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.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.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.
It isn't as bad here as on some message boards, but there is what I dub a 'gang of trolls' that show up pretty much on every pro-Trump thread and a lot of other issues threads. And they contribute nothing to the discussion other than canned talking points, insulting short factoids, etc., most of them unproven and/or downright fabricated, and the usual monotonous insults, all with the effect of starting a food fight or taking the thread entirely off course. Some work independently, but I sometimes think several must signal each other because they show up so predictably, as a group, to trash a thread. It has been suggested some are actually paid to do that? Possible I suppose.
These I would not rate as 'good posters' in any regard.
And there are those who scour RCP and the Drudge Report or whatever multi-media websites to latch on to every possible news story, pro or con, involving President Trump and/or his administration so they can start a thread with a negative headline and/or a negative slant in the OP. That ensures the thread is less likely to be used effectively for positive comments, and before somebody more objective can start a thread on the same subject.
These I would not rate as 'good posters' either.
For awhile it seemed any positive or objective threads would be merged with the negative ones to ensure nothing positive would come out of that discussion. That hasn't been a serious problem that I've seen recently though and I appreciate that.
To me the best posters mostly start threads on a specific topic or concept with a non judgmental thread title and a non judgmental OP that invite discussion from all different perspectives and without trying to dictate what the 'correct' opinion is supposed to be.
Last edited: