CDZ What makes a good poster?

[Flopper]

Although I agree with most of your post, cognitive scientists have determined by many studies that facts and rational arguments do not change opinions. They only polarize opinions

Intriguing.

I must be unique in that way then.

If you want to change hearts and mind, you have to establish a dialog and you can't do that by proving your adversary is wrong.

My opinion is this: Never refer to the person you are debating with as an "adversary". That only hardens them to your viewpoints... or in your words, it further "polarizes" their opinion against yours.

Furthermore, the person you are debating should not live in ignorance if facts are readily available to contradict their argument. Nor should they live in ignorance of facts. One of the worst things, I believe, is to let a person continue believing something that isn't true when there are facts and evidence to the contrary. How they handle that information is a burden for them to bear alone.

This. ^^

That's more to the point --- correcting the record. The partisan who insists on peddling mythologies isn't going to be swayed, but the third-party reader deserves to know what the reality is.

Submitting facts to set the record straight is fine. Just don't expect it to change the opinion of the person you are debating. Of course what we do on USMB is not real debating.

I agree, but I can't seem to get past the constant hyperbole. You see it within seconds in these forums. I can't even engage with people I pretty much agree with due to how the arguments are framed. Projection, stereotyping and dehumanizing seems to rule the environment here, so I tend to act accordingly. Oh well, no one is perfect.

Hyperbole is the sign of times. The president exaggerates everything which set's the tone. Talk show hosts and news analysts seeking notoriety and improved rating blow everything out of proportion. Any republican mentioning the high crime rate in a black neighborhood is going to be labeled a racist even it he just quotes a known facts. Any democrats that suggest we need comprehensive immigration reform, will be accused of supporting open borders even thou there is not a single democrat presidential candidate that supports open borders. And for that matter polls of democrats show most democrats don't believe in open borders either.

The image of liberals created by conservatives and the image conservatives created by liberals are simply a fantasy that matches a very small minority of each party. However, USMB seems to have more than it's share of those small minorities posting.

 

[Flopper]

As I see it, we each have 3 options to choose from when some asshat posts something that is, shall we say, less than respectful. Which does not necessarily mean a different opinion, one can offer an opposing viewpoint without being an asshat about it.

1. You can ignore it

2. You can answer back in kind (lower yourself to their level)

3. Or you can respond in an intelligent, responsible manner. Which ain't always easy when you or your post has been disrespected.

I go with option #1 often, most of the time you already know who the asshats are and I see no point in feeding the trolls. Once in awhile I roll with option #2 if I want to make a point, and if I'm feeling a bit feisty I might go after somebody who's really being outrageously asshatty, but usually my point is lost and I have merely wasted my time to no good effect.

Which leaves option #3, which I often strive to do. Sometimes I post something that is incorrect cuz I didn't bother to research anything first, and I am reminded that I am not infallible and all-knowing. I think a lesson every once in awhile in humility is not a bad thing IMHO. Many times I get an intelligent and responsible answer back, and sometimes it's from somebody who engages in asshattery. I think there's a lotta people around here who will give as good or better than they get, but probably would rather not get into an insult contest. Sooo, you can throw some mud back, ignore the SOB, or surprise the shit out of 'em with a mature, reasoned response.

I have adopted a strategy that I try to follow without always succeeding:

--Don't feel the trolls
--Don't argue with idiots
--Don't engage in other exercises of futility

So as I choose not to personally insult people as much as possible, that means I ignore some more often than not. But not is sometimes how it goes too.

All in all I believe being pleasant, non combative, respectful as much as possible, and being logical, reasoned, and informed more than not being informed is the best way to be a grown up. Not bearing false witness, not repeating gossip, not parroting assigned propaganda and talking points is the best way to be grown up and also have integrity.

Irrational hatred and contempt just doesn't fit into that very well.

I think too many people take insults to political figures, such as Trump or Obama as a personal insult and feel they must respond with insults and personal attacks on the poster. To me, that is irrational for two reasons. Personal attacks and insults will not change any opinions. Secondly, the public persona of most politicians is created by their campaign people, supporters, the opposition, and the news media. So it is the public persona that is being attacked, not necessary the actual person.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I believe the Presidents work what they believe is best for the nation.

And I believe this *pResident works for 1: Himself, and a far distant 2: His supporters. Neither of us might be right about it, however, because they are simply two different opinions.

 

[Dekster]

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I don't know that it is 'most' who can't or won't. It is just those who can't or won't seem to have a lot of time on their hands or their mission is to derail, detract, change the subject, and trollishly trash to the extent everybody else gets drowned out. I don't know how people like that sleep at night, but apparently they have sociopathic inclinations or otherwise no moral center or conscience at all.

But I do believe we outnumber them.

I don't believe many people are trying to change hearts minds on USMB but rather to express their opinion. Their spouse has long since put them on ignore. The kids don't understand or care. Their neighbor is so senile, it's like talking to a post and the only person in the neighborhood that actually listens is the guy across street and he doesn't speech English.

I think USMB and other such forums give people a chance to vent their their frustration. It's much better to have them launching verbal attacks online than real ones at work or at their neighborhood school.

Maybe. But my hubby is my best friend, soul mate, and we discuss a lot of the things that I discuss on these message boards. I don't feel at all ignored. My kids are both very politically astute--one more left, one more right, but they understand a lot. As do pretty much all our friend and family who run the span of political opinion and ideology.

For myself I do not want to discuss controversial issues with friends and family except on a very limited basis. We all have full, active lives that are not all that affected by politics. There are so many more interesting topics to delve into with them.

However, our taxes, our healthcare, our livelihoods, our choices, options, and opportunities ARE affected by whoever is running the country and therefore we are all pretty much aware. But fussing and arguing about all that just isn't our cup of tea in real life. I won't do that on Facebook for the same reason. Twitter, yes.

But I enjoy doing politics and other controversial issues with people who are interested in those topics here and who EXPECT me to discuss those topics here. It is quite liberating.

Although I do enjoy discussing various issues, I actually do not like working in politics. I did volunteer work for a couple of candidates years ago and discovered that was not my cup of tea. I think most people enter politics for very noble reasons but the system corrupts them; that is, to do good some good stuff they have to do some bad stuff.

I did work for Steve Schiff's campaigns in the 1990's. He let me learn that there are people of integrity in Congress. The man was absolutely incorruptible. It was a very rewarding and educational experience.

I don't know if he ever had scandals or not, but I always heard Bill Bradley was well regarded by most people

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know that it is 'most' who can't or won't. It is just those who can't or won't seem to have a lot of time on their hands or their mission is to derail, detract, change the subject, and trollishly trash to the extent everybody else gets drowned out. I don't know how people like that sleep at night, but apparently they have sociopathic inclinations or otherwise no moral center or conscience at all.

But I do believe we outnumber them.

I don't believe many people are trying to change hearts minds on USMB but rather to express their opinion. Their spouse has long since put them on ignore. The kids don't understand or care. Their neighbor is so senile, it's like talking to a post and the only person in the neighborhood that actually listens is the guy across street and he doesn't speech English.

I think USMB and other such forums give people a chance to vent their their frustration. It's much better to have them launching verbal attacks online than real ones at work or at their neighborhood school.

Maybe. But my hubby is my best friend, soul mate, and we discuss a lot of the things that I discuss on these message boards. I don't feel at all ignored. My kids are both very politically astute--one more left, one more right, but they understand a lot. As do pretty much all our friend and family who run the span of political opinion and ideology.

For myself I do not want to discuss controversial issues with friends and family except on a very limited basis. We all have full, active lives that are not all that affected by politics. There are so many more interesting topics to delve into with them.

However, our taxes, our healthcare, our livelihoods, our choices, options, and opportunities ARE affected by whoever is running the country and therefore we are all pretty much aware. But fussing and arguing about all that just isn't our cup of tea in real life. I won't do that on Facebook for the same reason. Twitter, yes.

But I enjoy doing politics and other controversial issues with people who are interested in those topics here and who EXPECT me to discuss those topics here. It is quite liberating.

Although I do enjoy discussing various issues, I actually do not like working in politics. I did volunteer work for a couple of candidates years ago and discovered that was not my cup of tea. I think most people enter politics for very noble reasons but the system corrupts them; that is, to do good some good stuff they have to do some bad stuff.

I did work for Steve Schiff's campaigns in the 1990's. He let me learn that there are people of integrity in Congress. The man was absolutely incorruptible. It was a very rewarding and educational experience.

I don't know if he ever had scandals or not, but I always heard Bill Bradley was well regarded by most people

I can't recall that anybody ever had any problems with Bill Bradley.

 

[midcan5]

Interesting thread question, I have been called the smartest and the dumbest poster. I have been praised and banned. Even when I try to be good Conservative sites ban me. Just got a month ban from the 'conservative political forum' because I wrote Qnon is mostly nonsense. My Philosophy thread on this board has over forty K views. Jillian and Right winger are two of my favorites on this board. Political Chic is another favorite, for some American conservatives the sky is always falling and she exemplifies that. Note: I never read alerts just don't have the time even semi-retired.

A few of my favorite threads, enjoy.

See Post 62 in 'Education' for serious ideas concerning AR15s

Education For A Republican
This week in Trump World
CDZ - Russian Troll Talks
Who should rule test?
A Conservative Wakes Up
CDZ - Information Sources
'Why Study Philosophy'

PS I have to find my book recommendations thread.

 

[jwoodie]

I think too many people take insults to political figures, such as Trump or Obama as a personal insult and feel they must respond with insults and personal attacks on the poster.

I think that is more true of Obama supporters, who have a stronger emotional attachment. Trump supporters don't take these insults personally, they just think they are irrational and/or irrelevant.

P.S. Moral equivalency arguments are usually made by the greater offenders.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

A President that lies about trivial matters -- This is the greatest economy ever! -- when in fact, it isn't and it can be verified that there have been better economies?

For me it's the constant boasting. Over the top arrogance is usually used to cover up some big time serious character
flaws. Voters shouldn't put up with it. Arrogance leads to entitlement. Put both together in one person and you get politicians like the Orange Virus and AOC.

All Presidents lie. The question is, when is the lie an actual detriment to your own bottom line? That is the one you whine about.

The ObamaCare lies affected me and my bottom line personally.
The lie that China is paying for the tariffs is effecting me and my bottom line personally.

 

[flacaltenn]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I saw a video not long ago about a study done on techniques of getting the opposition to agree with you. You would think that the best way is to present facts that show that their beliefs are incorrect and yours are correct. However, that does not work. Facts rarely shake strongly held beliefs because the opposition will not listen to you much less think about what you presenting. You never attack the person because that generally ends any usefully discussion.

The most effective techniques are based on compromise. Instead of attacking a person's beliefs, you establish a dialog on which you and your opponent can agree. In other words, you do exactly the opposite of what most people do on USMB.

What a great idea! Find a small concept in the controversy that they would agree to and find a commonality so that both become comfortable in the discussion. Then gently start with "I see your point, it;s making me think, but what about and then bring up another trivial matter that the other person could compromise with. Perhaps both could start thinking where they could compromise. Thank you for your post!

There was a pastor on the board of a start-up tech company I worked at during Grad school.. He told a group of us to "say what you LIKE about someone's opinion first -- or keep thinking until you can" ... It's a similar idea...

But that had to do with opinions on what works in engineering and what doesn't... Where all this good coaching fails is when too many Americans just are ignorant of "how things work".. Basic ignorance about the economy or taxes or religion or government or law.. And it's not really your job to do remedial education on any of that.

Best you can do is make them consider that MAYBE instead of brawling over political control, --- they really OUGHT to read the "USA Owner Manual" first.. And all the fine print...

No one reads the manual anymore... It's all poke and peck learning...

 

[Foxfyre]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I saw a video not long ago about a study done on techniques of getting the opposition to agree with you. You would think that the best way is to present facts that show that their beliefs are incorrect and yours are correct. However, that does not work. Facts rarely shake strongly held beliefs because the opposition will not listen to you much less think about what you presenting. You never attack the person because that generally ends any usefully discussion.

The most effective techniques are based on compromise. Instead of attacking a person's beliefs, you establish a dialog on which you and your opponent can agree. In other words, you do exactly the opposite of what most people do on USMB.

What a great idea! Find a small concept in the controversy that they would agree to and find a commonality so that both become comfortable in the discussion. Then gently start with "I see your point, it;s making me think, but what about and then bring up another trivial matter that the other person could compromise with. Perhaps both could start thinking where they could compromise. Thank you for your post!

There was a pastor on the board of a start-up tech company I worked at during Grad school.. He told a group of us to "say what you LIKE about someone's opinion first -- or keep thinking until you can" ... It's a similar idea...

But that had to do with opinions on what works in engineering and what doesn't... Where all this good coaching fails is when too many Americans just are ignorant of "how things work".. Basic ignorance about the economy or taxes or religion or government or law.. And it's not really your job to do remedial education on any of that.

Best you can do is make them consider that MAYBE instead of brawling over political control, --- they really OUGHT to read the "USA Owner Manual" first.. And all the fine print...

No one reads the manual anymore... It's all poke and peck learning...

Poke and peck and copy and paste. So few can actually formulate a coherent statement of what they believe about much of anything. Too many say something snarky or insulting and then maybe post a bunch of links or a wall of text copied from something that might or might have anything to do with what they think they are arguing. But they couldn't put anything other than just mostly assigned insults/talking points into their own words if they had to. They honestly don't know what they are talking about.

And for people who have read the 'owner manual', that gets really really boring really fast.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Just chiming in to say posting a wall of bs doesnt make you a good poster.

 

[Jackson]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I saw a video not long ago about a study done on techniques of getting the opposition to agree with you. You would think that the best way is to present facts that show that their beliefs are incorrect and yours are correct. However, that does not work. Facts rarely shake strongly held beliefs because the opposition will not listen to you much less think about what you presenting. You never attack the person because that generally ends any usefully discussion.

The most effective techniques are based on compromise. Instead of attacking a person's beliefs, you establish a dialog on which you and your opponent can agree. In other words, you do exactly the opposite of what most people do on USMB.

What a great idea! Find a small concept in the controversy that they would agree to and find a commonality so that both become comfortable in the discussion. Then gently start with "I see your point, it;s making me think, but what about and then bring up another trivial matter that the other person could compromise with. Perhaps both could start thinking where they could compromise. Thank you for your post!

There was a pastor on the board of a start-up tech company I worked at during Grad school.. He told a group of us to "say what you LIKE about someone's opinion first -- or keep thinking until you can" ... It's a similar idea...

But that had to do with opinions on what works in engineering and what doesn't... Where all this good coaching fails is when too many Americans just are ignorant of "how things work".. Basic ignorance about the economy or taxes or religion or government or law.. And it's not really your job to do remedial education on any of that.

Best you can do is make them consider that MAYBE instead of brawling over political control, --- they really OUGHT to read the "USA Owner Manual" first.. And all the fine print...

No one reads the manual anymore... It's all poke and peck learning...

interesting post. Thank you.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I see it, we each have 3 options to choose from when some asshat posts something that is, shall we say, less than respectful. Which does not necessarily mean a different opinion, one can offer an opposing viewpoint without being an asshat about it.

1. You can ignore it

2. You can answer back in kind (lower yourself to their level)

3. Or you can respond in an intelligent, responsible manner. Which ain't always easy when you or your post has been disrespected.

I go with option #1 often, most of the time you already know who the asshats are and I see no point in feeding the trolls. Once in awhile I roll with option #2 if I want to make a point, and if I'm feeling a bit feisty I might go after somebody who's really being outrageously asshatty, but usually my point is lost and I have merely wasted my time to no good effect.

Which leaves option #3, which I often strive to do. Sometimes I post something that is incorrect cuz I didn't bother to research anything first, and I am reminded that I am not infallible and all-knowing. I think a lesson every once in awhile in humility is not a bad thing IMHO. Many times I get an intelligent and responsible answer back, and sometimes it's from somebody who engages in asshattery. I think there's a lotta people around here who will give as good or better than they get, but probably would rather not get into an insult contest. Sooo, you can throw some mud back, ignore the SOB, or surprise the shit out of 'em with a mature, reasoned response.

I have adopted a strategy that I try to follow without always succeeding:

--Don't feel the trolls
--Don't argue with idiots
--Don't engage in other exercises of futility

So as I choose not to personally insult people as much as possible, that means I ignore some more often than not. But not is sometimes how it goes too.

All in all I believe being pleasant, non combative, respectful as much as possible, and being logical, reasoned, and informed more than not being informed is the best way to be a grown up. Not bearing false witness, not repeating gossip, not parroting assigned propaganda and talking points is the best way to be grown up and also have integrity.

Irrational hatred and contempt just doesn't fit into that very well.

I think too many people take insults to political figures, such as Trump or Obama as a personal insult and feel they must respond with insults and personal attacks on the poster. To me, that is irrational for two reasons. Personal attacks and insults will not change any opinions. Secondly, the public persona of most politicians is created by their campaign people, supporters, the opposition, and the news media. So it is the public persona that is being attacked, not necessary the actual person.

I agree that personal attacks and insults, whether directly at the person or re somebody he/she supports, do not change any opinions. But don't you think that is sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes?

But I suppose it is human instinct to feel it in a personal way when it is your friend, your family member, or even your President or other that is being unjustly attacked. Most especially when that attack consists of malicious gossip, fabrications, distortion, out of context, misrepresentation, half truths, or just reciting the insulting catch phrase or negative adjective of the moment without any context at all.

But when we defend the person and/or offer a different point of view, or defend our own argument, the tendency by many on message boards, and too often in the media and social media, is to turn that attack personally on the person making the defense/argument.

And at that point, any constructive discussion comes to a halt and something more akin to a food fight occurs. Sometimes that just happens. Sometimes I am convinced it is deliberate to intentionally derail a thread or prevent any grown up objective discussion from happening.

What's best to do? My usual response is to just wish a pleasant day and move on and ignore the one whose intent is just to be insulting. Maybe there is a better approach?

 

[Flopper]

A President that lies about trivial matters -- This is the greatest economy ever! -- when in fact, it isn't and it can be verified that there have been better economies?

For me it's the constant boasting. Over the top arrogance is usually used to cover up some big time serious character
flaws. Voters shouldn't put up with it. Arrogance leads to entitlement. Put both together in one person and you get politicians like the Orange Virus and AOC.

All Presidents lie. The question is, when is the lie an actual detriment to your own bottom line? That is the one you whine about.

The ObamaCare lies affected me and my bottom line personally.
The lie that China is paying for the tariffs is effecting me and my bottom line personally.

Yes, all politicians lie but some, a lot more than others.

I don't consider most broken campaign promises to be lies because most of these promises are made assuming events unfold as expected, such as voters elect a congress that will pass the candidate's agenda, the courts don't block the president, or the situation does not change in such a way that that fulfilling the promise becomes impossible. This happens with every president.

What concerns me are bold face lies. Such as, "I didn't have sex with that woman" or I never said that, or false news, or I never did that when the evidence is irrefutable. When a president lies like this repeatedly, people lose faith in him. They don't know when he's lying and when he's telling the truth. This is how careers are destroyed, good legislation fails, innocent people are hurt, and nations find themselves in a war that never should have happened.

 

[Jets]

Someone who can agree to disagree without churlish name calling. A person looking to have a discussion seeking common ground.

 

[Flopper]

I think too many people take insults to political figures, such as Trump or Obama as a personal insult and feel they must respond with insults and personal attacks on the poster.

I think that is more true of Obama supporters, who have a stronger emotional attachment. Trump supporters don't take these insults personally, they just think they are irrational and/or irrelevant.

P.S. Moral equivalency arguments are usually made by the greater offenders.

That may well be because so many Trump supporters see his lying, incivility, recklessness, racism, and immorality as the characteristics of a winner, a backroom brawler that will make America great again. So why should they be concerned when people attack the Trump's characteristics that they feel is needed to beat the opposition.

 

[Flopper]

As I see it, we each have 3 options to choose from when some asshat posts something that is, shall we say, less than respectful. Which does not necessarily mean a different opinion, one can offer an opposing viewpoint without being an asshat about it.

1. You can ignore it

2. You can answer back in kind (lower yourself to their level)

3. Or you can respond in an intelligent, responsible manner. Which ain't always easy when you or your post has been disrespected.

I go with option #1 often, most of the time you already know who the asshats are and I see no point in feeding the trolls. Once in awhile I roll with option #2 if I want to make a point, and if I'm feeling a bit feisty I might go after somebody who's really being outrageously asshatty, but usually my point is lost and I have merely wasted my time to no good effect.

Which leaves option #3, which I often strive to do. Sometimes I post something that is incorrect cuz I didn't bother to research anything first, and I am reminded that I am not infallible and all-knowing. I think a lesson every once in awhile in humility is not a bad thing IMHO. Many times I get an intelligent and responsible answer back, and sometimes it's from somebody who engages in asshattery. I think there's a lotta people around here who will give as good or better than they get, but probably would rather not get into an insult contest. Sooo, you can throw some mud back, ignore the SOB, or surprise the shit out of 'em with a mature, reasoned response.

I have adopted a strategy that I try to follow without always succeeding:

--Don't feel the trolls
--Don't argue with idiots
--Don't engage in other exercises of futility

So as I choose not to personally insult people as much as possible, that means I ignore some more often than not. But not is sometimes how it goes too.

All in all I believe being pleasant, non combative, respectful as much as possible, and being logical, reasoned, and informed more than not being informed is the best way to be a grown up. Not bearing false witness, not repeating gossip, not parroting assigned propaganda and talking points is the best way to be grown up and also have integrity.

Irrational hatred and contempt just doesn't fit into that very well.

I think too many people take insults to political figures, such as Trump or Obama as a personal insult and feel they must respond with insults and personal attacks on the poster. To me, that is irrational for two reasons. Personal attacks and insults will not change any opinions. Secondly, the public persona of most politicians is created by their campaign people, supporters, the opposition, and the news media. So it is the public persona that is being attacked, not necessary the actual person.

I agree that personal attacks and insults, whether directly at the person or re somebody he/she supports, do not change any opinions. But don't you think that is sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes?

But I suppose it is human instinct to feel it in a personal way when it is your friend, your family member, or even your President or other that is being unjustly attacked. Most especially when that attack consists of malicious gossip, fabrications, distortion, out of context, misrepresentation, half truths, or just reciting the insulting catch phrase or negative adjective of the moment without any context at all.

But when we defend the person and/or offer a different point of view, or defend our own argument, the tendency by many on message boards, and too often in the media and social media, is to turn that attack personally on the person making the defense/argument.

And at that point, any constructive discussion comes to a halt and something more akin to a food fight occurs. Sometimes that just happens. Sometimes I am convinced it is deliberate to intentionally derail a thread or prevent any grown up objective discussion from happening.

What's best to do? My usual response is to just wish a pleasant day and move on and ignore the one whose intent is just to be insulting. Maybe there is a better approach?

People can disagree with others without being disagreeable. It just requires an attitude of respect toward others which is sadly missing in so many discussions.

Many people simple do not have the writing skills to present a sound argument which I'm sure is very frustrating. So they respond in the only way they know how, with profane personal attacks. That really doesn't bother me. I just ignore them.

However, what really get's me is people that have the writing skills to advance good arguments but prefer to make sly and petty verbal attack against the poster. I'm sure you've seen a number of these posts where the person makes fun of the posters name, avatar, or lack of language skills hoping to draw them into an off topic exchange of angry or abusive replies which often destroys the thread.

 

[Flopper]

As I see it, we each have 3 options to choose from when some asshat posts something that is, shall we say, less than respectful. Which does not necessarily mean a different opinion, one can offer an opposing viewpoint without being an asshat about it.

