RE: Anger by Default?

RE: Anger by Default? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SusanofO -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 6:03:06 AM)
I can get passionate about a topic I have a strong opinion, and think I have good reasons for it. But I'll always try to back up my argument with some research. I realize stats can be twisted, but I do think there is a difference between over-extreme, rudely expressed "passion" and a good debate. I abhor out-right fighting, and the personal attack stuff I sometimes see here, and in real life. Occasionally, it can be entertaining, but most of the time it's a turn-off. -Susan

WyrdRich -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 6:03:56 AM)
Too many people are just vain and hypersensitive. They get away with their pettiness and hypocrisy in the tiny little bubbles they call a life, and then get their poor feelings hurt when the whole world doesn’t treat them like they are special here too. News Flash! This is a BDSM oriented website. There are sadists here.

SusanofO -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 6:16:28 AM)
There are people with un-treated personality dis-orders, etc., too. I mean there are in "real-life" too, and I think there are probably just as many here. They occasionally tick me off, too. If I see somebody beaing a real jerk on-line to somebody who seems like they cannot defend themselves, I will say something about it sometimes (and I've seen other people do this, too). But I think there are just as many folks who perhaps, like Wyrd and seekesfemslave said, who maybe haven't thought about the fact that their own POV is not the only one. Plus, I sometimes think that some men believe that being or appearing "Dom" has a lot to do with sticking with their POV, even in the face of overwhelming evidence their argument is full of holes. Some folks aren't great debaters, but full of bravado, which can be an unfortunate combo on a message board where there are many good debaters. A little diplomacy goes a long way, IMO. If their feelings get hurt, then the personal attacks can start. This doesn't just happen with men, either, I see women do it, too. It also doesn't just happen with Doms and Dommes (I see submissives do this, too). - Susan

meatcleaver -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 6:17:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich News Flash! This is a BDSM oriented website. There are sadists here. And masochists but don't include me in that lot, I like to do the kicking.[:D]

SusanofO -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 6:32:21 AM)
There can sometimes be a trend of "follow the leader" on a thread, but usually (I've noticed) there are one or two who will mention an alternative POV. If anyone has good reasons for their POV, I'll try to listen. If they are just engaging in emotional debate with no "logic" behind their reasoning, and especially no research, I'll usually try to be respectful (and try to realize that expressing an opposing POV is going to get me nowhere with them). This social pheomena isn't just limited to message boards. People in real life do it, too. There are particular topics, I've noticed where this trend can be especially fierce. One topic here that gets people going is whether Dommes have a right to have "money slaves", and there are others, too. The other day there was a long thread in the "Polls and Random Stupidity" section on the efficacy of trying to rehabilitate Pedophiles, that got rather heated. I understand it, I just don't want to get all personal attack-y about it when I have an opposing POV, usually, and for some folks, it's their first "line of defense" in a debate. Sometimes, it's their only one, unfortunately. People do have their right to an opinion, and when the topic is one where there are emotional arguments for both sides, and there isn't overhwelming amounts of conclusive research to back up either side, then the topic and discussing it can get heated. I try to realize there is a 'point of no return', even in a debate. If I really feel strongly about a POV, I will keep coming back and trying to back it up with research, or by trying to counter an opposite POV. I do, however, try to refrain from personal attacks. It's not always easy, and I have failed to do this once or twice, but not often. - Susan

NorthernGent -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 6:52:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO It's not always easy, and I have failed to do this once or twice, but not often. - Susan There's nothing to be gained from this apart from displaying a lack of discipline. There are open attacks and more subtle approaches which fool only the easily fooled. Neither are impressive and should be avoided at all costs. The discussion isn't worth having if the opposing contributor can't keep it to the issue.

SusanofO -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 7:00:00 AM)
I very much agree. I see it as the difference between an honest debate and the subject discussion devolving into a "personal attack fest." I've noticed *NorthernGent* here always tries to stick to the issue, but will be diplomatic as far as listening to opposing points of view (which isn't the same thing as changing one's POV, btw. And I've appreciated it, too, because it can really help the discussion stay on track). - Susan

NorthernGent -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 7:38:35 AM)
Susan, first lesson of reading history at university.......it's never black and white and there's always a good case for both sides of the coin. You have to consider all the information and arrive at your conclusion (on balance). As you rightly point out, everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how ridiculous it seems.

SusanofO -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 7:53:53 AM)
I think you're right on. I do see people argue (as opposed to debateing) occasionally on the message boards here. There are also so many personality types here, I do think sometimes people mis-interpret eachother, and IMO it helps to step back and think if there is more than one way what they are saying could be interpreted (which I know already know and do, am just saying not everyone always does this. But I am repeating myself, hehe). - Susan

NorthernGent -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 8:03:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO There are also so many personality types here, I do think sometimes people mis-interpret eachother, and IMO it helps to step back and think if there is more than one way what they are saying could be interpreted - Susan Agreed :-)

puella -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 9:45:26 AM)
Thank you for responding to my OP... I will address your question when I am not so distracted (at work)!! I would prefer to spend a bit more time and thought into a reply to you than I am able to give presently.

juliaoceania -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 9:45:41 AM)
I get accused of being angry sometimes on the forums and I rarely am angry. I am passionate, I feel things deeply at times, but I am not angry often. You make a good point. I have noticed people assuming emotional states of others a lot on CM, it makes me think they are all psychic hotline employees. We cannot know what someone else is feeling based on a few words of text... it is very presumptuous to think we can.

puella -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 9:57:33 AM)
Heh! Yeah, lots of Miss Cleo's out there... .and you don't even get a Brazilian power crystal with the collarme psychics... but beware! Even Miss Cleo got busted, in the end.

popeye1250 -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/27/2007 10:55:55 AM)
Julia angry? Noooo!!! I enjoy an opposing viewpoint. It makes for a much more interesting debate. And being an Independant politically I get the hard right and hard left handed to me on a platter, thankyou very much! It's almost like I get a "free" 40% going into an argument right out of the gate! It doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would be "angry" just because someone has a different opinion than them. Are they "angry" at the opinion or "angry" at the person because they have that opinion? But, I have no compunction about having a little fun with the "Kum-Bay-Yah" crowd. They're just (too) easy! I don't agree with NG (Gent) sometimes but it's always fun debating issues with him. He seems to be fair and will concede a point if he's wrong.

puella -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/28/2007 4:59:44 AM)
I am still struggling to try to focus more on what was more of a general "I wonder...." than a fully fleshed out idea, NothernGent, so please bear with me I hate to drag this back into the realm of the political, as I think it is far more culturally wide spread than that, but the most immediate example of what I mean can be drawn from that medium. There is this constant methodology applied to anyone who speaks with any sort of passion about an issue, especially in the Houses of Congress (I think this also holds true in Parliament, some of the more passionate, and in my opinion interesting, speakers tend to get labeled as some how 'unstable') as being out of control or not stable or, extremist or angry... and the moderates, who tend to do nothing but appease, are labeled to be in control and respectable and suitably staid or some how more rational. (This is not exactly illustrating my thoughts well, but perhaps with some further poking around on the idea a more cogent train of thought will develop!) Also...perhaps I am falling back on my "elderly spinster shut-in" ways by going down the whole "the kids these days" route, but it really does seem to me that there is a general trend of apathy and emotional disengagement, both in music, movies, TV, etc. Perhaps I am wrong in thinking it is more acute now than it was a generation or two or three ago, I really have not researched this at all, it is just something I have personally noted on more than one occasion. Having lived in several countries, coming back to the United States, I do tend to think that we, as a culture are far more averse to fully experiencing and perhaps even allowing the more passionate of emotions than in other places I have lived. Now, of course, this is a generality not a defined truth, and can not be applied to every person. It just seems we value blindly accepting what ever we need to to keep at an even keel, even if that means cutting off the fullness of our responses. With that in mind, it seems that people get very uncomfortable with people who do actually embrace and accept passion within themselves and their own meme. Passion often is immediately dismissed as either anger or imbalance. Again, my apologies if this is still a bit less than tight, in terms of presenting something concrete!

NorthernGent -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/28/2007 7:08:57 AM)
Good work, Puella...particularly for a night's thought :-) In terms of politics, I'm unsighted on what happens in your house of senate, representatives etc, but there is a lot of passion in our house of commons. Here, passion is being met with apathy as opposed to being mistaken for anger. Increasing numbers of people are becoming completely disillusioned with the whole democratic process and that's because politicians no longer discuss their policies at great length - they prefer to demonise the other parties (conducted in a passionate manner) and it's a huge turn off. So, in this area, I would say people here don't have a problem with passion, it's more the case this passion is used in a negative manner such as putting posters on billboards with Tony Blair with red eyes (genuinely, that was it, just a big picture of Tony Blair with red eyes and a devil-like appearance - when this masquerades as political debate, the barrel is well and truly being scraped). Maybe the disillusionment with US politics is a factor to consider and maybe passion is not the catalyst for political disengagement. The people who are passionate about politics, they haven't gone away - they're just scratching their heads trying to work out where the next platform is coming from to replaced the hijacked version. I do agree that the establishment and media allies pick up on certain political views and label them unstable. The "loony left" tag was used as a tag in the late 70s and onwards to undermine a legitimate point of view. Murdoch's papers used this endlessly and it worked a treat. It's the old case of tell people something often enough and they'll begin to believe it. People still actually regurgitate these lines without actually thinking about what they're saying. The power of propaganda. Your TV point is really interesting. I'm thinking of British TV and we seem to be overwhelmed with reality TV. Then again, our most watched television programme is a soap opera that has had top ratings for 40 years. This is equally complete rubbish, so I'm not sure that there's a sudden shift towards easy watching TV. It would be interesting to see some figures for the percentage of political programmes watched 30 years ago compared with today. On your final point on imbalance, I take your point that passion could be misconstrued as a lack of self-control. I don't believe they're mutually exclusive however as it depends on how passion is delivered. I'll be looking forward to the next installment of Puella's anger/passion theory :-)

valeca -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/28/2007 7:59:08 AM)
I think there are times when someone has posted an opinion they know many are going to disagree with, they begin preparing for the firestorm that generally follows. They're already set for a fight before the first reply comes in, and reply in that 'defend myself' mode. When we look for negatives, we see negatives.

puella -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/28/2007 8:07:18 AM)
Urrgh! My post just got eaten. :(

juliaoceania -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/28/2007 8:18:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: valeca I think there are times when someone has posted an opinion they know many are going to disagree with, they begin preparing for the firestorm that generally follows. They're already set for a fight before the first reply comes in, and reply in that 'defend myself' mode. When we look for negatives, we see negatives. I agree with this, especially seen this in the last few days on certain threads

NorthernGent -> RE: Anger by Default? (2/28/2007 8:56:38 AM)
Now that's a shame, Puella - the CM mods don't mess around with their rules but, on the bright side, you'll be able relive the whole experience again at some point!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125