeal.
Some derogatory avatars are obnoxious too. On both sides. So of civil debate is the goal, might want to ban avatars that basically say F-U.
Overall, it seems like moderation whack-a-mole though.
May 23, 2008 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're rather wrong, and it would be an inefficient use of my time to point out why in detail. Though I'm sure you've never felt that way as you must always give long explanations and thorough refutations, adhering to your own rules. ;)
May 22, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I can't see the chart. It's blocked by my workplace "Websense" monitor. Welcome to Oceania Winston.
May 22, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a text version:
May 22, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! That's helpful.
May 22, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
People are humans, and humans feel a need to express their approval or disapproval.
The culture is much more influenced by which crowd is attracted by the site than by any attempts to encourage good behavior.
May 22, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but the crowd that's here can have conversations about how to make our community work.
May 22, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just let us moderate the comments on our own posts. We'll take care of the rest, Andrew.
May 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with that.
What will happen in the long run, is people will begin to delete or remove comments about their posts that they simply disagree with or don't like.
I don't believe you personally be so petty, but others possibly would.
While I type this out, I had another thought,it would be a good experiment to run, it would not take long to figure out if it works or not, and who those individuals are that would delete others comments simply for disagreeing with them.
May 22, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This from the guy who constantly derides the "echo chamber".
May 22, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just more proof that moderation of your own blog is a good idea. If you don't want to see my comments about an echo chamber on your thread, don't approve them. When I know that doesn't go with you, I'll stop doing it, unless I just want to remind you personally that you're in an echo chamber.
May 22, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who feels the need for that kind of total control over the comments on their posts can go over to blogger.com, set up a blog, and choose the commenting option they prefer, and then work to attract a readership. But since people who post on this site are benefiting tremendously from the existence of a ready-made readership gathered here to read other content, the least they can do in exchange for the privilege they are afforded is to accept the right of any other visitor to the site to comment on their posts.
May 22, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This concept is not lost on Billy. He has his own blogger site. He writes here because there is an echo chamber, er, I mean audience.
He wants to have his cake and eat it, too. How cute.
May 22, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. no kidding. btw, billy's avatar screams psycho.
May 23, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy's avatar screams, "I'm here from the future to protect the fate of humanity."
May 23, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, is that what it is? From Terminator.. lol. It still screams psychopath, with a messiah complex.
May 23, 2008 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble is that this is the "benevolent dictator" model. Why not try democracy?
A long time ago (in Internet years) a site called Slashdot popped up. For a long time, Slashdot was the place for geekiness on the web. In fact, having a low Slashdot ID is still a form of geek street cred.
Then, a few years ago, sites like Digg and reddit started to pop up. These so-called "social news" sites gave their users democratic control over what made the front page (this was quite appealing to many who had grown tired of the particular perspective of CmdrTaco).
Now, the democratic model isn't perfect (online or off), but it has the benefit of freedom from tyranny. Certainly, the mob can still levy a form of tyranny all its own. Even so, I prefer democracy online just as I do in life. While the benevolent dictatorship looks good on paper, who among us is fit? If you're thinking "I am", then you've discovered exactly why this doesn't work. In the immutable words of our venerable leader, "If this were a dictatorship it'd be a heck of a lot easier. Just so long as I'm the dictator."
If you look at any given thread on reddit, the users have moderated the comments so that the cream, so to speak, rises to the top (in fairness, Slashdot did feature user moderation of comments before Digg or reddit, they just didn't apply the concept to the front page). However, if you want to gas up the old submersible and delve down into the dregs you can do that. I find this is preferable to some wizard behind a curtain quietly deleting everything.
Having that said, I find it interesting that you complain of "drive by" comments, but insist that your doing so is a good reason for implementing the system that you've requested. Poison the well much?
May 22, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, this is why I have a crush on you.
DiggIt and Reddit...I'm still just learning about this stuff, and you've dug it and read it for ages.
(gazes at DF adoringly)
May 22, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is only 1 slight problem with it. For example, a post entitled "Do Not Recommend this Post" made it into the top 10. There was nothing in the post.
How can we possibly get the cream of the crop, so to speak, if people recommend crap like that?
May 22, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
nothing tops the cream!
May 22, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the system allows you to vote items down as well as up. We don't know how many people would have voted that or any other post down.
It's not that sub-standard content never makes the front-page on social news sites. Honestly, look at our government. There are substandard candidates elected all the time. It's just that this is preferable in many ways to the imposition of a single person's view point alone. In other words, you're going to see stuff that you don't enjoy or agree with no matter what. Would you rather that come from a single person or a consensus?
Personally, I recommended that post. Why? I assumed that it was some sort of psych-experiment (or perhaps just a lark) that in turn assumed that people would recommend it because they were told not to: A simple exercise in reverse psychology. However, assuming that they would assume this, I was aware of their ruse decided that I would play along anyway, thereby tainting their ability to measure a group who responds to reverse psychology!
Unless they were trying to measure people who are willfully playing along with reverse psychology. If that was the game, then they got me.
May 23, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
otoh, maybe it was just an accident on the way to the loo ...
I didn't even click on it, but I still enjoyed the humor it evoked in me ...
May 23, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hah. And I thought it was the TPM answer to 4'3''.
May 23, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
4'33'' seconds, that is
May 23, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't give it too much credit. It was worth a smirk, but Cagean it was not.
May 23, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe I'm not giving Cage enough credit.
May 23, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
but will the poster assert (confess?) it was his most important work? obviously it proved quite *moving* for quite a few who tuned into it!
May 23, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Slashdot is great and the software is way ahead of anything at TPM. I agrued for Slashdot style ratings at TPM, several years ago.
But I'd also point out it has a niche audience and hence more homogeneous culture which greatly aids self moderation. It's not like a political site regularly attacked by trolls.
Overall, I'd still favor emulating Slashdot though.
May 23, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Judging from Alexa, TPM is experiencing between 2-3x its normal pageviews during the primary. I'm sure that has a lot to do with what we've seen here recently.
May 23, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
May 22, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you get your edit function off the ground you'll see a marked improvement. I've typed things into the new system that I've later thought better of (I'm talking seconds later). In the old days I'd just go back in delete it and leave a note saying "Sorry, rethought that!"
The edit function's really going to help a lot.
May 22, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, and we're working on that. But couldn't you just take a deep breath before you post?
May 22, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A deep breath? At my age? I'm on oxygen, son. I'm John McCain's best friend!
May 22, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha. Ok.
May 22, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure how to categorize this one but...
Submitting a post that is not intended to create a stimulating conversation/argument/debate, but to simply garner as many "me toos!" as possible.
I don't know, maybe that is what we all are doing deep down. But it often appears more nakedly than others. In these cases are we still to reach for the top of the pyramid?
May 22, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking that pyramid needed another layer at the bottom.
Me too-ism is annoying unless you bring up a point that supports the main point that wasn't previously mentioned. This provides further material for discussion. Unfortunately, I see the former sort as making up a large percentage of the comments here.
May 22, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and loki, it's called "baiting" and people who respond to it are called "suckerfish," unfortunately, I know this, but end up falling for it far too often.
:(
May 22, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone does from time to time, but the best medicine in the case is to just ignore that which lacks substance.
May 22, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've missed your common sense.
:)
May 22, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've missed it, too!
Seriously, I've been busy lately and, unfortunately, the Cafe has not been very impressive or entertaining when I've had the time to stop by lately, but I'm still lurking around.
May 22, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sometimes guilty of "me too" comments that add no further insight to the original post, so I'll try to curb that.
But I don't think there's anything wrong with making a "praise" comment on a really good post, letting the author know that I enjoyed it enough to recommend it.
Myspace.com blogs allow not only a comment but "kudos" as well. If you like a post, you can give it a kudo. If you are absolutely blown away by a post, you can give it "2 Kudos". I wouldn't mind seeing a "Recommend" and a "Highly Recommend" option here at TPM. But since it's not here (yet, anyway), I add extra praise to my praise comment and hope the author of the original post understands just how much I really got out of their writing.
May 22, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
(Ok, just kidding.)
The real point I wanted to add is that sometimes it's useful to commend a specific segment of a post, or to say, "I found this post particularly insightful because..."
That can be more helpful than a recommended (or highly recommended) point.
Though I do agree that concurrence has a tendency to get redundant, too.
May 22, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just gave me an idea.
Next time I read a post that I don't agree with, I am going to try to at least find one sentence, paragraph, or point that I actually do agree with, and comment nicely about it. Because, usually I either say nothing at all, or I jump in with a reactionary bit of anger that I regret later.
Of course, if I can't find one sentence, paragraph or point that I agree with, I just won't comment....at least, that's what I like to think I'll do.
May 22, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reactionary? What do you mean by that!?
Explain yourself, sister!
May 22, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, but where's the fun in it? I'd miss your angry comments anyway. There's nothing wrong with a little righteous outrage from time to time.
May 22, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then, you should see my responses over the past week to my friend and literary critic, BevD, and my amused comments to my bestest friend OttoF today.
I find it intriguing that, once they jump into one of my posts, with their usual comment, and I respond to them, they don't come back.
It almost makes me feel like I should be working for Obama's campaign.
May 22, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it used to be that you could rate a comment a "4" and no "me too" was necessary. Now the only way to let a poster know you admire or agree with the post is to write one yourself, saying essentially, "me too."
I prefer to have the old rating system, and to redifine it as agreeing with a post, or disagreeing with one (which is how they were used previously anyway). The "correct" way to do it was to only rate on quality of argument or writing, but what human being would rate a post as excellent because the argument was ingeniusly made if that same person disagreed with every word?
Rating based on agreement or disagreement was called "rating abuse," when in fact it was a perfectly good short-hand way to respond.
May 22, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, you wrote: "...what human being would rate a post as excellent because the argument was ingeniusly made if that same person disagreed with every word?"
At the risk of subjecting my homo sapiens membership credentials to your doubt, Jan, I'd answer your question with a qualified "yes".
I suppose there have been a few times when, upon reading an argument at odds with mine that is really well put, I immediately changed my mind.
I've tried to get into a habit over the years of not feeling as though I have to make up my mind right away as to whether I agree or not in such situations. So much more frequently I seem to just let it churn. Maybe I come back at some other time and give it some more thought, maybe I don't. But I feel as though trying to get myself to adopt that sort of approach is part of trying to keep an open mind. I have no idea if that is how others here tend to respond or not. Perhaps not.
Whether or not I end up agreeing with it or finding some merit in it, though, I've often had the experience of reading what I think is a high quality, well argued comment articulating a point of view I disagree with or tend to disagree with at the time I read it.
May 22, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to vote based on:
(A) the quality of a post -- how well the position is stated and supported, as well as the diction and style of the writing
(B) the likelihood of a post generating interesting dialog
(C) entertainment value
(D) whether the post is redundant to previous discussions or restates commonly held positions without adding new context or insight
I don't consciously include agreement in that assessment, though of course it slips in on occasion.
I have no insight into other people's voting metrics.
May 22, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, I was so busy sipping the coffee I forgot to tell Paige why I recommend certain posts.
Here's why:
If it's well-written, that's a kudo. If it has links, even better. If it starts out with a basic idea (i.e., the subject line) and finishes with a tie-back to that basic idea (like a good mystery that closes all the loop-holes), that's a kudo. If it touches something inside of me, that's a kudo with a comment. And on and on and on.
Sometimes I see a post that has typos or bad formatting, but I read it all the same. Much as I want to get the red pen out, I hold back and give the author their freedom because I know how much it hurts to have someone say, "You spelled [insert word here] wrong." We all come from different backgrounds, different educational disciplines, so I try to hold back on that type of editing. I didn't used to, but I do now as much as I can help it. I digress.
On to why I comment on a post that I disagree with: I normally choose not to. I let the rest of you smarter TPM members take over. But if I know the author a little bit, or I totally disagree with their stance, I sometimes add my two cents.
I try to keep it nice until I'm fed up. And then...well, I'm not nice. I was diagnosed as a passive-aggressive once. I took offense at the time, until I realized that just about everyone I know can be passive-aggressive now and then too. And then I quickly apologized for taking offense.
I still feel vaguely guilty for it. Sort of.
May 22, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, sites like DKos have the ability to anonymously recommend posts, and the ability to display threads rolled up, which works pretty well for readability and allows large numbers to comment and rate thereby cutting down on the impact of patronage and trolling somewhat.
I'd say that DKos' software is way ahead of TPM. The TPM crowd is different, due directly to Josh's style. But TPM could still use some of the software.
Btw, this reminds me a bit of the early days of software development when everyone wanted to roll their own IP from scratch. Now, software focuses much more on original and unique content, while using off the shelf components for everything else.
May 22, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to both kosmik and CaliforniaPaige, I have to say, first, that the DailyKos page confuses the hell out of me. It's very hard to navigate, for an over-the-hill woman like me.
Josh's page works much like the older message board formats that I'm used to...and the fact that the Cafe makes me think of a Seattle coffee house (the original kind) makes me feel like I'm sitting down with a bunch of smart and radical friends and having a cool discussion.
I would just like to see more flexible options -- not a whole makeover.
I'll leave the whole makeover up to Obama, thank you very much.
