There's a competition going on on this message board.

[baby_mouse]

It's a very long-standing and useless competition. It's an appalling waste of bandwidth and an appalling waste of thought, time and energy.

The rules are never explicitly stated but are easy enough to infer.

1. If you can't think of anything to contradict someone's argument, ignore it and insult them.

2. If they repeat their point to try and get you to engage with them on the point's terms, ignore them again and openly accuse them of repeating themselves.

3. If they insult you back, take offense. It doesn't matter if you insulted them first. YOU have a RIGHT to insult people because THIS IS AMERICA. They don't have any right to insult you, because YOU are an AMERICAN.

4. The more "diagonal" the thread gets, the cooler you look.

5. NEVER let your opponent have the last word. NEVER put them on ignore.

6. Deliberate misinterpratation is the Name of the Game. Never address the content of what someone has posted, always react to the overtones. In particular, react by taking offense.

7. If someone manages to state something elegantly or succinctly or looks as if they're trying to establish a new way of thinking about a problem, accuse them of being a snob or "fancy" or something.

8. The Great Lurk Swarm loves you. It loves you more and more the ANGRIER you get.

9. The eyeroll smiley is your special friend. The more you use it, the more people realise that you have a well-informed and rigourously thought-through counter-argument to their own argument via a sort of emoticon telepathy that is virtually beamed through the very pixels of the eyeroll smiley from their computer screen into their brain. And if it doesn't do that, loads of teenagers will think you are cool and laid-back and very experienced and jaded and will join your fan-club.

10. If you CAN think of something wrong with someone else's argument, pick holes in it. Adopt an authoritarian tone while doing so. Snigger if you can. Upset them. It's way more funny than actually filling in the hole with your own cognition, NEVER explain in a positive or constructive fashion why your model of reality seems to be more coherent than theirs, DON'T GIVE THEM ANY HELP. THIS IS A COMPETITION. Just smear their model with as much disdain as possible. We're not here to learn or change anything, we're here to APPEAR ANGRY to the GREAT LURK SWARM.

11. Responding to a hole in someone's point with extra information revealing why it is a hole and how it can be filled in with reasoning is a FAUX PAS. Almost an unforgivable one. NEVER respond to anyone doing this (unless you disagree with them, in which case, insult them). Leave their comment dangling. Before long the noobs will figure out that if they try to make sense no-one will talk to them. This will ensure that the overal RAGE factor is kept to an absolute maximum at all times.

12. If someone says something that you can't counter reasonably because you aren't smart enough or you don't know what they're talking about or you just don't care, they're CENSORING YOUR OPINION. (They aren't, of course. Only governments can censor anything, censorship is an authoritarian procedure in which information is *legally* prevented from being distributed by legal systems, i.e., at the bottom line, the police, but this doesn't matter, if you accuse some who has absolutely no power whatsoever to prevent you from posting exactly the same stuff 500 times of censoring you by disagreeing with it, one or two dim people will probably believe you and get angry, thus increasing the rage. Basically, all you have to do is make your opponent *look* bad, it doesn't matter if your accusations make any sense).

13. If anybody objects to the following of the above rules, it is very funny and clever to respond straight away doing exactly what they objected to. It shows that you are brave and rebellious and that no-one can tell YOU what to do (MAJOR, MAJOR coolpoints will be scored, for example, by responding to this OP with nothing more than a period in the message header and an eyeroll in the text.) Alternatively you could say: "That's how the Internet works", thus absolving everybody of any responsibility for the utter uselessness of flamewars. (This sheepish "They're all doin' it, so *I* have to, too" attitude is particularly ironic if immediately following a reponse to posts like the aforementioned "period and eyeroll" post.) Shrug and say "people don't agree, sometimes", or "deal with it", or "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," or "poor kitten," or *something* that's at the very least patronising, to keep up the anger and endless subtextual jockeying for position. NEVER acknowledge that civilised disagreement is even POSSIBLE.

14. Non-flaming threads are LOSER threads for LOSERS. The content of the thread is of no value at all. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE NUMBER OF REPLIES. Only sad wallflower, geeky, bespactacled, scrawny LOSER kids post in these threads and you will look SO BAD if you post in them.

15. BIG ANGRY THREADS are the entire point of DU. You want to be famous, don't you? You want to be well-known? You want your voice to be heard in this online community? You want the chops? Post ANGRY! And post OFTEN, and post in the biggest, flamey-est threads. It doesn't matter whether you feel particularly strongly about the subject and it's probably an actual hindrance to the progress of the rage-building if you actually *know* anything about the subject, the point is to keep the thread going and to make it as big and red and angry as possible. It's all about BEING SEEN.



There are an extraordinarily large number of people currently engaged in this competition and they are getting more and more numerous. I've been watching this site with gradually dawning despair as the quality of debate has been steadily getting worse and worse and worse, lately, over the past couple of months, it's been getting really appallingly bad (although it's calmed down a bit now. This week hasn't been too bad, actually, hence my sudden motivation to post...)

My point?

The ignore function is very useful, but also useful is *avoiding* picking holes in people's arguments and concentrating positively on filling in the gaps in their points with your alternative, obviously more coherent view, that of course makes more sense. It's MUCH more effective at getting useful information out, regularly actually converts people and is, in fact, the bit of DU that the Great Lurk Swarm *really does love*.

It's not like you guys don't know this. So how come so many of you keep defaulting to "Enrapture the Great Lurk Swarm with my Ascerbic
Wit" mode? If that's all you're here for, really, there's better places. There's at least one livejournal community specifically dedicated to catty insults. Why not go there and be genuinely and openly admired for your skill?

Now, I'll be interested to see how people repond to all this. It's not as if the vast majority of us don't already know that these things happen and I very much doubt that my posting this will change anything very much. But I figured it's only going to take a few minutes to type it all up and perhaps some people might change their habits, which would be really good, because at the moment this site is a total flamefest and whilst I'm not going to flounce off in disgust (despite whatever suggestions to do so will doubtless surface) I'm finding myself less and less motivated to post anything here.

Something almost tangible that DU used to have is getting lost in the dross.

/ rant

[blm]

1. Get thee to a nearest corruption thread - you'll find snarkmasters are noshows there.

Thank undergod.

[Rex]

2. Wow, what a post!

A post of what, I have no idea. I think my favorite posts here are the arbitrary insult posts to one and all. :eyes:

[Mojambo]

6. Eyeroll smiley!

You're jaded! And I instantly think you're cool.

[Rex]

7. Crap! And I can't post back an insult!

You witty chap, you!

[GreenEyedLefty]

17. I can't think of a word to say

However, I'm working on your diagonal theory.

How about a :evilgrin: instead of a :eyes: ?

[Rex]

22. Stop that! To many diagonal posts could lead to self-gratification!

You nasty, throat warbling, sardonic prognosticators! How bout a :dunce: or a :freak:, more appropriate IMO.

[Bluebear]

70. Bam! Another diagonal!

We are so cool!

[Rex]

142. Stop! The forum can't handle another diagonal post!

Stop being cool Bluebear! Don't you know it will lead to the fall of American civilization? :P

[CGowen]

66. I think vertical is better nt

[Debi]

12. Are you one of the Great Lurk Swarm?

Do you know the secret handshake?

[AlinPA]

3. Thank you. Good job.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Wow - is it healthy to care THAT much what happens on the internet?

[Madspirit]

8. What makes

What makes the way people treat each other on the Internet any different than RL? My friends on the Internet are just as real as anyone else. There are real humans, with real feelings, on the other side of that modem.

Lee waiting to be flamed....

[BlooInBloo]

18. Why flame? I don't treat internet-people as real, but you do. Nothing to flame about.

[Madspirit]

20. Huh?

You don't treat Internet people as real? I don't understand. We're smoke and mirrors? I really don't understand why decency is important in RL but not on the Internet.
Lee

[BlooInBloo]

23. "We're smoke and mirrors?" - more or less.

[Madspirit]

24. I do appreciate the warning. n/t

[piedmont]

143. You see, BlooinBloo is actually a brain in a vat.

A mad scientist has hooked up wires to him and feeds him a simulation of life, which includes us. We're not really real, we're just here to fool BlooinBloo.

[zanne]

113. BlooInBloo-That's something to think about.

Some of the arguments I've had with people on DU would never happen in the real world. Anonymity means that there are no social consequences. On the other hand, anonymity is good because it allows us to say what we really feel. I'm glad you posted that.

[treestar]

116. The impersonal nature

It makes people bolder.

It frustrates people who are used to dominating in person a lot, too. They can't get control of the conversation the way they can in person.

[baby_mouse]

15. Hey, it MIGHT be. I don't know.

I just think it can be better, that's all.

[ktlyon]

109. I have been around along time, I have watched this place grow

not grow up just grow. We have many new members everyday and that has changed the personality of DU, can't help that. I have never posted much but of late I stopped altogether. I think you have put into words why, thanks. I think it is time to free this DU to the people. It has a life of it's own now. Anybody know were the next "original" DU is forming? I won't tell anyone. The world IS change, time to head out down the road. There might be something better and there will be lots of things worse. Good luck and thanks again.

[Madspirit]

5. k & r n/t

[Debi]

9. Or you could alert on the offender and let the mods deal with the problem

instead of assuming the authoritative postion yourself. Why so much stress?

[seemslikeadream]

10. I don't know if you've ever visited the dungeon but

if you haven't I'd advise it would be best if you left it that way :) :hi:

[SoCalDem]

14. There's a reason it's called the dungeon

:scared:

[ruggerson]

11. Do you like scones?

I love hot scones with butter. Not necessarily just at tea time either.

[baby_mouse]

13. Yes, they are nice. I had some the other day.

:D

[Tsiyu]

81. OMG

:eyes:

I AM SO ANGRY!!!!!!!! ANYONE WITH half a brain knows you eat them with CLOTTED CREAM. I swear, what is DU coming to?

You must be a troll ;)

[riderinthestorm]

16. Choose your threads more carefully?

There are some topics that you know are going to be in flames from the start: campaign shit, smoking, parenting questions etc., and there are others where there is absolutely zero snark: topics on the Admin's malfeasance, the Libby trial etc.

If the snark makes you nuts, why gravitate towards those threads? I just ignore them, hide them if needed, and try to post on threads that are actually debating and discussing with respect and real information.

[baby_mouse]

21. Oh, I do, generally.

But the OP is more supposed to convince people (whom I'm assuming are almost certainly not going to respond to it) to change what *they* do. I know, it probably won't work, but, hey. It might. *I* think it's more fun to post constructive stuff, a lot of other people just don't care, but people do change their minds sometimes.

[NashVegas]

79. You Can't Change the Hardcore Ones

We used to call television "the boob tube," but some have found a teat they can talk back to. It's that simple.

I take it as a rule, now, that thoughtful discussion happens at the sub-forum level and GD is where you go to be flamed or ignored.

[gratefultobelib]

19. Well, you may get a lot of snarky replies, but I appreciate what you've written. I am

very careful where I post, and I try to carefully choose my words so as not to offend. When the threads start heading into a flame war, I don't even read as they can be very tiresome. But I value the board highly, so I'm willing to put up with the ones who go overboard occasionally.

[baby_mouse]

26. Thank you.

I value the board highly as well.

[Quantess]

25. So what you're saying is, if we all just pretended High School never ended,

then we could restore the popularity status quo that we enjoyed as pimply, naive, know-it-all, teens?
Sounds great!:thumbsdown:

[baby_mouse]

27. I'm sorry, I don't understand that.

I thought that was pretty much exactly what I was arguing against.

[Quantess]

34. Well yeah. That's what I meant. You did understand.

The 'high school status quo sounds great' part was sarcastic.

[baby_mouse]

45. Fair enough :) nt.

[Quantess]

76. I thought your original post was great, by the way,

and I completely agree with you.

[Gormy Cuss]

115. Another DU lesson: no matter how silly it seems, always annouce that you're being sarcastic

or facetious or mean something other than what the plain words would be interpreted by someone who strives to read only literal interpretations. It saves one from needing to post AGAIN.
The sarcasm smiley is an easy way to do so, but not the only way.

This is a lesson that I learned the hard way.

[The Straight Story]

30. I think it might be the opposite of what the OP is saying

The people and cliques that use such tactics would have been (I think) the high school popularity teens you mention.

[Quantess]

38. Sigh. Thanks, I know what the OP was saying.

I didn't think my comment would seem so obtuse to people. I was just trying to be ironic.

[The Straight Story]

40. Sorry :)

Hard to tell on here sometimes. But in retrospect, it was a nice post. And see - no rolling eyes! ;)

[Madspirit]

28. Netiquette

Netiquette from Wikipedia.com:

Certain rules of unspoken etiquette are recommended to be followed when using Internet forums. They include:

One should read all the rules and guidelines established by the community; some communities may have different regulations on a particular subject.

One should always be courteous.

Before creating a new topic thread, one is advised to search to see if a similar topic already exists.

Contributors should follow standard grammar and spelling rules and avoid slang.

If the forum is categorized, one should strive to post in the correct section.

When making a technical inquiry, one should include as much technical information as possible, especially in the subject line.

Contributors are asked to stay on-topic.

Contributors should avoid double posting and Crossposting.

To avoid appearing self-absorbed, one should respond to topics started by others more often than starting topics of their own.

Contributors should avoid the use of all CAPITAL LETTERS in posts. All CAPS is considered "shouting" and causes readability issues.

One is advised not to resurrect a very old topic if nothing significant will be added. This practice is known as revival or Necroing.

One should try to refrain from lashing back at a poorly behaving member or participating in a flame war; instead, notify the messageboard's staff of the event.

When quoting a previous post, one should only include the relevant portion of that post.

Contributors are requested to keep in mind that their audience can likely still see the message they are quoting on the same screen and can read it again if need be.

When quoting an article, one must give credit where credit is due. Provide the articles original name and author's full name.

[baby_mouse]

32. Useful.

Thank you.

It's a pity, really, that so many message boards rot so badly after a while. It's sort of like weather. Sometimes they get better, though.

[orleans]

86. got a link to this netiquette?

(just kidding.) :D

[AtomicKitten]

98. some are going for the record in GD-P

To avoid appearing self-absorbed, one should respond to topics started by others more often than starting topics of their own.

[The Straight Story]

29. Well things like this do go on

It gets even worse when someone labels you something and does not debate but makes attacks against the person instead of what they are saying (which to me says you win the argument - and I have come to be happy with that).

The more people call other people names the more one realizes that that person is not able to discuss a subject but is instead relying on emotions to guide them.

I am sure I have been guilty of it myself as well, easy to do when you have about 10k posts ya know :)

But reminders are always good and sometimes in the 'heat of battle' we lose our way and don't feel like arguing the same thing over and over again.

I have had people who don't like me follow me to a thread just to bitch about me or call me a name, maybe because they don't have any other way to discuss things (and some labels people eat up - once you are labeled, everything you say is wrong or suspect I guess...).

At any rate, nice rant. All you needed was a rolling eye smiley at the end ;)

[Rex]

31. Which I provided

thank you very much... :eyes:

[The Straight Story]

35. Don't make me come over there

and call you a name! :evilgrin:

[Rex]

37. Hehe

I shall taunt you a second time! :evilgrin:

[The Straight Story]

42. I'll go 300 on your ass

Don't make me pull out my Sparta looking clothes. Ever see a middle aged overweight white man in a loin cloth, cape, and spear. It will scar you :)

[Rex]

46. Scare me or scar me?

Or both? And since I am a middle aged overweight white man, er, nm. ;)

[baby_mouse]

39. Thanks, TSS.

Like you, I've also been guilty of almost everything I've outlined above. I suppose I've had an epiphany of sorts...

[stnmann]

33. I agree somewhat.

It is becoming more and more difficult to find engaging conversations on message boards.

[baby_mouse]

43. Yes, it is! It's not just DU, it's everywhere.

Over the past 6 months or so, everyone everywhere's just been getting rattier and rattier. *I* don't get it.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

36. Seems like Oneupsmanship to me. n/t

[baby_mouse]

41. Sorry, I don't follow you entirely.

Do you mean avoiding insulting people is Oneupmanship?

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

52. No, I mean what you call competition sounds more like oneupsmanship to me. Competition isn't

necessarily a bad thing.

Oneupsmanship has a sinister connotation that goes with it.

Like the behavior you describe.

[baby_mouse]

57. I'll go with that to a degree...

But I do think there are number of people who think of it as a game, and think of certain kinds of post as "fair game". "All's fair in love and the Internet"-type thing. Not quite the same as oneupmanship, the folk I'm referencing get a buzz out of just being annoying without necessarily feeling that they've shown that they're *better* then their opponent. The one-uppers are, of course, very prevalent, but they usually have something to gain or protect and often get more out of arguing a bit more sensibly than the "competitors".

You're right, really, competition isn't *quite* the right word...

[LWolf]

44. Sometimes the truth hurts.

The truth is that U.S. culture glorifies incivility and verbal bullying. It's impossible to have a thoughtful, in-depth conversation about any issue when participants only participate because they need to "win."

Those thoughtful, in-depth conversations are just what will move our country, our communities, and our culture forward. Why are so many determined to put roadblocks in the path of the American evolution?

[baby_mouse]

48. Yup.

I don't want to resort to name-calling or put-downs myself, so I'll try to be clear, I think it's nothing more than a cultural accident, a series of self-reinforcing habits, and it requires nothing more than a decision to change your habits and stick to the decision. People genuinely think they are getting something out of all the asshattery, I'm no exception, I've fallen into this as much as anyone else, it's just that I'm sick and tired of it.

[AikidoSoul]

121. Your comment really struck me as incisive

and I agree.

U.S. culture glorifies incivility and along with an aggressive anti-intellectual attitude tends to dumb down the conversation almost everywhere. Some posts on DU show signs of being infected with that value system.

It’s striking that hostility and win/lose competition seem to be what people identify with and strive toward because if you watch TV (me-- hardly ever) you see that many of the sitcom and movie scripts are written with people insulting each other and one-upping each other as if it was a freaking national sport. The prevailing norm is to promote a win/lose atmosphere - and to trash the opposition.

It's infectious. I think many Americans think that unless we maintain an aggressive win/lose attitude -- that we're considered weak. Look at the level of debate on TV that's been dragged down by the idiot pundits who are incredibly insulting, unfair, dogmatic and inaccurate –so as to boggle the mind. How can they survive? Yet, there they are... with millions of viewers, making millions, and are defined by our culture as “very successful.”

It’s only people like Duers that see naked emperors running around looking foolish. There are not enough of us. SO GO YE FORTH AND MULTIPLY.....!

Oops.. got carried away there..

I don't watch survival shows but occasionally I'll see a minute or two and the themes always look like people are heavy into manipulation, exploitation, and win/lose game playing an unfair game in order to up their position on the status pole at the expense of the other. It's like dog-eat-dog has become cool and admirable. That same attitude seems to have also infected our spirits as a nation. It's most evident to me in international policies.

I’ve witnessed plenty of bright people on DU who think deeply and well. For me DU is kind of like an island of sanity, although I think it sometimes has serious problems. It's especially sad when knee-jerks succeed in dragging the level of discourse down. When insults fly it discourages participation. Too often I take a pass, but sometimes I attempt to turn it around.

Part of this knee-jerky insulting crap could be created by freeper lurkers as a kind of strategy to get good folks to give up on DU, but I'm sure not all of this can be blamed on freepers.

You intrigued me with the words "American evolution" -- and also the notion that "so many are determined to put roadblocks in its path".

Now don't laugh, but I think about this a lot and am frankly worried about it. I keep asking myself, if we are to evolve as a nation -- what would we be changing in our behavior? Certainly we would begin with trying to become less violent by creating a win/win atmosphere in society, business and in international politics. I would imagine that it would have to start with the discourse becoming less violent. Certainly, we would learn the art of communication along with negotiation skills which could go a long way toward making war obsolete. Yeah...we'd probably have to imprison the war profiteers and make war mongering illegal --otherwise it would never go very far as a movement.

O.K. so we look around us and notice that in general our society is seen as a nation behaving like testosterone crazed nuclear bulldozers. The ugliness on DU that occasionally blurts out - is one small pimple on our blemished humanity. It’s probably normal that we would become a little infected – freepers aside.

So why can't we as a nation be better people? (DU would be a tiny microcosm here).

Do you think maybe we're having a difficult time moving onto the evolutionary road because anybody that acts like Jesus is not considered sexy? Has nobody but me noticed that there is nothing remotely sexy about Jesus or Gandhi --? ... not that we could ever hope to evolve into that level of humanity... but you get the idea.

Think of it this way.. why do so many women think that guys who look mean are sexy? Especially mean looking guys with a sullen expression with a cigarette hanging out of their mouths or in black leather jackets? And why do most people define "power" as threatening instead of being something inspirational ... not always.. but too often?

Makes me wonder.

Guys like Gandhi and Jesus...are they the kind of people we like to keep up on a pedestal because in the final analysis they're much more acceptable as a distant, untouchable abstraction? If they were here in our midst would we judge them fairly? If we became like them would we want our sons to be like them? If somebody like that showed up on DU, would we flame the crap out of him for being weak and naive?

Please notice that I’m talking about men here, because women who have these good qualities do not seem to be shunned or ostracized. Women who have these qualities are admired. It’s probably because the qualities that are missing – that cause our society to be out-of-balance – are seen as “feminine” qualities.

When I think about this suff I often wonder if our society if flushing itself down the extreme testosterone crapper, is because women have not been valued nearly enough in our society. Nor are things feminine respected enough except by ritualistic, public recognition ceremonies that smack of symbolism.

If women were more respected, and the values that are inherent in their souls more valued instead of exploited – guys might be more willing to find and nurture the feminine element in themselves to develop balance in their psyches and behavior. A perfect example of a man who has no balance at all is Cheney -- a psychotic satire on the extreme testosterone nuclear version of manhood.



:think: :rant:

[King Coal]

47. Baby_Mouse you're a fancy pants!

:hi:

[baby_mouse]

49. And you, sir, are a gentleman!

I salute you!

let us share a pixelated beverage: :toast:

[Unca Jim]

75. As a newer DU user...

I have been horrified by all the stuff you are describing (word to the wise, don't talk actual science or point anyone to actual studies presenting contrary evidence on the "Marijuana is a wonder drug" thread...my butt still hurts), but it has really motivated me to be more thoughtful in my replies. In short, my momma taught me better than that.

Thanks for listing out the wrong way to post so well. I think the list should be printed out and taped up by everyone's computer.

[AikidoSoul]

125. Some corporations hire flaks to post messages on boards that have

discussions about anything that has to do with them. This is especially true of the drug / chemical companies (they are one and the same) that have spent tons of money strategically and purposefully creating controversy around any independent science that reveal their products to be harmful.

I've been participating in scientific discussion forums for over a decade and when this happens it's vicious-- and drives away the good researchers and scientists. That's why most of the forums I participate in now have screened participants to insure that nobody works for the industry from its PR or lobbying divisions. Neither are anonymous participants allowed to better prevent spurious attacks from happening.

It's interesting to me that the most vicious posts I've seen thus far on DU have to do with the Merck cervical cancer vaccine. I've never seen such emotional, crazed responses.

Another thing. Corporate flaks use "GOOGLE ALERTS" which automatically send emails to the requester on any topic of interest. When anything appears in the press or on blogs having to do with a certain topic, product, or whatever-- it sends an email with a link to that discussion or article. Most often when I go online to a newspaper article .. say on how the chemical bisphenol-A is leaching from certain plastics, found in people's bodies, and is thought to be harmful -- the blog just below the article will be immediately dominated by industry flaks. At least the first three of four posts will be cookbook type letters using the same works, and making the same accusations that they always do -- with a few changes to make the letter look as if it is dealing with that specific article. The goal is always to make these articles to appear inaccurate, stupid, and crazy -- thus relegating it into the arena of the controversial, "out of the mainstream", and unpopular... things Americans are often fearful of. This pollutes the discussion with thinly veiled name-calling and vicious attacks, and discourages decent conversations on important topics on public health.

edited for clarity

[mzmolly]

149. You've got to be kidding me?!

:wow:

This deserves a thread of it's own and a permanent place in the ol' journal AS.

Thanks for the info. :hi:

[atommom]

50. I'm rolling my eyes over your fancy-pantsy-ness, because I'M a REBEL.

(Actually, I agree with you, but I don't think anything will change here anytime soon.) :hide:

[L. Coyote]

51. You are completely frikkin wrong, you insane perverted intellect you, you ....

Seriously, it was great to read this and should be posted in many other forums.

However, I tend to think of the practice as "scatological besmearment."
It seems far more than simple competition, more even than a competition to be the biggest s__head.

If a thread has several of these as the first few posts, it becomes scatological besmeared. Noone likes the smell of the place, and that's the object. Move on...

Hey, thanks a ton for giving the crap such a stirring commentary. You cut a good one!

[Madspirit]

53. "scatological besmearment"

You rock.

I really like that.

Lee

[L. Coyote]

59. What can I say, scatologically speaking, besides BS? This, I guess ...

In today's propoganda world, an acute nose for scatology is needed to keep the shoes clean and the brain afloat.

The term, scatological besmearment, becomes unavoidable when reading written treatments of the Natives in histories of past genocides, the prehistory of the Americas from the writings of the conquerors, esp. after discourse analysis in a linguistics class. Not that I have a Ph.D. in BS, just a nose for this stuff!

[Blue-Jay]

54. Well said, baby_mouse!

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".

Here's one technique that you missed, however:

"When you're losing an argument, throw around some insults in order to get the sub-thread deleted" There are bonus points if you're able to "rally the troops" to achieve your goal of getting your idiocy erased from the record.

[frogcycle]

55. you're WRONG! you fancy snob!

:shrug:

:rofl:

[Faux pas]

56. Oh Nooooooo! Did you take my screen name in vain?

;)

Great post.

[seabeyond]

58. or.... one can simply not take it all so personally

works for me.

[Cha]

60. It's so obvious..the strawman,

the red herring and the personal insults. They have nada, zip, zilch so they resort to obfuscation and the Insults which, of course, are clearly stated that we are not allowed to do..in the rules. I don't fucking report it, though..at least not yet.

Hey, thanks for bringing it out on your thread.

[TreasonousBastard]

61. No big deal-- "It's Only Electrons" ...

was the title of a humongous Usenet thread years ago, long before all these wimpy moderated Web boards started popping up. Started out when some good friends of mine were treated rather brutally, and too many people took it all too seriously.

Back in the good ol' days, we had some fantastic flamewars, some ending up in stalking, violence, criminal charges, and other good stuff. Even the occasional divorce. And a lot of us used our real names back then.

Funny thing, though, once in a while a froup would threw a party and when these mighty adversaries met, often as not everything said online was forgotten and we just had a good time. Until everyone went home and got online again.

There's something about the anonymity of all this online bullshit that let's us expose that dark and mean side of us that we would never let loose in person.

