Do We All Hate Each Other or Does It Just Sound Like It?

[Vendeavor]

It seems amazingly rare to find a thread (on almost ANY forums on the net today) where disputes are handled without ad hominem attacks. Almost any statement one poster makes is not only rigorously disputed by someone who doesn't merely request further clarification, but seems determined to point at the MENTAL DERANGEMENT of the originator of the thought as justification for its lack of substance.

When did DERISION become part and parcel with the QUESTIONING of the posed idea/thought itself?

Why do we seem to believe our "truths" are more "powerful" if we add comments like, "Well, if you weren't such an idiot you'd REALIZE there's no way it could have happened that way!"

Instead of discussing, we attack. Do we really believe this kind of tit for tat is USEFUL? Does it really feel THAT GOOD to BEAT SOMEONE DOWN with "logic" that seems designed to keep them from bringing up another "wind of an idea" again, lest you come at them with even further, deeper-set attacks?

I suspect in truth we are all just very tired and angry about how hard ALL of us have had to work to try to survive in this Circus of Growing Global Insanity, and sick and tired of TRYING to explain ourselves patiently. Things just seem to be going past us so fast we don't think we have the TIME to be reasonably cordial.

I just hate to see the hurt continue from post to post, beating ourselves down instead of just trying to really understand what the other is saying.

Oh well, wishing us all better dialogues, not gushy with insincerity, just a bit more reticent to accuse and berate, just a little more generously laced with respect.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually, those attacks are the result of people who are comfortable hiding behind a computer screen, because when you have to defend your views in person, it's a much different deal.

Me? If I think you're an idiot on this board because of your views, and I had the chance to hear you spout those same views to me face to face, I'd still call you an idiot, and then provide the proof that you need to correct your thinking.

However.......if I can be shown to be wrong, I'll willingly change my views.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This goes to explaining some of it:

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.

In 1976, when Ronald Reagan was running for president of the United States, he often told a story about a Chicago woman who was scamming the welfare system to earn her income.

Reagan said the woman had 80 names, 30 addresses and 12 Social Security cards which she used to get food stamps along with more than her share of money from Medicaid and other welfare entitlements. He said she drove a Cadillac, didn’t work and didn’t pay taxes. He talked about this woman, who he never named, in just about every small town he visited, and it tended to infuriate his audiences. The story solidified the term “Welfare Queen” in American political discourse and influenced not only the national conversation for the next 30 years, but public policy as well. It also wasn’t true.

Despite the debunking and the passage of time, the story is still alive. The imaginary lady who Scrooge McDives into a vault of foodstamps between naps while hardworking Americans struggle down the street still appears every day on the Internet. The memetic staying power of the narrative is impressive. Some version of it continues to turn up every week in stories and blog posts about entitlements even though the truth is a click away.

This is why hardcore doubters who believe Barack Obama was not born in the United States will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence put forth suggesting otherwise. When the Obama administration released his long-form birth certificate in April of 2011, the reaction from birthers was as the backfire effect predicts. They scrutinized the timing, the appearance, the format – they gathered together online and mocked it. They became even more certain of their beliefs than before. The same has been and will forever be true for any conspiracy theory or fringe belief. Contradictory evidence strengthens the position of the believer. It is seen as part of the conspiracy, and missing evidence is dismissed as part of the coverup.

The Backfire Effect « You Are Not So Smart

Consequently, when your beliefs are challenged, even with objective, established facts, you lash out at the person presenting those facts, since you have no factual evidence of your own to respond with.

There’s also a phenomenon on message boards where posters who have participated for an extended period of time become too familiar. Everyone already knows who is a liberal or conservative, everyone’s heard the other’s arguments over and over again, everyone knows everyone’s moves. And that familiarity indeed breeds contempt, manifesting in personal attacks.

Lastly, for some it’s necessary not only to attack the argument but to attack the person making the argument as well. Because your argument is ‘wrong’ the person making the argument must be ‘stupid’ or otherwise intellectually or mentally deficient.

 

[BDBoop]

It seems amazingly rare to find a thread (on almost ANY forums on the net today) where disputes are handled without ad hominem attacks. Almost any statement one poster makes is not only rigorously disputed by someone who doesn't merely request further clarification, but seems determined to point at the MENTAL DERANGEMENT of the originator of the thought as justification for its lack of substance.

When did DERISION become part and parcel with the QUESTIONING of the posed idea/thought itself?

Why do we seem to believe our "truths" are more "powerful" if we add comments like, "Well, if you weren't such an idiot you'd REALIZE there's no way it could have happened that way!"

Instead of discussing, we attack. Do we really believe this kind of tit for tat is USEFUL? Does it really feel THAT GOOD to BEAT SOMEONE DOWN with "logic" that seems designed to keep them from bringing up another "wind of an idea" again, lest you come at them with even further, deeper-set attacks?

I suspect in truth we are all just very tired and angry about how hard ALL of us have had to work to try to survive in this Circus of Growing Global Insanity, and sick and tired of TRYING to explain ourselves patiently. Things just seem to be going past us so fast we don't think we have the TIME to be reasonably cordial.

I just hate to see the hurt continue from post to post, beating ourselves down instead of just trying to really understand what the other is saying.

Oh well, wishing us all better dialogues, not gushy with insincerity, just a bit more reticent to accuse and berate, just a little more generously laced with respect.

Most of the posts from the RWNJs seem to go on some variation of "Jane, you ignorant slut."

 

[editec]

Punks trying to sound like tough guys.

 

[California Girl]

It seems amazingly rare to find a thread (on almost ANY forums on the net today) where disputes are handled without ad hominem attacks. Almost any statement one poster makes is not only rigorously disputed by someone who doesn't merely request further clarification, but seems determined to point at the MENTAL DERANGEMENT of the originator of the thought as justification for its lack of substance.

When did DERISION become part and parcel with the QUESTIONING of the posed idea/thought itself?

Why do we seem to believe our "truths" are more "powerful" if we add comments like, "Well, if you weren't such an idiot you'd REALIZE there's no way it could have happened that way!"

Instead of discussing, we attack. Do we really believe this kind of tit for tat is USEFUL? Does it really feel THAT GOOD to BEAT SOMEONE DOWN with "logic" that seems designed to keep them from bringing up another "wind of an idea" again, lest you come at them with even further, deeper-set attacks?

I suspect in truth we are all just very tired and angry about how hard ALL of us have had to work to try to survive in this Circus of Growing Global Insanity, and sick and tired of TRYING to explain ourselves patiently. Things just seem to be going past us so fast we don't think we have the TIME to be reasonably cordial.

I just hate to see the hurt continue from post to post, beating ourselves down instead of just trying to really understand what the other is saying.

Oh well, wishing us all better dialogues, not gushy with insincerity, just a bit more reticent to accuse and berate, just a little more generously laced with respect.

Most of the posts from the RWNJs seem to go on some variation of "Jane, you ignorant slut."

And we were told that Americans don't do irony.

 

[Ringel05]

 

[BDBoop]

It seems amazingly rare to find a thread (on almost ANY forums on the net today) where disputes are handled without ad hominem attacks. Almost any statement one poster makes is not only rigorously disputed by someone who doesn't merely request further clarification, but seems determined to point at the MENTAL DERANGEMENT of the originator of the thought as justification for its lack of substance.

When did DERISION become part and parcel with the QUESTIONING of the posed idea/thought itself?

Why do we seem to believe our "truths" are more "powerful" if we add comments like, "Well, if you weren't such an idiot you'd REALIZE there's no way it could have happened that way!"

Instead of discussing, we attack. Do we really believe this kind of tit for tat is USEFUL? Does it really feel THAT GOOD to BEAT SOMEONE DOWN with "logic" that seems designed to keep them from bringing up another "wind of an idea" again, lest you come at them with even further, deeper-set attacks?

I suspect in truth we are all just very tired and angry about how hard ALL of us have had to work to try to survive in this Circus of Growing Global Insanity, and sick and tired of TRYING to explain ourselves patiently. Things just seem to be going past us so fast we don't think we have the TIME to be reasonably cordial.

I just hate to see the hurt continue from post to post, beating ourselves down instead of just trying to really understand what the other is saying.

Oh well, wishing us all better dialogues, not gushy with insincerity, just a bit more reticent to accuse and berate, just a little more generously laced with respect.

Most of the posts from the RWNJs seem to go on some variation of "Jane, you ignorant slut."

And we were told that Americans don't do irony.

You idiot.

Better?

 

[uscitizen]

We must hate anyone who disagrees with our programmed political views!

 

[BDBoop]

We must hate anyone who disagrees with our programmed political views!

rofl!

There's more than a few here who don't agree with some portion of my views, and still manage to treat me with dignity and respect (and vice-versa).

Those are the ones I do not have on ignore.

 

[Ringel05]

We must hate anyone who disagrees with our programmed political views!

rofl!

There's more than a few here who don't agree with some portion of my views, and still manage to treat me with dignity and respect (and vice-versa).

Those are the ones I do not have on ignore.

Damn! I'm not trying hard enough...........

 

[flacaltenn]

It seems amazingly rare to find a thread (on almost ANY forums on the net today) where disputes are handled without ad hominem attacks. Almost any statement one poster makes is not only rigorously disputed by someone who doesn't merely request further clarification, but seems determined to point at the MENTAL DERANGEMENT of the originator of the thought as justification for its lack of substance.