1. You can ignore it

2. You can answer back in kind (lower yourself to their level)

3. Or you can respond in an intelligent, responsible manner. Which ain't always easy when you or your post has been disrespected.

I go with option #1 often, most of the time you already know who the asshats are and I see no point in feeding the trolls. Once in awhile I roll with option #2 if I want to make a point, and if I'm feeling a bit feisty I might go after somebody who's really being outrageously asshatty, but usually my point is lost and I have merely wasted my time to no good effect.

Which leaves option #3, which I often strive to do. Sometimes I post something that is incorrect cuz I didn't bother to research anything first, and I am reminded that I am not infallible and all-knowing. I think a lesson every once in awhile in humility is not a bad thing IMHO. Many times I get an intelligent and responsible answer back, and sometimes it's from somebody who engages in asshattery. I think there's a lotta people around here who will give as good or better than they get, but probably would rather not get into an insult contest. Sooo, you can throw some mud back, ignore the SOB, or surprise the shit out of 'em with a mature, reasoned response.

I have adopted a strategy that I try to follow without always succeeding:

--Don't feel the trolls
--Don't argue with idiots
--Don't engage in other exercises of futility

So as I choose not to personally insult people as much as possible, that means I ignore some more often than not. But not is sometimes how it goes too.

All in all I believe being pleasant, non combative, respectful as much as possible, and being logical, reasoned, and informed more than not being informed is the best way to be a grown up. Not bearing false witness, not repeating gossip, not parroting assigned propaganda and talking points is the best way to be grown up and also have integrity.

Irrational hatred and contempt just doesn't fit into that very well.

I think too many people take insults to political figures, such as Trump or Obama as a personal insult and feel they must respond with insults and personal attacks on the poster. To me, that is irrational for two reasons. Personal attacks and insults will not change any opinions. Secondly, the public persona of most politicians is created by their campaign people, supporters, the opposition, and the news media. So it is the public persona that is being attacked, not necessary the actual person.

I agree that personal attacks and insults, whether directly at the person or re somebody he/she supports, do not change any opinions. But don't you think that is sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes?

But I suppose it is human instinct to feel it in a personal way when it is your friend, your family member, or even your President or other that is being unjustly attacked. Most especially when that attack consists of malicious gossip, fabrications, distortion, out of context, misrepresentation, half truths, or just reciting the insulting catch phrase or negative adjective of the moment without any context at all.

But when we defend the person and/or offer a different point of view, or defend our own argument, the tendency by many on message boards, and too often in the media and social media, is to turn that attack personally on the person making the defense/argument.

And at that point, any constructive discussion comes to a halt and something more akin to a food fight occurs. Sometimes that just happens. Sometimes I am convinced it is deliberate to intentionally derail a thread or prevent any grown up objective discussion from happening.

What's best to do? My usual response is to just wish a pleasant day and move on and ignore the one whose intent is just to be insulting. Maybe there is a better approach?

When I was much younger I worked to to elect several people to office, I learned very early in the game that it is all about creating an image of yourself and your opponent. The higher the office, the more important the image.

I don't feel I know who the real Obama actually was, nor Clinton, nor most any of the presidents because I only know the public image that was created by handlers and the opposition. After they leave office you get a truer image of the person, the longer they're out of office, the truer the image. I think we need to keep in mind that when we attack or defend the president we are really attacking or defending is an image or an issue which may or may not reflect the real person.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think too many people take insults to political figures, such as Trump or Obama as a personal insult and feel they must respond with insults and personal attacks on the poster.

I think that is more true of Obama supporters, who have a stronger emotional attachment. Trump supporters don't take these insults personally, they just think they are irrational and/or irrelevant.

P.S. Moral equivalency arguments are usually made by the greater offenders.

That may well be because so many Trump supporters see his lying, incivility, recklessness, racism, and immorality as the characteristics of a winner, a backroom brawler that will make America great again. So why should they be concerned when people attack the Trump's characteristics that they feel is needed to beat the opposition.

That isn't it. First we don't see him lying in the same regard as the anti-Trump people do. Yes he probably stretches the truth or denies something that maybe he knows is true--only he knows the truth about that however--and sometimes his tweets or extemporaneous comments can be positively cringeworthy. He does engage in hyperbole and sometimes speaks in half expressed thoughts that can be misinterpreted. But we don't see him as uncivil. Unlike the groomed, polished, poll tested, and scripted professional politicians, his M.O. is to hit back when somebody hits. He has always done that and he will probably continue to do that whether or not it is politically expedient. But I've never seen him pick a fight or be uncivil to a single person who wasn't first pretty hateful to him. As many criticize and/or condemn him for being civil to the 'wrong' people as criticize him for being uncivil to others.

As for his immorality, I have seen none of that in President Trump in the conduct of his duties. Whatever his past history or whatever has been said of him or whatever he has been accused of, I think was vetted during the campaign and his supporters didn't think that was in any way worse than what we knew of Hillary's immorality or tolerance of it. And we made the decision that what somebody did ten, fifteen, twenty or more years ago was irrelevant to the relationship we have now with our President or the relationship he has with his current family, friends, associates.

President Trump has demonstrated more courage, more tenacity, more creativity, and more determination to actually keep his specific campaign promises, all intended to fix what was broken, than any President in my now quite lengthy lifetime. And he has done so in the face of the most angry, hateful, malicious, dishonest opposition I have ever witnessed launched against anybody. In that regard he has not disappointed. And, unless something significantly changes, I'm pretty sure most if not all of us grade him as having earned a second term.

 

[22lcidw]

As I see it, we each have 3 options to choose from when some asshat posts something that is, shall we say, less than respectful. Which does not necessarily mean a different opinion, one can offer an opposing viewpoint without being an asshat about it.

1. You can ignore it

2. You can answer back in kind (lower yourself to their level)

3. Or you can respond in an intelligent, responsible manner. Which ain't always easy when you or your post has been disrespected.

I go with option #1 often, most of the time you already know who the asshats are and I see no point in feeding the trolls. Once in awhile I roll with option #2 if I want to make a point, and if I'm feeling a bit feisty I might go after somebody who's really being outrageously asshatty, but usually my point is lost and I have merely wasted my time to no good effect.

Which leaves option #3, which I often strive to do. Sometimes I post something that is incorrect cuz I didn't bother to research anything first, and I am reminded that I am not infallible and all-knowing. I think a lesson every once in awhile in humility is not a bad thing IMHO. Many times I get an intelligent and responsible answer back, and sometimes it's from somebody who engages in asshattery. I think there's a lotta people around here who will give as good or better than they get, but probably would rather not get into an insult contest. Sooo, you can throw some mud back, ignore the SOB, or surprise the shit out of 'em with a mature, reasoned response.

I have adopted a strategy that I try to follow without always succeeding:

--Don't feel the trolls
--Don't argue with idiots
--Don't engage in other exercises of futility

So as I choose not to personally insult people as much as possible, that means I ignore some more often than not. But not is sometimes how it goes too.

All in all I believe being pleasant, non combative, respectful as much as possible, and being logical, reasoned, and informed more than not being informed is the best way to be a grown up. Not bearing false witness, not repeating gossip, not parroting assigned propaganda and talking points is the best way to be grown up and also have integrity.

Irrational hatred and contempt just doesn't fit into that very well.

I think too many people take insults to political figures, such as Trump or Obama as a personal insult and feel they must respond with insults and personal attacks on the poster. To me, that is irrational for two reasons. Personal attacks and insults will not change any opinions. Secondly, the public persona of most politicians is created by their campaign people, supporters, the opposition, and the news media. So it is the public persona that is being attacked, not necessary the actual person.

I think you may find most other forums the same way with personal attacks. It is not hard to do. This forum has people who say they "bait" other posters. Even that means nothing as back and forth rancor can be the norm anyway. I have been on this site since last Christmas. I have seen little of the agendas Trump supported by posters before the election. And of what I have seen it is glee of the agendas that have not been achieved. What is a sorry state for our nation is that most of them are not extreme. Just made to look so.