[AikidoSoul]

128. Soooo... it's kinda like Halloween where we hide behing our masks

of anonomynity so we can operate from the darker sides of ourselves?

Personal accountability out the window? Why -- because our real selves can't be identified?

What about the mirror? Doesn't the mirror say anything?

[TreasonousBastard]

141. Sure is, and we all...

do it to some extent, even if we don't really mean to.

Aside from trolls, pathological liars and anyone using these forums to boost their own miserable self-esteem, all of us can easily fall into anything fom mild "resume enhancement" to help make an argument to just running off at the mouth with few consequences. To ourselves, anyway.

I know I've done it, although not often, and sometimes felt guilty at not being entirely truthful or reasonable. Other times I just thought the whole thing was silly enough to just not care.

[northamericancitizen]

62. Thanks. Recommended

[Nikki Stone1]

63. Any specific thread upsetting you?

I've seen so many like this. Ignore is a great feature

[baby_mouse]

145. No, not really. It's the general trend I'm annoyed with.

And my main motivation to post was more to try and reach people who would already consider how they post. I think there's a lot of *defaulting* to snark that just isn't necessary, and I've been guilty of it myself...

[Canuckistanian]

64. Another one is the false "I'm the expert in this" argument

As in "hey, you know nothing of THE LAW. I've had six months training as a paralegal back in the 90s, so just go and suck on a tailpipe"

If you're actually in a profession, you can speak with authority.

Even then, there are some severely biased "experts" with an axe to grind for one reason or another.

Recognize and ignore these people. Then go seek a knowledgeable second opinion.

[Jamastiene]

65. I don't think I like your tone

very much. :sarcasm:

:popcorn:

[demrabble]

67. This Seems Like FlameBait To Me

It seems to me that the purpose of starting a thread like this is to incite yet one more flamewar.

And to get lots of people to post to it.

Your mission seems to have been accomplished.

[WilliamPitt]

89. Um

No.

[Danger Mouse]

68. But people LIKE feeling like smug assholes.

It's the only way they can feel validated. :)

[AikidoSoul]

130. It's also a way to be at the center of attention

Any kind of attention, even if it's negative.

Maybe it's a symptom of narcissism.

[Danger Mouse]

140. DU is crawling with attention-seekers.

Go to the Lounge, and watch the magic of a popularity contest that never ends.

[Bluebear]

69. "because at the moment this site is a total flamefest" - I reject your premise.

You had some interesting points until "this site is a TOTAL flamefest", which seems to only be puring gasoline on the supposed fire you are reporting.

[havocmom]

85. What Bluebear said

OK until bashed the whole site as TOTAL flamefest.

That lost me too.

[baby_mouse]

146. Well.... alright. Perhaps the faintest whiff of hyperbole...

Certainly there's a lot of good stuff going on as well, and I would be rose-tinted spectacle wearer in proposing things were *always* better in the past. But I *have* noticed a change, and for the worse, and it's been particularly bad over the last 6 months or so.

Also, people will flame anything, including a thread about how useless flames are. I can only hope that people address the content rather than reacting to the overtones, but if they can't prevent themselves from leaping in all guns blazing on a thread that's specifically about how pointless that is I'm not going to hold myself responsible for their behaviour. It's hardly comparable to REAL flamebait. In my view, anyway...

It wasn't really my intention to simply bash the site. I hoped that was clear enough...

[karlrschneider]

71. Hey, my acerbic wit mode is better than yours!

:D

It's not as bad as you think, compared to the general population of the great unwashed masses, we only have about
17.8% who are actually morans. :rofl:

Shit, I almost forgot #9: :eyes:

[mmonk]

72. I'm not real sure about this thread so

I thought I would just do a useless post and get my post count up. Is that ok?

[frogcycle]

77. well I must say

I appreciated another chance to admire my future wife

And I think your comments are right on target.

[mmonk]

96. Ha!

So it is ok. Would it be if her picture was not in my sig line?

[Morgana LaFey]

73. You may be right, but

you give it all way too much importance. I stopped reading because it stopped being relevent -- let it go. Don't participate. Do your thing and let others do theirs.

[mzmolly]

74. Thanks for the thought provoking post.

:hi:

[Martin Eden]

78. That was a damn good scolding!

and a much needed one, IMO

[Skittles]

80. if someone's "argument" is f***ing silly and childish, I will trash them

PERIOD

[madfloridian]

82. If I put people on ignore....I would not have known what I was called.

I mean, think about it. Someone this week called me a traitor for pointing out the two camps in the party about how to stand up for things.

If I had them on ignore, I would not have known.

[ChiciB1]

83. Great Post... I Just Started Back Here At DU Because I HAD To Take

a break. What you just said is all that I have been feeling for a long long time!

THANKS... I don't know how much good it will do, BUT THANKS!

[WilliamPitt]

90. Welcome back.

[ChiciB1]

108. Thank You William Pitt! And Thank You For ALL You Do Too...

I recall reading TRUTHOUT as one of my mainstays for a very long time and always looked forward to reading the "REAL NEWS" that so many people in my area simply did not ascribe to.

Living through the nightmare of what has happened to our country AND also living in the County of Cruella, it's been especially difficult watching so much in-fighting here at DU! Some just don't understand how it hurts when we need so badly to rid ourselves of this corruption! We need UNITY now more than ever. Difference of opinion is healthy, but the nastiness seems over the top.

Thanks Again...

[alcibiades_mystery]

84. For the most part, you're right

That said, engaging in some (but not necessarily all) of the behaviors that you listed is fun. People come here for many reasons. You seem to want this place to be a giant information getting-out/conversion engine. That's an admirable goal, and probably the correct goal for a site like this. But it's not the only reason people come here. In my experience, people who engage in diagonal flames (myself included, of course), are not necessarily aiming for your great lurk swarm. They're just playing at argument in a relatively safe space. Is some of it not *really* argument, in some sort of Habermasian sense? Of course. Most, even. But it's still fun, and keeps one engaged in a conversation (or pseudo-conversation, whatever, really) for some time. It's pleasurable. Are there better things to do? Probably. There are also better things to do than watch porn, but that's a multi-billion dollar industry. Pleasure doesn't abide the options of rectitude. There's a reason that Rogerian argumentation (or something like it) played only a minimal part in the history of rhetoric: it's fucking boring. Agon is pleasurable, with language as with bodies. Are there better places to find such pleasure? Sure, as you say. But some people find their comfort zones where they find them, and maybe feel more comfortable flaming away on DU than elsewhere. Eh. Seems as good a place as any.

One final note. I'm usually not one for the turn-around, that old and feeble argumentative trick whereby you demonstrate that your interlocutor is engaging in the very behavior which he or she berates others for. No, not me. But, really, now. You understand that your running metaphor of the high school popularity contest is, strictly speaking, a witty insult aimed at your opponents, and as much a misrepresentation (imagined, even) as that you see in others.

