The phenomenon of personal attacks in these forums - is it right?

Ophiolite said:
I know of no other forum that tolerates the rudeness, off-topic posting, personal attacks, gibberish, unfounded claims, and general trash that is tolerated on this forum.
I feel this absolves me of any necessity to be tolerant of intolerance, polite to the willfully ignorant, supportive of the congenitally thick, or committed to meaningful, educated, erudite, informative posts.
On other forums, under this and other names, I am polite, amusing, thoughtfull, considerate and diplomatic. Here I just like to pick on assholes like Quagmire.
Click to expand...

some call that freedom. wea all a bunch of actors anyway, here and i real life-honesty begins at birth then fades away(cha-ching), but comes back about 10 years before death when one realizes their own mortality.
 
I second what Ophiolite says.

The 2 or 3 other forums I frequent are more like modern fencing duels, whereas sciforums is no armour, sharp longsword duelling, in a wood, without anyone watching.
 
"I know of no other forum that tolerates the rudeness, off-topic posting, personal attacks, gibberish, unfounded claims, and general trash that is tolerated on this forum."

i know of quite a few. www.soundchain.com, www.audiogalaxy.com, www.ageless.com are drama pits. the first two are unmoderated and anything goes. the last one is moderated by a group of friends, and very cliquey. not much intellect there, but some serious sparring. ;-)
 
Tortise said:
The phenomenon of personal attacks in these forums. I think they occur, because they work. That is, when we attack the person, insted of the argument they are making - this can be an effective stradegy for promoting our point of view. But is it right? And when is it right?
Click to expand...

That's a really good question.
Kinda makes me wonder about the broader context of your question- that being:
Is it ultimately beneficial to use indirect gimmicks during discussions instead of addressing the topic directly? Gimmicks are things like insults, charm, social influence, extortion, etc.

Effective-- yes-- but aren't those kind of discussion usually fueled by a form of dumb-dominance? It's kinda like the unqualified secretary wearing the cleavage shirt to the job interview, and getting the position.
 
What a show. And who can blame folks? After all, to the one you've got a flock of posters who really think the dirty and personal is the way to argue. And they've got role models, from Hannity and O'Reilly to Dr. Phil, Bush/Cheney and Karl Rove, and, of course, the guests on Maury and Jerry. Anyone remember when David Spade was "cool" (read: "carried by Chris Farley")? Soap operas?

Consider, then, the notion that we have one group, "The Morons". They're a clamorous bunch with foul vocabularies and sick ideas. We also have "The Idiots", who let The Morons set the standard, and then choose to stoop to the level. We also have "The Weak", who just can't resist the temptation to be simple, quick, and painful, and they are also called "The Closet Sadists". There are "The Misguided", who find some philosophical or demonstrative purpose in joining the orgy. The list goes on and on. It's no wonder this place sounds like the Springer Triangle.

And the audience gobbles it up.

Remember, though, that the models people cite in order to justify their lower standards are never as simple as they seem. Most people don't have the patience to sit through the story, and so demand the eye-candy. Exploding trucks and carnage just ain't what it used to be.
 
i think that is ok as long as you dont go too far, for instance i think that it is ok to call someone an asshole or a wanker etc... but i wouldnt use racist abuse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top