SusanofO
Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
|
I just don't think a poster's seemingly angry reaction to a post has a whole lot to do, sometimes, with even how the OP poses the issue they are trying to discuss. People's reactions, on the whole, IMO, say a lot more about them than they do about the OP, or any other poster on a thread.
I am a big fan of the reaction of "stunned silence". When-if someone does say something I find incredibly rude, angry or offensive, I often say nothing, and let their rudeness simply hang in mid-air, like a putrid stench in a sewer, on a really hot day - and hope this non-response from me just makes them eventually choke on the resulting fumes (which will usually linger in their direction.)
Of course this is always better to observe in person (but can definitely work on the internet as well) - it can be fun to watch (or imagine) them squirming, in response. Of course really stupid people will rarely have that reaction - if they are just plain dumb (along with being rude), I will mostly try to ignore them, and just move on. Usually.
In some cases, yeah, maybe somebody could have worded something differently, etc., to prevent a potential misunderstanding, but - it truly amazes me sometimes, how easily some are willing to jump to a negative (rather than a nuetral) conclusion about what someone means, if there is ambiguity about what someone could mean in a post.
I always kind of chuckle to myself when someone calling themselves Dominant or Domme wants to toss out rude or nasty comments to a poster, with little or no apparent provocation (or anyone, submissives included). In my mind, they've just marked themselves as anything but that (and rude, besides).
Because they are in the land a bdsm world that (presumably) promotes self-responsibility, and have so obviously little self-control, it tells me more negative about them in a sentence or two than they probably even realize. But that's just me.
*The other day, I started a thread, and some woman (a Domme) immediately wrote in, and her first comment was telling me how she "didn't have the patience to read long threads." I admit I can be verbose at times, and I could have responded to her obviously ego-centric concerns, but - I decided almost instantly that it really wasn't worth my time.
*I considered what she'd said, and decided not to cut down the verbiage in my post. I did, however, bold the general question it contained, and move that sentence to the top of the thread. She may have had a point, but I was offended at her presumption the world should revolve around her preferences.
*If she doesn't like it, she can opt not to read and respond. Period. Even her presumption she was giving me "helpful feed-back" when I hadn't asked for it, was something I found slightly amusing (although I did change the way I'd worded the question, and moved it to the top of my original post in the thread, so it was easier for other readers to find).
I didn't comment on her crassness directly at the time, mostly because it's not worth the ensuing embattled posts that inevitably result (who has the energy?) - and also because she went on to actually answer the question posed in the thread.
But mostly, I opt to leave these folks alone. They are in general a pain in the keester, and not worth the time it takes to tangle with them. If someone is really being an uber-jerk, or has a vehement opposing opinion from my own (and is also being what I consider rude in trying to get that across), I will usually ignore it - except maybe once in awhile, I'll post my own opinion (which is the polar opposite of theirs). Just to make them realize that opposing opinions do exist (hehe).
I love it when these types are not smart enough to defend their position, and get swallowed whole by a countering follow-up poster, via their own initial stupidity; it seems so predictable and kind of funny (to me anyway), and full of "poetic justice" - especially when they've been very offensive throughout an entire thread. But usually, I just watch this conclusion slowly develop, because I don't have enough aspirin in my medicine cabinet to be on the receiving end of these arguments.
I see people argue all the time here on the boards (although I see a lot of worthwhile discussion a lot of times, too). I've argued vehemently about something once or twice, but I've been here over two years. Mostly, I don't have enough headache medicine on hand to cover the headaches I get when I do argue with these types of folks. Who needs the hassles?
As far as starting threads is concerned, I think it helps to realize if someone is taking on a potentially, or predictably explosive topic, there are going to be folks writing in with opposing viewpoints (which doesn't mean they have to be rude in expressing them), so I think they should be prepared for that, or else not maybe post the thread to begin with.
As far as posters answering an OP with a vehement opposing opinion, my general thought is that they of course have a right to their opinion, but shouldn't probably expect to change the OP's mind, if it initially appeared set in stone. On-going, round-and-round arguments desperately hoping to change someone whose opinion (on either end) is set in cement is a waste of time, IMO.
- Susan
< Message edited by SusanofO -- 2/26/2007 7:25:35 PM >
_____________________________
"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson
|
Anger by Default? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread