|
domtimothy46176 -> RE: Listening and Courtesy vs. Flaming (9/13/2005 8:13:28 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: pinkpleasures
We have a disagreement here on this thread; members like OsideGirl and luvxdragon seem to believe an ad hominem attack can be framed as "constructive criticsm" and thus is not flaming. Worse, what is criicised is the poster -- "overemotional" is one i remember. A flame is a flame. If you have something to say about the substance of the post, by all means say so; but an attack on a poster, no matter how framed, is a flame. It only lowers the level of discourse and hijacks the thread. Obviously i have feelings about the style/nature/etc. of some members (not the two i mentioned) but i have held my tongue because in real life i'd never pronounce upon their writing style, etc., and so i do not feel comfortable doing it here.
pinkpleasures
I don't believe I engage in ad hominem attacks on the boards, as I consider flaming to be a worthless endeavor. I can say, however, that I'm quite certain that posts I've written espousing my personal opinions on the subject matter of a post have undoubtedly been interpreted as a personal attack upon the poster. It happens when folks are unable to seperate their positions from themselves. If I post that "morality is an antiquated mechanism for controlling those who are ill-equipped to think for themselves", several would assume I was directly attacking them, simply because they equate their morality with who they believe themselves to be. This type of knee-jerk reaction is common-place in every forum I've ever participated.
There are those who cannot debate positions without becoming invested in their position to the point where they become their position. Not every thread becomes a debate, but many of them do, as proponents of opposing viewpoints feel they need to argue their positions are superior to those of the opposition. Not every debater equates criticism of his position with a personal attack, although those that do seem to be more vociferous because of their perceived need to defend themselves, rather than their viewpoint. For some, I think, this appears to inflate the perception of how much flaming takes places upon the boards.
The truth, however, is that not everyone who cries foul has, in fact, been attacked on the personal level. The perception of being attacked on a personal level is not the same as actually having been attacked. To equate "I feel..." with "Reality is..." is a tad too egocentric even for one with as much sense of self-importance as I possess.
There is a difference, although it appears lost to some, between saying, for instance, "Your position is logically inconsistent" and saying, "You're being illogical and inconsistent". There's a difference between saying, "I disagree, as that has not been my personal experience" and saying, "You're a liar, that never happens." Some don't seem able or willing to make those distinctions and cry flame while failing to understand that the only flame is in their perception of the writer's intent.
As others have said and/or alluded to, attempting to read between the lines in a strictly text-based medium is apt to yield wildly varying levels of accurate understanding. I, myself, write on many different levels, dependant upon my target audience. Any given reader who knows me only from my writings, may easily believe they see a veiled reference that simply doesn't exist within the body a post. It's much more productive, in my opinion, to simply ask for clarification. Those who insist on looking for subtle clues to underlying meanings will doubtless find them regardless of their existence outside of their own minds.
Timothy
|
|
|
|