When did DERISION become part and parcel with the QUESTIONING of the posed idea/thought itself?

Why do we seem to believe our "truths" are more "powerful" if we add comments like, "Well, if you weren't such an idiot you'd REALIZE there's no way it could have happened that way!"

Instead of discussing, we attack. Do we really believe this kind of tit for tat is USEFUL? Does it really feel THAT GOOD to BEAT SOMEONE DOWN with "logic" that seems designed to keep them from bringing up another "wind of an idea" again, lest you come at them with even further, deeper-set attacks?

I suspect in truth we are all just very tired and angry about how hard ALL of us have had to work to try to survive in this Circus of Growing Global Insanity, and sick and tired of TRYING to explain ourselves patiently. Things just seem to be going past us so fast we don't think we have the TIME to be reasonably cordial.

I just hate to see the hurt continue from post to post, beating ourselves down instead of just trying to really understand what the other is saying.

Oh well, wishing us all better dialogues, not gushy with insincerity, just a bit more reticent to accuse and berate, just a little more generously laced with respect.

The points of conflict are often over misinterpretations of events, statistics, facts or historical events. I say misinterpretations because largely there is an industry now in this country to "spin" and manipulate those events, statistics, facts or historical events. And the frustration builds because even after 10 threads on the same topic -- the same propaganda is in dispute. Seems to be PERPETUAL and MALICIOUS misinterpretation in some instances and nothing ever seems to gets resolved.

Assertions that are (apparently to me) beaten to a bloody pulp with facts, logic and reason just keep on re-appearing like a comic horde of zombies. And often posters will dissappear when the going gets rough and immediately resurrect the stinking herring the very next day on a different thread. (Now it's the Whack-A-Mole analogy)

So that sets an enviromentment where nothing in debate gets scored. Nothing gets tallied and it's like GroundHog Day on USMB --- except with better epithets and threats.

And apparently --- we love it that way..

Just one prime example for me is "Social Security is Just Fine and Trust Fund will save us". In the case of THAT ONE, it's no wonder you can't nail it dead -- because the freaking govt is and has been lying about the "trust fund" for years!!!!!!!

It's not that we don't have "time to be cordial" -- people here certainly have time on their hands. Frustration is vented on the wrong people because leaving a conversation here has no penalty. Whereas if we were hanging out in a garden party and people just up and walked away during a topical debate it would be ackward at the least and maybe even rude. I'd rather be dressed down with some good sailor talk than to have someone rudely just dissappear because the conversation wasn't going their way.

Welcome to the board. You can experiment with us all you want. Tell us if you learn anything about human behaviour. The one thing I guarantee -- is that time spent here WILL make you smarter about current events and politics than watching it on cable.

 

[sparky]

We're not going to have many sane converstations on the 'net folks

And it's not for lack of trying, many have. You see, civility has insidously been evaporating from civilization for some time

the 'net serves as a meter to this,if not perect outlet for all those darker elements of the human pshyce , and in bad times it projects big time, avatars alone....

It's noble of those few who endevor to rise above it all, even more so of those who cling to the hope of humanity

you'll kindly excuse us cynics that exercise in futility

~S~

 

[Zander]

It seems amazingly rare to find a thread (on almost ANY forums on the net today) where disputes are handled without ad hominem attacks. Almost any statement one poster makes is not only rigorously disputed by someone who doesn't merely request further clarification, but seems determined to point at the MENTAL DERANGEMENT of the originator of the thought as justification for its lack of substance.

When did DERISION become part and parcel with the QUESTIONING of the posed idea/thought itself?

Why do we seem to believe our "truths" are more "powerful" if we add comments like, "Well, if you weren't such an idiot you'd REALIZE there's no way it could have happened that way!"

Instead of discussing, we attack. Do we really believe this kind of tit for tat is USEFUL? Does it really feel THAT GOOD to BEAT SOMEONE DOWN with "logic" that seems designed to keep them from bringing up another "wind of an idea" again, lest you come at them with even further, deeper-set attacks?

I suspect in truth we are all just very tired and angry about how hard ALL of us have had to work to try to survive in this Circus of Growing Global Insanity, and sick and tired of TRYING to explain ourselves patiently. Things just seem to be going past us so fast we don't think we have the TIME to be reasonably cordial.

I just hate to see the hurt continue from post to post, beating ourselves down instead of just trying to really understand what the other is saying.

Oh well, wishing us all better dialogues, not gushy with insincerity, just a bit more reticent to accuse and berate, just a little more generously laced with respect.

Shut up!! you fat pig!!!

 

[DiAnna]

I rather agree with the OP. Just because we can remain anonymous behind a computer screen doesn't mean that we should be blind to the fact that there are real people behind all those other computer screens. It doesn't hurt to be civil, even when disagreeing with others. I actually don't get the thrill of being able to hurl insults just for the sake of it, and just because we can.

As in real life, some people can irk me to the marrow, particularly those who are mean-spirited, deliberately annoying and rude for the sake of it. In response, I can certainly return fire, especially when I'm pissed. But usually I try to treat people, even computer people, the way I'd like them to treat me.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I rather agree with the OP. Just because we can remain anonymous behind a computer screen doesn't mean that we should be blind to the fact that there are real people behind all those other computer screens. It doesn't hurt to be civil, even when disagreeing with others. I actually don't get the thrill of being able to hurl insults just for the sake of it, and just because we can.

As in real life, some people can irk me to the marrow, particularly those who are mean-spirited, deliberately annoying and rude for the sake of it. In response, I can certainly return fire, especially when I'm pissed. But usually I try to treat people, even computer people, the way I'd like them to treat me.

You're right, but just like in your local neighborhood bar, there's always gonna be some loudmouth all tanked up on liquid courage (like many here are tanked on cyber courage) and they're gonna mess things up for everyone by being a total ass.

There are several on here I can think of quite readily.................

 

[syrenn]

It seems amazingly rare to find a thread (on almost ANY forums on the net today) where disputes are handled without ad hominem attacks. Almost any statement one poster makes is not only rigorously disputed by someone who doesn't merely request further clarification, but seems determined to point at the MENTAL DERANGEMENT of the originator of the thought as justification for its lack of substance.

When did DERISION become part and parcel with the QUESTIONING of the posed idea/thought itself?

Why do we seem to believe our "truths" are more "powerful" if we add comments like, "Well, if you weren't such an idiot you'd REALIZE there's no way it could have happened that way!"

Instead of discussing, we attack. Do we really believe this kind of tit for tat is USEFUL? Does it really feel THAT GOOD to BEAT SOMEONE DOWN with "logic" that seems designed to keep them from bringing up another "wind of an idea" again, lest you come at them with even further, deeper-set attacks?

I suspect in truth we are all just very tired and angry about how hard ALL of us have had to work to try to survive in this Circus of Growing Global Insanity, and sick and tired of TRYING to explain ourselves patiently. Things just seem to be going past us so fast we don't think we have the TIME to be reasonably cordial.

I just hate to see the hurt continue from post to post, beating ourselves down instead of just trying to really understand what the other is saying.

Oh well, wishing us all better dialogues, not gushy with insincerity, just a bit more reticent to accuse and berate, just a little more generously laced with respect.

8 posts and just joined?

And you notice this? Did you know that vodka is good for smelly feet?





http://www.fitsugar.com/Tips-How-Get-Rid-Foot-Odor-10687946

 

[Sallow]

Liberals mainly tolerate most people.

Conservatives mainly hate most people.

Start there.

 

[Cuyo]

It seems amazingly rare to find a thread (on almost ANY forums on the net today) where disputes are handled without ad hominem attacks. Almost any statement one poster makes is not only rigorously disputed by someone who doesn't merely request further clarification, but seems determined to point at the MENTAL DERANGEMENT of the originator of the thought as justification for its lack of substance.

When did DERISION become part and parcel with the QUESTIONING of the posed idea/thought itself?

Why do we seem to believe our "truths" are more "powerful" if we add comments like, "Well, if you weren't such an idiot you'd REALIZE there's no way it could have happened that way!"

Instead of discussing, we attack. Do we really believe this kind of tit for tat is USEFUL? Does it really feel THAT GOOD to BEAT SOMEONE DOWN with "logic" that seems designed to keep them from bringing up another "wind of an idea" again, lest you come at them with even further, deeper-set attacks?

I suspect in truth we are all just very tired and angry about how hard ALL of us have had to work to try to survive in this Circus of Growing Global Insanity, and sick and tired of TRYING to explain ourselves patiently. Things just seem to be going past us so fast we don't think we have the TIME to be reasonably cordial.

I just hate to see the hurt continue from post to post, beating ourselves down instead of just trying to really understand what the other is saying.

Oh well, wishing us all better dialogues, not gushy with insincerity, just a bit more reticent to accuse and berate, just a little more generously laced with respect.

I try to exercise good faith, but sometimes its very difficult here. The people with the STUPIDEST beliefs are always the MOST CERTAIN of them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Liberals mainly tolerate most people.

Conservatives mainly hate most people.

Start there.

Liberals tolerate people because they're open minded and think everyone should live their own life.

Conservatives want others to think and believe as they do, or else they hate them.

You're right.