Great post, in other words. But all I really learned was that you have a particular vision of this site that you want to see upheld. Now, now. I'm not accusing you of censorship. I'm arguing, rather, that you're arguing. You have a vision of this site, and you seek to win it by argument. Hooray. I applaud you, just as I applaud the multitude of reasons people use these boards, and uses people put these boards to. At the end of the day, you haven't convinced me that your way is best. I agree with your categorization, but I don't agree with the evaluation. Cheers.

[Senator]

87. Sounds more like exhibition than competition

So, no wagering please.

==

[WilliamPitt]

88. You've described Internet Group Dynamics to the letter.

It's here, but not just here. Put a few anonymous, passionate folks behind keyboards/pseudonyms, and it happens. There is 'net lore about apocalyptic flameouts on forums about knitting, about checkers, about anything. You've described it perfectly.

Great post, thanks...and as I read it, I saw where I've been guilty of that stuff, too. The only thing I can say for myself is that I have been an occasional asshole under my own name.

Like a swat to the head, baby_mouse. Nicely done. K&R.

[cleveramerican]

91. Brutally on target

the tone HAS changed here but I chalked it up to election season.



I don't think you'll find too many to fes up to bad behavior

[Perky]

92. K&R

:) :-) x( :-( :( ;-) ;) :o :D }( ;( :P :9 :* :+ :7 B-) O8) :evilfrown: :evilgrin: :hippie: :party: :toast: :bounce: :mad: :puke: :eyes: :smoke: :think: :crazy: :silly: :wtf: :argh: :freak: :dunce: :hangover: :nopity: :hurts: :boring: :spank: :wow: :beer: :grr: :nuke: :scared: :thumbsdown: :thumbsup: :hi: :dem: :kick: :shrug: :puffpiece: :loveya: :donut: :tinfoilhat: :hug: :grouphug: :cry: :pals: :headbang: :yourock: :banghead: :dilemma: :blush: :rant: :sarcasm: :woohoo: :applause: :hide: :popcorn: :rofl: :spray: :patriot: :yoiks: :bluebox: :redbox: :graybox: :daily: :weekly: :tv: :radio: :web:

:) :-) x( :-( :( ;-) ;) :o :D }( ;( :P :9 :* :+ :7 B-) O8) :evilfrown: :evilgrin: :hippie: :party: :toast: :bounce: :mad: :puke: :eyes: :smoke: :think: :crazy: :silly: :wtf: :argh: :freak: :dunce: :hangover: :nopity: :hurts: :boring: :spank: :wow: :beer: :grr: :nuke: :scared: :thumbsdown: :thumbsup: :hi: :dem: :kick: :shrug: :puffpiece: :loveya: :donut: :tinfoilhat: :hug: :grouphug: :cry: :pals: :headbang: :yourock: :banghead: :dilemma: :blush: :rant: :sarcasm: :woohoo: :applause: :hide: :popcorn: :rofl: :spray: :patriot: :yoiks: :bluebox: :redbox: :graybox: :daily: :weekly: :tv: :radio: :web:

:) :-) x( :-( :( ;-) ;) :o :D }( ;( :P :9 :* :+ :7 B-) O8) :evilfrown: :evilgrin: :hippie: :party: :toast: :bounce: :mad: :puke: :eyes: :smoke: :think: :crazy: :silly: :wtf: :argh: :freak: :dunce: :hangover: :nopity: :hurts: :boring: :spank: :wow: :beer: :grr: :nuke: :scared: :thumbsdown: :thumbsup: :hi: :dem: :kick: :shrug: :puffpiece: :loveya: :donut: :tinfoilhat: :hug: :grouphug: :cry: :pals: :headbang: :yourock: :banghead: :dilemma: :blush: :rant: :sarcasm: :woohoo: :applause: :hide: :popcorn: :rofl: :spray: :patriot: :yoiks: :bluebox: :redbox: :graybox: :daily: :weekly: :tv: :radio: :web:

[Cetacea]

93. Brilliant.

K+R:kick:

I agree with Will Pitt that you've summed up the common dynamics that go about in most Internet Forums. No doubt you have given this much thought. This goes away and beyond Godwins Law and deserves a name and a Wikipedia entry of it's own!
Thank you!

[B Calm]

94. damn, I already voted greatest!

[AtomicKitten]

95. an addition to your wonderful analysis

Using the emoticon in lieu of an actual argument, advising your adversary they are a joke and nobody likes them, sending PMs to anyone in the vicinity berating your adversary and advising they be ignored, or similar activities in the ridicule milieu -- an interactive technique honed in junior high school and brought to DU as an old school genre behavior.

[baby_mouse]

147. THOROUGHLY agreed.

I've been scolded in return for my on acerbicness (acerbicity?) so I won't over-emote about this kind of thing. Let us say, simply, that *I* don't find it impressive at all.

[JNelson6563]

97. Ever since the 04 primaries

there have been a lot more turds in this swimming pool.

I think your OP is spot on.

Julie

[ScreamingMeemie]

99. Well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1081874

[salin]

102. sorta view it as a 'more of the same, just louder'

per the growth of the size of the forum.

This post - save the "great swarm lurk" (which I am not quite sure about) could have been written periodic times going back at least to 2002 (when I started posting.) Your thread sorta underscores that point.

[gratefultobelib]

120. Thanks for pointing me to your thread! I read it all--we are so lucky to have this place!

[cgrindley]

100. Smileys are the greatest evil

perhaps on a planetary scale. Nothing says "I'm damn dumb" like a smiley.

[Bluebear]

103. Oh, no, there are dumber things than a smiley displayed here. nt

[Patiod]

106. Really?

:shrug:

/the shrug smiley is my special nemesis - nothing like a :shrug: as someone's entire argument against what you've just said

[Virginia Dare]

111. Almost as dumb as replying "who cares" to somebody's thread..n/t

[cgrindley]

112. No, way more dumb

Smilies are the moral equivalent of holding up your hand and proudly exclaiming that although a thread is a ridiculous waste of valuable ascii codes, you're totally willing to lower the tone of the discussion even further by laying an irritating little graphic turd on the internet.

But perhaps not quite as dumb as only reading a post's subject line.

[autorank]

101. Points 4 and 6 are so right I can't believe it.

Finally, someone calls this type of behavior for what it is...rude and offensives.

I find the tag team diagonal movement by buddies hostile to one's cause the most pathetic.

Anyone who has been around knows what's up...but there's a mission to accomplish, disruption.

(Ever notice people complain about "different fonts"...oh lord; or lots of this crap :sigh:
I feel like saying, "WTF are you sighing about, you're seated, at home. Relax"

You're terrific for posting this.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

104. Culpable at times.

Glad you decided to post. Well written and poignant.

[distantearlywarning]

105. Completely agree. K&R.

And thanks for posting this.

[ourvoicescount]

107. Too early before coffee yet... but I see your point.

[IronLionZion]

110. So how are things in Scotland?

I've never been but always wanted to visit. I hear Edinburgh is a fine town.

Anyway, I hate to say exactly what you said in your point 13. But come on bro! Have you been to other discussion boards? This happens on any and every online forum. The way people behave online is very different from how they behave when face to face with someone in real life, and that doesn't absolve anyone of anything. It's still going to happen anyway.

I recently was gently but firmly persuaded to leave another online community after meeting a member in real life. She pointed out how I was getting way too involved in the forum, spending way too much time online, and how I am radically different in real life. I'm actually very sweet and lovable like a pussycat in real life, but online I'm very authoritarian and dare I say "ferocious" like an Iron Lion of Zion. It's bullshit. She likes the real me, and loathes my online personality.

Now as you know, you have little if any control over anyone else here. But you have plenty of control over yourself (hopefully) as I have control over myself. Gandhi said "Be the change you want to see in the world." If you want civility, then YOU be civil. Let the other guy worry about himself. And there's no shame in logging off and taking a walk down to the library to read for a bit. That's the cool thing about the Internet. You can start, join, or leave a discussion any time you want.

Trying to change other people is the cause of just about every conflict throughout history. Change comes from within and if you like to preach, then preach on brother, just try to practice what you preach. No matter what happens, your post didn't cost you anything. But if even one person changes their behavior for the better (even if it's you), then you have made a difference.

Cheers mate,
ILZ

[Casablanca]

122. "If you want civility, then YOU be civil."

But isn't civility only for the weak and uncool? I'm pretty sure some bully back in junior high told me this in confidence, that it's something you grow out of once you've "learned the ropes". Then it becomes a useful pretense to inflict on the naive.

"Trying to change other people is the cause of just about every conflict throughout history."

Didn't Jesus try to do that too? Maybe we can blame the burning of Jerusalem on him! And that meddling Mr. Gandhi also.

"Let the other guy worry about himself."

I think he's worried more about getting an edge over you, and your navelgazing is only helping him.

"I'm actually very sweet and lovable like a pussycat in real life ..."

Me, I'm just as sanctimonious and righteous in person as online. :eyes:

[IronLionZion]

139. Change comes from within

You have to want it.

Thank you for the eyeroll.

Can we settle this over a pint of digital beer? Next time you come to Minneapolis we can have a real one and we'll see how sanctimonious and righteous you really are.
:toast:

This is getting diagonal. Aren't we cool?

[Casablanca]

144. Feeling diagonal.

"Thank you for the eyeroll."

My pleasure. They do get quite a workout here in WA State (of Sanctimony).

"You have to want it."

Sounds vaguely like a Geddy Lee song about trains I heard somewhere.

"Aren't we cool?"

To paraphrase one of my mentors, "We're fucking cool." ;)

[leeroysphitz]

114. No offense to you Baby_Mouse but I always wonder at people

who join an internet chat room and then get angry when people act like people always act on internet chat rooms.

I know you addressed my point in the OP and think we can do better but as a long time Usenet user I've never seen any evidence that internet chat rooms have ever functioned any other way.

Which is not to say that anything you mentioned in your post is in any way inaccurate.

It's like the old proverb that ends with "Hey you knew I was a snake..."

[baby_mouse]

148. Well you're right, BUT....

Shouldn't there be some way of dealing with things when they actually get WORSE?

I think DU is one of the most important sites on the Internet. I think it matters. I think the mods do an excellent job and I know that the ignore feature is your friend, I just think that the individuals posting have some responsibility to each other as well. I wondered if simply pointing out that this was possible would effect any change...

It certainly seems to have got a lot of attention.

[planetc]

117. I *believe* I just recommended my first post

I am a near-lurker, and besides saying thanks to baby_mouse for a comprehensive and civil survey of what's the matter with the internet, I want to respond to a couple of points made by the original poster and others who have joined the discussion.

First, I agree that the syndrome described in the original post is visible in every board and email list I've ever been on. The squeaky wheels get the grease, even if they have to slather each other. The tone of debate slides down hill and at the bottom, there's a great scrum of thrashing bodies, with smaller, weaker combatants crawling out of the scrum and sneaking into the woods. It's a shame, a real shame.

And those who justify their aggression by saying that "everybody does it" are factually wrong, because everybody doesn't, and they're making an argument that many of us outgrew some time ago. Because someone else did it, even a whole lot of someones, doesn't make it a good, or productive, or sensible, or kind, or right thing to do. The internet has such potential to unite us, to inform us, to delight and comfort us, that it is, as baby_mouse puts it, "an appalling waste of bandwidth and an appalling waste of thought, time and energy" to abuse it. I second that!

And to those who talk as though this phenomenon were an immutable force or natural law, I say: Bullfeathers! It was once socially acceptable to believe that the Bible justified slavery; more recently, it was socially acceptable to smoke cigarettes. Indoors. Society can change its basic beliefs and behavior. This remolding of opinion is going on all the time. For instance, in my lifetime, the word "liberal" has gone from being a compliment to carrying automatic connotations of extremism, insanity, political stupidity, moral relativism or amorality, and plain silliness. I believe we Democrats, democrats, and liberals have enough real enemies to worry about without gnawing on each other.

And so, let us return to the immortal and glorious fray: the effort to make some sense of the world, with and for the benefit of our friends and allies. Let us do all the good we can, as well as we can, and let us all look forward with longing to the day the WaPo reports the arrest of Karl Rove, if not an actual frog march.

[Bluebear]

123. 3 years & this is your first rec? You're a real generous one!

;)

[AikidoSoul]

135. O.K. planetc -- your job is to post more often to add to the good energy

of boards such as DU. I encourage you to do it even if you feel as if you are all alone in putting out that good energy.

Even if you don't get a reply... it doesn't mean that nobody "heard" you.

Welcome to DU!

[planetc]

138. happy to try

I'll try to post more often. I even started a journal because I was so confident the instructions on how to do it would be clear. And they WERE! And I don't feel alone, but I do feel part of a minority. That's what this thread is about, and it's trying to tell us something. Are we listening?

[redqueen]

118. Hah.

Nicely said!

:thumbsup:

[hunter]

119. I'm certain I'm a terrible offender, if not just plain offensive.

Oh well. I always try to maintain the tone of the thing I'm replying too, but honestly there are many sorts of ignorance that should not be tolerated, or responded to with lame non-inflammatory replies. For example homophobia and racism infect much of the commentary here. It's still remarkable to me that so many in this supposedly liberal and progressive community don't recognize for what it is.

[Duncan Grant]

132. I'm with you, hunter.

From my perspective, threads which address GLBT issues attract the most noxious practitioners of the offenses mentioned in the OP. And I have the links bookmarked to prove it.

