My Crackpot Flame War Theory

[Plaid Adder]

Since people are talking flames, I thought I would share:

First of all, DU is not the only place where flames happen. Actually I came across a forum about gardening in which people were having a vicious flame war about the proper care of a particular kind of fern. It doesn't matte rwhat the topic is, and here's why. Enjoy.
************************
The Group Therapy Theory Of Flamewars
Question: I just joined this great electronic discussion group, and already there's a flamewar. Why can't we all just get along?
Answer: Because an electronic discussion list is like group therapy without a therapist.

If you have spent much time on Yahoo!groups, you know that you cannot assemble an electronic discussion list of any size, around any topic, without eventually watching in dismay as it erupts into flames over some topic that appears to you to be at best trivial and at worst nonsensical. Why does this always happen? Well, the same principles that explain why group therapy works also explain why so many electronic communities don't.

I have never been in group therapy myself, but one of my friends swears by it, and it was from her that I finally learned that my conception of what group therapy is was mistaken. I thought, based I guess on the Bob Newhart Show and other pop culture representations, that group therapy was basically a bunch of people sitting around in a circle talking about their issues with a therapist moderating the discussion. Well, it is, only it isn't. At least according to my friend, the point of group therapy is to allow people to better understand, and if necessary modify, the ways in which they interact with their peers. The goal of a session is not so much to get people to talk about their issues, as to get them to be aware of the way they interact with the other group members while doing it. In other words, it's really about how the conversation works-- who talks, who doesn't, who gets upset, who gets angry, who plays alpha dog and who rolls over to show his soft underbelly, and why. So, for example, if A brings up something shitty that happened at work that day, and B says, "That's nothing, listen to this much worse thing that just happened to ME," and C says, "Shut up, B, can't you see A is upset?" and D says, "Why are you always picking on B?" and then A says, "Oh, never mind, it wasn't important," the thing to investigate is not so much what happened to A at work as why B felt the need to upstage her, why C took it upon herself to defend A, why D is so critical of C, and why A retires crushed instead of defending her right to speak. Eventually, in theory, A will learn to be more assertive and less whiny, B will learn not to be such an attention hog, C will learn to fight her own battles and leave others to fight theirs, and D will learn not to leap gleefully into the fray at the first sign of conflict.

Is this sounding like your list yet?

Group therapy works, to the extent that it does, because of one simple principle: When you assemble any group of people, from any variety of walks of life, and ask them to talk about any topic, they will all inevitably start working their issues out on each other.

Now, in group therapy, it is absolutely crucial that people take their shit out on each other so that the therapist can help them work through it. If B weren't constantly trying to be the center of attention, the therapist wouldn't have the opportunity to get him to ask himself why, and he would never figure out that it's because his father never gave him any support or validation when he was a boy and so he's consumed with a desire to get it from everyone else. Unfortunately, on an electronic discussion list, there is no therapist. Consequently, nobody has the authority to call people on their shit; and therefore, the same people pull the same passive-aggressive, openly-aggressive, subtly manipulative, self-aggrandizing, insenstively-steamrolling shit over and over again. And the fact that it's all electronic makes it even worse--because the other people are just words on a screen, it's much easier for the average listmember to project his or her mother, siblings, abusive high school peers, etc. onto the other members. Plus, people will let shit fly online that they would never have the balls to say in a face-to-face interaction. So no matter what the topic of the list is, be it reproductive rights or the proper management of a riding mower, people will eventually flame over it--or rather, not over the topic itself so much as over the way they feel the other list members are treating their contributions to the discussion.

A good listowner can exercise a certain amount of authority within clearly defined rules (banning particularly divisive topics, sanctioning people for trolling or posting obvious personal attacks); but nobody can do anything about these subtler group dynamics. You can't put together a FAQ that says "Don't constantly get into it with someone just because her whining about how people always misunderstand her posts reminds you of how your mother used to say mean things to you and then pretend she hadn't. Don't compare someone to Hitler just because his opinionated way of talking politics reminds you of your domineering older brother who got a car for his sixteenth birthday and what did you get nothing." And if there happens to be someone on your list who tries to be this group's therapist, that's even worse; there's nothing that pisses people off more than being psychoanalyzed when they didn't ask for it. So there is no way to prevent conflict from erupting; and often there's no real way to resolve it because half the time people don't even understand what they're really arguing about.

For here, we run up against one of the other foundational principles of therapy: Nobody is ever hip to his/her own shit. No, dear reader, not even you; and certainly not me either. Oh sure, you think you're always being reasonable; but remember, so does everyone else. If your listmember realized that her flame in response to your defense of welfare was really an expression of resentment toward the co-workers who never appreciate all the times that her hard work has saved their lazy asses, she wouldn't be ranting at you; she'd be ranting at her co-workers. So judge not, my friend, lest ye be judged; for you and I are both working our shit out on our fellow listmembers too; and yea, like unto them, we also shall never know when we're doing it. The best we can hope for is that some kind soul will point it out to us in a friendly sort of way, and we'll be able to pay attention.

Some lists do escape this kind of conflict, either because their members are all relatively well-adjusted (rare), traffic is so low or discussions are so narrowly focused that people don't get their buttons pushed (more common), or the list is run by a totalitarian dictator who enforces peace by punishing dissent (not as rare as it might be, but frankly not always a bad thing). For the rest, the only thing to do is try to survive the flames when they erupt and remember that on the internet, a day is a long time, and most flamewars blow over pretty quickly.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[ixion]

1. flame wars happen for one reason

because there are people who lack communication skills and the ability to express ideas without being diragatory. Every flame war that crosses the mods desk is discussed with the utmost concern for respecting people's right to free speech. It is when it becomes abusive that the mods will lock a thread, not becuase they enjoy locking threads, but because the thread has ceased to exist as a constructive debate.

Really.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. May I humbly add another reason?

Your point is well taken, but it's not just tongue-tied frustration that causes some to devolve to primitiveness, much of it is inherent human egocentrism traipsing down this thorny path: individuals who credit themselves with having suffered more, and thus being more deserving of winning, feel released from the constraints of manners. In much the same way, those who feel more entitled due to perceived--nay, assumed--greater knowledge and understanding also feel above the damned law.

It's self-centeredness at its worst.

Certain Deanies feel the right to obliterate other candidates on the war vote issue, while he never had to stand and be counted and his statements were not unequivocal in the run-up. Why do Kucinich supporters not have the same rancor? By rights, their guy was adamantly against the war and stood up valiantly and consistently on the subject. It's to the credit of the Kucinich people, and by way of explaining, I hazard that the character of a candidate is often shared by his/her supporters. Many Deanies are sterling human beings and many aspects of Dean's character are wonderful. Likewise, many Deanies are uncompromising and increasingly intolerant, and Dean has some rough edges on the issue of accepting other points of view.

Maybe it's something in the water.

[DrGonzoLives]

7. Ah, yes

It's only the "Deanies." No other supporters of other candidates. Nope. Not one. Not ever. Only Dean supporters are the assholes. :eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Make your case, please

I have never heard a Kucinich poster get vituperative about the war vote or sanctimonious and lashing out at any philistines who refuse to accept the superiority of their candidate; they have been very well behaved. They win the group ethical decency prize in my book.

Likewise, I've not heard any such smugness or outright baiting from any Sharpton, Mosely-Braun or Graham supporter.

There is one Edwards supporter who can attack on occasion, but our record overall is pretty good. The tenor of our posts have been "give the guy a look", "he's a formidable opponent for the general election", his platform is progressive and practical, and the like. I personally have gotten more in the chiding mode for some of the purists who feel justified using massive support for their guy, and my charity and tolerance decays with each passing snort from flamers.

Some of the Kerryites have been rather rough, but in most instances, they seem to be defending themselves from attacks. One can make a huge mistake on something important and still be a courageous and honorable person. The average in the Kerry/Dean wars has the Deanies being much worse behaved. That's MUCH WORSE behaved, and more often than not, they're the instigators. Dean's so godlike and Kerry's such a swine, of course, that it's totally justified even though it never happens.

The Clark-barkers have been the worst of the lot, but most of that was on the big weekend when it first started. There has been little aggressive freeperish smugness from them since then, but they definitely rank as the worst for that sustained barrage. They are an odd bunch, because there's no middle ground: they're either as stated before, or gentle, thoughtful and community-minded.

The Lieberman people have been largely on the defensive and are pretty damned cowed by now. Some have launched into the inevitable conservative "we're the grownups" diatribe, but it's been faint and rarely personally vicious. He, on the other hand, IS getting very vicious toward Dean, and it probably won't work.

The few Gephardt people have been rather well mannered, as far as I can see.

So no, the Deanies aren't the only ones, but for sustained snotty party-line derisive fury, the worst of your bunch--and there are many--are swept up with self-importance and sanctimoniousness to the point where they grant themselves the right to obliterate opponents of the moment and absolutely clog the board with deliberate provocation and "gosh ain't he great" posts. Of course he's "better", so it's all justified, but it IS happening.

[Booberdawg]

2. Excellent!!!

Boy did you NAIL that bad boy!!!!:thumbsup: :bounce:

[DemBones DemBones]

3. So true! I used to be on a number of gardening lists plus posting

at Garden Web and there were many flame wars. Amusingly, some of the worst ones were on the lists and forums dedicated to cactus.

[Booberdawg]

4. Cactus??

Who woulda figured something so prickly would turn people so prickly?

(groan - sorry);)

[Robb]

6. Groan indeed

(throws fern)

:eyes:

Good piece!

[Bunny]

8. Excellent post, plaid adder!

And so true. I tend to stay out of the flame wars, because in real life I usually try to avoid conflict whenever possible. But from time to time, I do lash out, and this usually seems inexplicable to the people around me. I do the same thing on this board, mostly stick to non-threatening lounge posts. Then occasionally I'll read something that will piss me off so bad I post something really nasty. True to my character, I guess...

[TrogL]

10. You've got to be kidding

that's the stupidest thing I've ever read.

:evilgrin:

[Plaid Adder]

11. @#$!! you, you @#$! piece of @#$%#@!!!!

You want a piece of me? Huh? Do ya? Do ya? Come on, baby! I got your flamewar right here!

:whoosh:

The Plaid Adder

[TrogL]

12. Pearls before swine

:nuke: