[ Hypnos Forum ]

OTHER THINGS IN THE WORLD THAN MUSIC => Everything and Nothing => Topic started by: jkn on December 13, 2010, 06:43:58 AM

Title: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: jkn on December 13, 2010, 06:43:58 AM
soapbox...

Ok - maybe I live in an "ideal" world or am mildly delusional... but why is it that people can't just disagree and discuss the things they think are good or bad about a topic (whether it be an album, artist, book, politician, idea, the universe, divine being, etc...) ...

Why is there always someone - no matter where you go ... that insists on talking louder, shouting, bashing, name calling, etc...  if you don't think exactly like them?

I've experienced it in every forum on the internet, every stage of life from neighborhood friends to school to work...  heck I had a manager tell me I was going to hell for not agreeing with his particular brand of christianity and obviously no matter what I think politically - I'm an "idiot" from at least one or more people.

What is it about some people that doesn't let them simmer down and calmly discuss things?   

...stepping off soapbox
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: SunDummy on December 13, 2010, 09:21:25 AM
Why, that's the stupidest thing I've ever...  er... ;D

Good question, one that probably has no answer.  Two rational human beings can have diametrically opposed viewpoints, and both be right from their own perspectives.  That seems self-evident to me.  But some people don't get this, or don't want to get it.  I find myself just avoiding these types of people.  Unfortunately, on the interwebz, you can't avoid them easily. 

Some forums I frequent have an "ignore poster" feature - it sure is handy.
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: mgriffin on December 13, 2010, 10:24:32 AM
Some people identify so strongly with their own preferences and beliefs that they feel if you don't agree fully, you're disrespecting them personally, or even insulting them.  It must be a very stressful way to go through life, taking personal affront every time another person fails to share your outlook and tastes.
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: APK on December 13, 2010, 11:06:44 AM
Well said, Mike. Couldn't agree more.
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: Bill Binkelman on December 13, 2010, 11:40:01 AM
I think part of the issue is not just the "reactor" (i.e. the person who is doing the reacting) but also the originator. Example: A person loves Steve Roach's music. Someone else on a forum writes " I don't like Roach's music. I think it's boring." As the reactor, a person now has the opportunity to engage the opinionated poster with one of two approaches "Why do you think it's boring?" OR "Well, you just don't 'get' his music, obviously."

This kind of thing is always a two-way street. No matter how incendiary an initial comment can be, e.g. instead of the example above, suppose the first comment was "Roach really sucks. He's a no-talent ass clown." it's still up to you, the "listener" to decide how to react. Yes, the second comment appears to be mean-spirited and, at least in your opinion, it may also be ignorant and abusive. But, IMO, you only show your insecurity if you counterattack, so to speak (and this 'wisdom' is coming from someone who used to counterattack all the time, so I am pointing the finger at myself too). You may feel threatened by a contrary opinion or feel at least somewhat compelled to "defend" your opposite view. The latter is fine as long as you don't 'come after' the person. After all, it's just that person's opinion, really.

If I were to write "Sarah Palin is wholly unfit to be president." you might disagree with me and state that. But if I write "Sarah Palin is an idiot, but she sure is one hot MILF who I would happily nail." you might, if you respect her, want to come after me. It's totally understandable because, as humans, we have feelings and they get aroused. But, remember that your reaction says as much about you as the initial comment says about the poster.

At work, since Kathryn works in the same place I do, I hear negative things about her and about her department. As much as I want to defend her with passion, I need to step back and only make my own contrary opinions known in a calm, intelligent manner.

OTOH, in some forums, e.g. fark.com, flame wars erupt and they are almost done in the spirit of a "game." Obviously, the Hypnos forum is not like that and I respect that. Not all people find that kind of thing entertaining. But, it is sad that incendiary opinions can spiral downward so easily, as they seem to here. Frankly, I don't care what people say/write, no matter how "out there." I would only feel the need to disagree vehemently if I felt someone I knew personally (emphasis on the personally part...as I don't feel I know hardly anyone here that well, except maybe Jeff Pearce) was being attacked via patently untrue statements. If someone wants to opine that a musician is either (a) highly talented or (b) talentless and I hold an opposite opinion, I would just say that and be done with it. Same thing with an elected official, etc.

Lastly, it would be great to see people just be able to joke around with each other, even when virtual "tempers" flare. Life is too short to get that angry about someone just because you don't see eye with them.
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: jkn on December 13, 2010, 12:49:12 PM

Bill - very good point on it takes two to tango.

Your Sarah Palin example has me rolling...   not only that you added "we have feelings and they get aroused".   I'm officially rolling on the floor and getting carpet lint on me.

And yeah - wow - I wish everyone would just realize life is too darn short for petty idiocy.

John
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: Bill Binkelman on December 13, 2010, 02:24:05 PM
John,

Yeah, the pun was definitely intended....it's tough to be a liberal and yet find yourself, ahem, "interested" in a Tea Party MILF. You betcha!
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: jkn on December 13, 2010, 02:39:15 PM
Does MILF mean   Maverick I'd Like To _________.

 ;D
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: Bill Binkelman on December 13, 2010, 03:52:19 PM
Does MILF mean   Maverick I'd Like To _________.

 ;D

 :o

I wouldn't know nuthin' 'bout that...  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: einstein36 on December 13, 2010, 05:33:38 PM
LOL....well...this conversation just went downhill:).......or should I say, just aroused people hahahaha
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: jkn on December 13, 2010, 05:43:42 PM
Me thinks I might get in trouble from Mike for that one...   :D

On a serious note and still totally unrelated to this thread... I am enjoying Sarah Palin's Alaska show. 
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: mgriffin on December 13, 2010, 06:06:37 PM
Is that the show where she goes hunting with a fancy rifle with a fancy scope, and takes a half-dozen shots at an elk standing thirty feet away, and misses every time? She's a worse shot than Dick Cheney.
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: sraymar on December 13, 2010, 06:28:57 PM
I wish Palin would keep her show in Alaska. :)  We live in a world where people get killed for a different view point. People have been burned at the stake. I don't think the world will ever become an Eden. Conficting viewpoints to the point of war is a symtom of the dynamic world we live in, yin meets yang, kaboom! Flame wars on the internet are just the tip of the ice berg.

Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: jkn on December 13, 2010, 07:46:18 PM
I missed the elk shooting... ;-)

If politics don't work out for her... the Palin's have reality tv to fall back on.
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: cromag on December 13, 2010, 08:37:13 PM
I suspect some level of insecurity lies at the heart of many over-reactions.

The problem is, too many people in radio and television have learned that there's big money to be made here -- and very little to be made in promoting understanding.





And, while I find Sarah Palin attractive (as long as the television volume is turned off), sooner or later I'd have to talk to her.  I guess I need to pin my hopes on Tina Fey.
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: Mark Mushet on December 13, 2010, 10:02:56 PM
http://bangsarahpalin.com/

I vote "yes"!
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: judd stephens on December 14, 2010, 12:28:21 AM
This discussion about Sarah Palin is ridiculous...

Michelle Bachmann is clearly the hotter tea partier!
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: Seren on December 14, 2010, 05:38:14 AM
Is that the show where she goes hunting with a fancy rifle with a fancy scope, and takes a half-dozen shots at an elk standing thirty feet away, and misses every time? She's a worse shot than Dick Cheney.

Wasn't she aiming at one of the green protesters in the trees?
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: phobos on December 14, 2010, 05:39:19 AM
http://bangsarahpalin.com/


Interesting page, I like the way they put "sleep with" in brackets, just in case you don't know the meaning of Bang in this context. ;D
Also there are quite a few undecideds, whats that all about then? You either would or wouldn't, simple enough question I would have thought ;D
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: petekelly on December 14, 2010, 06:14:59 AM

It seems some people have an almost evangelical zeal to 'convert' people to their
way of thinking and yes it must be hard work for them (as it is for others).

Lots of these people go into politics, as for Sarah Palin, frankly I don't give a
damn !
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: jkn on December 14, 2010, 07:08:18 AM
Pete - I'd be shocked if you did give a damn over Sarah Palin!  (or very many people in US politics!  lol)

For the record - I think her Alaska reality show it neat because it's showing the national parks and she's tossing out Alaska state facts left and right - and all that.  I'm not a hunter (though I don't care if others are) - heck I've only held a bb gun once in my life (my dad had his eye shot out as a kid... I was never encouraged to go hunting - or to shoot - and frankly even if I was encouraged - I don't think I'd ever have had an interest...)  Oh wow...

DERAILED

Palin did not impress me in the presidential run with McCain... but then - I simply don't agree with many of her positions. 

And yeah - Tina Fey ... wow - that had to be one of the best parodies of a current politician ever...  Cracked me up every time.

What was this topic about again?

Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: Hypnagogue on December 15, 2010, 10:37:06 AM
Tina Fey. Hotter than Palin by a stretch.

I think the other factor in flameage is what I call the Armor of Anonymity. Relieved of having to stand face-to-face with someone they disagree with--which might, heaven forbid, mandate a civil discussion--any poster with a redwood-sized shoulder chip can just all-cap the living bejeezus out of their nay-sayer, belittle them and their opinion with blissful impunity and then walk away...if they chose, which of course they won't. It's the online equivalent of going, "Dah dah dah dah" when it's the other guy's turn to talk. You don't know them, technically, and they don't know you, so there's never any need to account for your posting actions. I think most people wouldn't even remotely act this way if they were in the same room with their dissenter.

For historical purposes, I can track my own experiences dealing with the Armor back to the days of CB radio. A microphone, a mouth, and 40 miles between us, you were gonna say whatever you felt like saying about me. We'd probably never meet.
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: mgriffin on December 15, 2010, 10:44:46 AM
Tina Fey. Hotter than Palin by a stretch.

Agreed.
Liz Lemon is the 2nd coolest person on the entire planet! (I'm saying this in my Tracy Jordan voice)




Quote
I think most people wouldn't even remotely act this way if they were in the same room with their dissenter.

I agree with this too. Most of this stuff is from frustrated people who feel powerless in most interactions, trying to state an opinion with extra force as if that might overwhelm any who would disagree.  The reflex to answer disagreement with harsh personal criticism seems much less likely to occur face to face, than online.
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: Wayne Higgins on December 22, 2010, 07:17:44 AM
I have to admit that my reactions are determined by my emotional state of that day.  If I go overboard, it's due to me writing while having a bad day at work. (Which will explain my absence over the past year)
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: Wayne Higgins on December 22, 2010, 07:21:19 AM
And....  the only political comment I will make for the next two years  ::) is that I don't want to hear ANYONE complain.  So few people voted in 2010, it made me sick.  If any nation allows a minority of people to make decisions for them because the majority are too lazy to stop at the polls on election day, then those people get what they deserve.  You all know the numbers, it happened all over the country.
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: mgriffin on December 22, 2010, 09:10:59 AM
So... those of us who did vote can't complain about anything, because others were too lazy to vote?
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: Wayne Higgins on December 22, 2010, 09:46:33 AM
Not really, but should we start a thread entitled "bitching by voters?"

Maybe I'm just tired of all the negative feelings.  Including my own.
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: mgriffin on December 22, 2010, 09:53:18 AM
I'm so tired of that stuff, I've sworn off the news entirely. No newspapers, no TV news, and I try not to waste time with online news of the yahoo/CNN variety either.  Much better this way!
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: Wayne Higgins on December 22, 2010, 09:57:59 AM
Agreed.  To change the subject, I've recently tried Knob Creek Kentucky Bourbon.  It's great.  Anyone else have a preference.

(In a sick way, my above statement reminds me of the line from a Crack the Sky song:  "Shall we have another beer and slober through another year".)

Jees, I'm so self-contradictory lately.  I guess this kinda shit happens when a lot of people you are familiar with or know die in a year, while you've been reading nothing but Douglas Adams.
Title: Re: Silly Question on disagreeing vs. attacking
Post by: mgriffin on December 22, 2010, 10:01:34 AM
Derail!

Though I'm all for a new topic on fancy bourbon and scotch.