[leftofthedial]

134. agreed

the bigotry displayed regularly here is disgusting

[MsUnderstood]

124. You are such a baby, mouse!

(oh that made me laugh outloud in my office cave)

Thank you so much. I think this should be required reading somwhere between "Tell me your user name" and "Do you agree to abide by this website".

Lets be honest. The web (not just this site but all the internets) is getting older and we are wiser now. We know we are anonymous users and we know we can act like asshats.

But at some point, can't we just agree that we aren't going to be insulting, degrading, name calling buffons who are more insterested in being right than being re-educated?

And yes, I'll gladly admit to applying at least 3 of the 15 commandments described above...but I do appreciate the friendly reminder that I can be friendly.

[MrPrax]

126. Adopt an authoritarian tone?

You mean like taking a bunch of redundant points, slapping numbers on them and calling it 'rules'?

Your version of censorship:

12. If someone says something that you can't counter reasonably because you aren't smart enough or you don't know what they're talking about or you just don't care, they're CENSORING YOUR OPINION. (They aren't, of course. Only governments can censor anything, censorship is an authoritarian procedure in which information is *legally* prevented from being distributed by legal systems, i.e., at the bottom line, the police, but this doesn't matter, if you accuse some who has absolutely no power whatsoever to prevent you from posting exactly the same stuff 500 times of censoring you by disagreeing with it, one or two dim people will probably believe you and get angry, thus increasing the rage. Basically, all you have to do is make your opponent *look* bad, it doesn't matter if your accusations make any sense).

Another definition of censorship:

Censorship is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist. The withholding of official secrets, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication is not usually described as censorship when it remains within reasonable bounds. Because of this, the term "censorship" often carries with it a sense of untoward, inappropriate or repressive secrecy.

Censorship - wiki

Oh and "posting exactly the same stuff 500 times" is called spam and is not allowed. If I can use my telepathy, :eyes:, I THINK you meant the same 'opinion' 500 times, which is allowed. I know it is unfortunate that people don't use the information and the exchange of ideas the internet presents, but you know, in spite of hundreds and hundreds of OPs decrying FOX news censorship at this forum, some people still seem to think it is only government that can censor. :eyes:

If only people could expand their definitions beyond grade school civics, then perhaps discussion could be a bit more rewarding for those that have expanded their definitions beyond grade school. (Yeah I am being definitely arrogant and snobby)

-- 1 and 10 are basically the same

-- "6. Deliberate misinterpretation..."? How do you know it was deliberate? Is more of that telepathy you speak of from 9?

-- How do you know it's competition? Could you provide even a scintilla of proof that there is a competition other than what you think is a competition?

-- Could you provide some proof that 'lurkers' are attracted by 'anger' and not a healthy debate -- proof? Here's a the wiki listing of 'lurkers' -- which type are you talking about? Is this another 'group' you don't really like and so you put them all in the same category and ascribe the worst motives to?

-- How is 11 a faux pas? Others, including the person being responded to might think it helpful to be corrected. Again when one actually takes the time to read some of these points a really negative view of the public emerges. Again this is something you think but never provide any proof?

-- You speak of fan clubs? Where are they and how do you know this? Is this something you deduce from the 'views' column? Views column does include the 'hits' of posters themselves, so if a thread has a few active posters, each time they check back to view how the thread is progressing, then those become views. I wouldn't deduce that a thread was widely viewed simply because there are a lot of hits. Nor would I necessary see the 'views' column as a indication of lurking. It might be an indication of popularity and a 'good thread'.

-- Is it negativity or is it designed that way? If someone posts a OP and I agree with it, there is mechanism called the recommendation button. I can voice approval by hitting it. Then I can punch the thread UP by simply typing K&R.

Since there is no 'kill and bury' button, people who might legitimately disagree must voice their disagreement. In some cases this leads to a person wrongly thinking that the thread is perhaps too negative or critical simply because there is no 'positive' replies -- well a lot of those people hit the recommend and have moved on.

-- What are loser threads again?
The concept is new to me -- some OP might be simply informational or simply someone's opinion. The lack of replies isn't an indication that it's a loser thread, but then again you are simply using the 'public' as a strawman by ascribing all this views to 'some' unnamed people who you think figure it's a loser thread.
Who are they?
Are they in such great number here that you decide to point them out? Is the lack of posts in a thread an indication of 'lack of courage' or believing that no one wants to be 'seen/thought of?! as a "sad wallflower, geeky, bespectacled, scrawny LOSER kids" or is it simply a matter where the OP is really not very interesting and doesn't inspire anyone.
There are many difference reasons why one of thousands of posts that might be very good but nonetheless don't have replies. The time of the day they were posted is also one factor. Redundancy? Triteness? Complexity of subject matter? But you want to think it is because everyone is worried about what everyone else thinks? You might be right -- but you don't provide any examples.

--BIG ANGRY THREADS are the entire point of DU. You want to be famous, don't you?

How do you become famous here? I am hazarding a guess that consistently participating and posting BIG ANGRY THREADS will probably get you as many detractors as 'fans' -- but you don't like to look at the alternative of your arguments.

There are some people here that might rightfully be famous and have a following -- but it isn't necessarily because they act like assholes -- it's because they have done some solid research and people look forward to reading their posts. Again you don't acknowledge that part of 'fan clubs'

I definitely know you think that way as you seem to worry an awful lot about what is going on in the heads of other people -- but I am not sure that everyone else approaches this forum/opinion/research/life strictly this way.

I know I don't.

If I see a flaming thread with a 200 replies in GD with the words 'Hillary' and 'JFK' in subject line, I *know* it's a waste of load time and it is usually the smaller ones that have more usable 'stuff'. IMHO. Will folks lurk -- probably, if only to find out who are the Hill supporters and who aren't.

You really don't seem to have much of an opinion of the public, do you?


(Oh you missed point 16 -- OPs that use cheap rhetorical tricks like implying that criticism of the posters' point of view can be then viewed as a vindication of poster's point of view?)

[Stu DeBeouf]

129. Yawn....

You do nothing but reinforce the points made in the OP.

[Terran]

127. Good post. This is exactly why

I no longer post at DU (oops) after being a 'long-time' member (since August 2001). I am part of the great Lurk Swarm now. Although it should be said that this is why a lot of lurkers lurk--they can't be bothered to be a part of this ridiculous competition.

[Stu DeBeouf]

131. How dare you...

you must be a freeper....:sarcasm:

[jgraz]

133. The really sad part about this is

EVERYONE reading your post thinks you're talking about someone else.

[Buns_of_Fire]

136. Group hug time!

:grouphug:

Me, I've always tried to be true to myself. In other words, I'm just as much a smarmy, smartass jerk in real life as I am here...

(And I absolutely HATE people who end their pronouncements with an ellipsis...)

(...and then have the nerve to place their parenthetical comments within parentheses...)

[benEzra]

137. Well said. (n/t)