|
fucktoyprincess -> RE: Do you consider a poster's history when reading/replying? (6/13/2012 8:51:06 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
quote:
ORIGINAL: RemoteUser
Each to their own, but I have no trouble separating one post from another. People can change in the course of a sentence:
We need you to sign the form to pull the plug.
Will you marry me?
Congratulations, it's a girl.
You get the idea.
I could judge people on their past, sure, but people are not solely defined by their past, otherwise we would be stuck in static.
If you think of the post and not the writer, you build on ideas instead of people. Which would you prefer?? I would rather build on ideas that can be shared, and let the individuals build themselves. Their foibles are not my concern.
I didn't get it. Just saying.
If someone writes a post with a gross generalization and I point out it is a generalization and not a universal truth then get back, "You're just a dumb cunt," (has absolutely happened here.. twice as I recall - from two (allegedly) different trolls. I am not going to be prone to interact with them again especially if I see their 'habit' is to call everyone who disagrees with them a dumb cunt just because they are a woman or disagree with some remark they flip out of their fingertips.
If they come back a few months later, I'm not going to be forgetting their prior history and allow them a fresh opportunity for verbal assault. I'm open-minded but not so open-minded that my brains fall out.
I think mature adults realize there are consequences for their actions and that you can't 'fix' everything you've taken the pains to break. There are some amazing people here.. they get my attention, their words get read because they have proven they are worth my time to read them. I'm not into trolls and I'm not a great fan of drama llamas. I have not found many instances where indulging either one of those has impacted me in any sort of profound manner. So, one or two chances is more than enough before I move on and find someone who I consider quality to spend my online time reading. Trolls, creepers and the like don't fall into that category.
Often I will make initial attempts to clarify things.. I'm not perfect either so it's possible I may misconstrue things but my gut is pretty spot on and I see patterns quite well. To ignore shit-storms in the making is to ignore my gut instincts and my personal experience leads me to believe that ignoring my gut is rarely good for me.
No pass from me. I use the block and then the troll, drama llama or creeper disappear from my radar. I have better things to do with my time.
Ah, okay. If someone repeatedly attacks you, personally, and not just your ideas, that is quite a different thing. And I could see that after repeated offenses, one would just not want to deal with them. But I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially depending on the topic being discusses, as some topics have a tendency to become more emotional, more quickly. But it would take repeated offenses by the same person for me to put them in that category. But I will say this ad hominem attacks, or things like purposely ignoring comments, etc., are not behaviors that have anything to do with ideas. So, to the extent that someone is ONLY able to interact with someone by ad hominem attack that is not really engaging in the ideas anymore.
I'm not a big fan of those who repeatedly attack others personally when what they actually want to do is criticize their ideas. But I'm also not a big fan of people who when their ideas are criticized behave as if they have been personally attacked. I would like to think that people can draw a distinction between the two. I understand being offended at the first. But I don't understand being offended (and holding a grudge) against the second. And in almost every Internet forum I have participated in, no matter what the community is about, or what the topic is about, some people just get offended by others who disagree with their ideas and then start to treat them badly in return. To me, that is equally as offensive as an ad hominem attack.
Engaging in a dialogue about ideas necessarily means some people will disagree. And while nothing condones an ad hominem attack, disagreement about ideas is something that people should expect in a free thinking society. [sm=2cents.gif]
|
|
|
|