;)
May 22, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The nice thing about software is we can both have it formatted our own way. You could set your options to still display as it is now.
I would roll-up threads and use other tools.
May 23, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny snark would be at the tip of the pyramid, right?
May 22, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good snark is a halo hovering just above the pyramid.
May 22, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
But let's be clear, most snark is neither funny nor good. Good snark is harder to do than most folks think, I think.
May 22, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
snark is a matter of personal preference. Isn't determining whether a particular piece of snark is "good" or "not" a matter of personal taste?
May 22, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've just offended 95% of the TPM community.
May 22, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha. Probably. Snark can just be too easy some times.
May 22, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
um, how did I offend? Help me understand.
May 22, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was responding to my attack on snark, not you.
May 22, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This thread has jumped the snark.
May 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now can we expect a whole new blog entity, watchdogging for sneaky sarcasm?
(Isn't that the definition of "snark?)
Seriously, will we spawn a class of Snarkotics agents?
Hide the chronic...
May 22, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a shiny badge and I'll volunteer!
or should this mission be accomplished by strictly covert ops?
I hope there's not too much 'paper work'!
May 22, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's one issue this response brings up that you might address...
chronology and response-order can get confused when people don't realize the box below theirs, if it is directly below, was in response to the same comment you responded to, how to make sure our responses to responses get appointed to the right responses...
We need an "in response to" designation, so the responses to responses are clearly defined as responses to those responses...
Amd I making myself clear? Any responses?
May 22, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
see above
May 22, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've often wondered how a simple UI tweak in threading comments would help with that problem -- a dashed line to connect a response to its parent, and a way to minimize all the children of any response is what I'm thinking.
May 22, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think so, Yoda... It's like driving. Everyone's willing to admit to the existence of bad snark -- we all just think we're the better-than-average snarkers.
May 22, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Andrew. So perhaps I have just offended 95% of the community as well.
Good snark surely is in the eye of the beholder. Yesterday's most recommended post was an attempt at snark which I thought was just awful. Not an ounce of wit attached to it--a caricature, I thought, of snide, unfunny cynicism.
But that was just my reaction. Each to their own.
May 22, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you enlighten us as to the qualities of "good snark"? We are all waiting with baited breath for that one.
And your chart is just a way of placing rules where they don't belong. I'm with Billy, we're adults (mostly) and can take care of our own discourse. If I may be indulged for a moment, and be so bold as to criticize, that is.
May 22, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will always aim for civility, but at times the talk will get rough, and things will be said....None of this rises to the level of what I would call a "big deal", however. Compared to the stuff we are discussing, you know, death, destruction, the future of America, that kind of thing. I think we can handle a little BS now and then, and react accordingly.
But, grudgingly, I admit we can all do a better job of editing what we write before hitting "send". A good writer must be a good editor, as they say. Of course, spontaneity and provocation can be lost in too much editing, and that isn't good either.
So let's ignore the trolls, offensive jerks and douche bags, and call each other out when we go too far....Anyone who reads this post and thread is a probably cognizant of these issues anyway, and doesn't need much more than a reminder (as I do).
May 22, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speak for yourself, sir.
May 22, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why Slashdot has descriptive recommending tools with options such as "funny." On Slashdot, when you recommend something, one has to pick a category. Such as "informative" or "funny" etc. Which incentivizes those qualities, both in posters and raters.
TPM's old 0-5 system was pretty inadequate and wound up being a popularity contest easily juked.
May 23, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes...but most of the content on the site isn't good period. So much repetitiveness, obviousness, incoherence, inanity, blandness, etc., etc. A small percentage of what people post and comment is worth reading. I humbly suggest that the snark is at least above average.
May 23, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, Genghis, most of the content on the site isn't good period. That's because it's hard to write well, period.
May 23, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) I think it's important to not take comments personally. It's only an argument on your screen. When you log off, it's over and your dog wants to walk, your cat wants petting and your boyfriend (or girlfriend, wife, husband) wants time, your peers, colleagues, and professors want attention and your parents and siblings want to know how you're doing. You know - life outside.
I know that things get said and things happen on threads that can make one angry, but that is more a function of instant response and facelessness of the whole encounter. Personally, what helps me is the belief that I know less than anyone on this site. That perspective always keeps me polite and also, we can only speak from our own experience.
2) Snark uber alles.
May 22, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for seeking input, Andrew.
To have a culture of conversation it matters how easy or difficult it is to determine if someone has responded to or commented on a post or a comment we made in some thread.
As it is, in order to do this, we have first to enter the relevant thread and then scroll down through it to find our comment and see if someone has replied or not. If it's a thread we started, we have to scroll down to identify the new comments. I doubt I am alone in finding this process cumbersome and consuming of more time than I have or want to spend at times.
I understand that work is underway, or will be underway in the near future, on developing a "tracker" function. I hope this new feature can come online as soon as possible, and that it will address this issue. Are you able to comment with information on where that process stands at this time, or at least what the intentions or goals are?
May 22, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've met with our developers and gone over plans, and we're almost ready to start.
May 22, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I forgot...in response to the question you asked, I don't find "contradiction" posts inherently more irritating than ad hominem attacks or other worthless posts. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, it depends. But it seems to me they often do less damage to the level of comity at the site than ad hominem attacks do. So I don't know just where I'd place them on the pyramid.
But I agree that such posts are worthless and that those considering submitting them can improve the quality of the site by taking a deep breath, counting to 10, thinking the better of it, and not clicking the "send" button.
May 22, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with ad hominem arguments is not so much that they address the proponent of the argument, but rather that they (often) are irrelevant to the issue at hand, for instance if I say that an argument given by Bill Clinton is no good because he is a philanderer. On the other hand, to attack the evidence of a witness on the grounds that they were not in position to know whereof they speak is perfectly acceptable. Name calling is a particularly egregious form of irrelevant ad hominem.
May 22, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where would the following styles fit in?
Refuting the argument by calling into question its premises
versus
Going off on a tangent
(bearing in mind that it might be difficult to distinguish between these two)
I see that happen a lot here, and at times it drives me nuts. These are the threads that contain indents to about 20 levels deep. But if the premises actually are questionable, I see this as a legitimate style of argument, and I think it cross-sects several of the layers in the charts, not just one.
Yeah, contradiction is a non-starter.
May 22, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it's not.
May 22, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing we could definitely use: an "Ignore" button. Many times, the ad hominem attacks are launched in an attempt to make the other person go away. An Ignore button is much nicer and more efficient.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with uncivil conversation, as long as there are no death threats or whatever. Some of the best discussions I've had are with people I've vehemently disagreed with. We scream and fight and call each other names, but that doesn't mean we hate each other. Usually it just means that the other guy is a complete idiot. :)
May 22, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but in this regard, many at the site are unlike you. All it takes is one person who feels insulted and reacts to it and pretty soon others jump in and it gets really ugly really quickly. They get this in hockey: once a fight breaks out the third person in is automatically ejected. And many people are very uncomfortable with the bad feelings and do not shrug it off and come back as you are able to do.
Don't get me wrong. I think a thicker skin is a useful trait to cultivate in oneself. But among those who have responded by either lashing out or leaving the site are many whose contributions I have valued. Why can't this site be both spirited and civil? Tough if you choose to be on the comment, but not insulting to the commenter?
If someone is insulted solely because someone else was tough on their comment, then that is unfortunate but I think that should be fair game. Being tough on someone else's comment should not by itself be regarded as insulting by the larger community, including the person on the receiving end. JMO.
So there, what do you say to that, you !@#$%^&*!!? :
May 22, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, I'm a perfect example of why an Ignore button would be useful. Personally, I couldn't care less if someone wants to get abusive with me--I don't take it personally. I love conversation at whatever level it happens to take. But if someone thinks something I've said to them is out of line, they should be able to turn me off. I mean, if someone says to me: "That was mean. You hurt my feelings." I'm going to apologize, of course. But if they're too shy to say anything, I'd like to think they could at least say, "What a jerk" and turn me off. If they come back at me with a smartass comment, or whatever, I figure they're in for a rumble, and that's fine too. It's not physical. You can't end up in the hospital. So where's the harm? The cool thing about an Ignore function is that it allows for stratification of the conversation. The brawlers get a space to brawl without trashing the place and everyone else gets to enjoy their tea in relative peace.
We all have different styles. Isn't that what it's all about?
May 22, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what you're up against, Andrew. People who enjoy being on the bottom of the pyramid. What you need is blogger moderated comments so that we can control the trolls. We just need the basic tools blogger provides. Let us moderate the comments on our own posts if we want to. The trolls will be out of here before you know it.
May 22, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, you think everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Perhaps you should try a little ego modification.
May 22, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he doesn't doesn't doesn't. He just thinks they are part part part of the echo chamber chamber chamber.....
He's said that once or twice ice ice ice ice.