Nothing gets my blood bloiling more than calling someone "batshit crazy" or "mentally retarded" or anything along those line. It doesn't matter how "insane" a post is. Everyone has their own definition of "crazy". Suggesting mental incompetence of any kind is not an argument, it's a childish JUDGMENT. We left that shit at the Kingdom Hall, and the schoolyard!
How (not) to destroy a thread and turn it into a battleground
by Terry 78 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Angharad
Calling "witness apologists" idiots and eggheads and all manner of insults does nothing to forward the discussion, except to satisfy some urge to beat up on some (hopefully) sincere poster that the group doesn't agree with. Debate ideas. Don't attack posters. Such behaviour is what almost prevented me from joining this board in the first place.
I completely agree, people should not be so quick to throw around the "troll" label. Just because you disagree with what someone is saying does not make them a troll. There seems to be a few people that make it their mission to sniff out apologists and then hound them off the board - weren't many of us apologists at some point?
-
sabastious
2.Failure to DEFINE our TERMS leads to misunderstanding. We may be fighting over a misunderstanding if we don't clearly DEFINE.
9.Learn to IGNORE trouble-makers by NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THEM. Trouble-makers crave a fight. It puts them on center stage. Ignoring them
It takes a few replies to figure this out sometimes. "Trouble-maker" needs defining
-Sab
-
sabastious
Nothing gets my blood bloiling more than calling someone "batshit crazy" or "mentally retarded" or anything along those line. It doesn't matter how "insane" a post is. Everyone has their own definition of "crazy". Suggesting mental incompetence of any kind is not an argument, it's a childish JUDGMENT. We left that shit at the Kingdom Hall, and the schoolyard!
There are batsh*t crazy posts here, quite often actually. It should be said that if anyone posts their ideas here they should be ready to be ridiculed. When I started posting here I was "put off" by the level of opposition to some of my posts. I now understand that some people are simply more aggressive than others and if you keep the aggression down on your end the aggressor almost always calms down and good convesation ensues.
-Sab
-
wobble
Trouble makers are easy to identify, they go against Terry's advice in the O.P in two or three ways in one post usually, and then when they are losing the argument they resort to Ad Hominem attacks.
Apologists are welcome here, as long as they stick to the rules of debate, so often they will not reply to a valid point or question, drop out of the thread for a bit, then come back with another thing they have "thought" of, hoping everyone forgets their inability to answer before.
At that point they cease to be an Apologist and become a troll.
I certainly agree we need to keep the tone of debate here as high as possible, and that means showing respect for people, even if we disagree with their views quite strongly.
Other forums have degenerated to the point where they are of no value to the JW who wishes to find his or her way, we do not want that to happen here.
This is not a light matter, as I have posted before, when I was first exiting, I was suffering from a form of depression that made me contemplate suicide, the good people on this site pulled me through that, if I had found the site too difficult to be part of , I may not have been around to write this today.
-
sabastious
Trouble makers are easy to identify, they go against Terry's advice in the O.P in two or three ways in one post usually, and then when they are losing the argument they resort to Ad Hominem attacks.
Not everyone is versed in the rules of debate. If we simply ignore these people how will they learn the ropes? Sometimes someone needs a slap in the face, are we to damn the people that do what has to be done?
-Sab
-
AGuest
Greetings, dear Terry, and peace to you! I would like to comment, if you will indulge me. Also, since your OP isn't all that brief, I would like to take the liberty to respond in my usual verbose manner as I think this particular subject warrants it. Thank you!
You ask:
What destroys civil discourse?
I have found, in my short 51.5 years, that one thing does this: contempt. For the other person/side, his/her/their beliefs, and/or his/her/their viewpoints. There really is nothing else. It undermines respect from the start so that the other is never really heard. Whatever it is they have to say on a matter is considered inferior and unworthy and so civil discourse cannot occur.
How can we moderate ourselves like adults and respect each other?
By acting like adults (i.e., exercising self-control)... and respecting each other (i.e., speaking to/treating others as you wish to be spoken to/treated). Regardless of what we/they believe and/or whether we agree or disagree.
Baiting others with insulting or provocative Topic Headers leads to fights.
They shouldn't... you're emotionally mature. If you're not adult enough to pass over a topic that provokes you to want to fight, then you most probably shouldn't be here. No one can make you fight (on an Internet board, no less!) - you choose to. You don't have to choose to, however.
Democrat vs Republican. Tea Party vs Socialism. Atheist vs Believer, etc.
Yes, all of these subjects are provocative in and of themselves. And how they are presented can increase provocation. But if you can't CHOOSE to refrain from throwing dirt, then you're not much of an adult, are you, at least emotionally? And if you believe that you are entitled to throw dirt because someone else did... well, all I can say is you really need to example your perception of what "adult" is (well, what it's supposed to be, because a whole lot of adults ARE emotionally immature, as well as lack a whole lot of self-control in this light).
2. Failure to DEFINE our TERMS leads to misunderstanding. We may be fighting over a misunderstanding if we don't clearly DEFINE.
This is true, but since we ARE adults (?), we can also ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions if need be, yes? We can also endeavor to give one another the benefit of the doubt... that no one is TRYING to be vague/ambiguous. So, I think this particular "knife" cuts both ways: some may need to better define terms... some may need to ask for more information so as to have better understanding. Oh, and part of being "adult" is openly admitting that you DON'T understand something. There is no crime in stating, "I don't know what you mean. Can you explain?"
3.Take ONE point at a time before moving on to a hundred other things.
Which is why I post as I do... but that seems to irritate some. I don't mind that they're irritated, though, as my method speaks virtually to each question/statement made. So I choose to stick with that, in spite of the (unfounded) irritation it may cause some.
4.Cut and paste should never replace YOUR OWN IDEAS. Small references or quotations support better if the are BRIEF.
You're asking for the moon here, dear one. Some don't HAVE any ideas of their own. Many were so indoctrinated into the WTBTS way of learning that they can only "parrot" what they think they believe, think are their own ideas. But they don't know how to articulate what they think they think. Unfortunately, this sometimes results in their posts being minutely skimmed or overlooked altogether. But I don't think it's... ummmm... fair... to ask people who have difficulty articulating to refrain. I understand that, for some, it's a form of spamming. But such ones can always be ignored. But for those who truly cannot articulate their own thoughts I say let them post their cuts-and-pastes... and then the "adult" among us can simply choose whether to read and/or respond to what was posted. It is their "style", dear one... and in many cases the best THEY can do. Don't frown on someone else for doing the best THEY can.
5.DENSE long-winded paragraphs of text will NOT BE READ. If nobody reads your text why post it?
You know, I'm not sure I agree with this statement as I, for one, often post very dense, long-winded paragraphs. I try to do it in vernacular that makes it easy (and interesting) to read but... it is MY style. And, apparently, SOME do read it. Again, why take issue with another's style? Because it differs from yours? I think the answer to this matter lies in the answer to your first statement: contempt. YOU don't like it... so it MUST be wrong and should not occur. Personally, I don't think that kind of thinking is very "adult." But that's just me.
6.Disagree by saying why something is incorrect and support the "why" with specific examples. Who cares if you don't agree if no reasoned response provides an alternative?
Ummmmm... you're making that statement? Heck, half the folks here do this. Look, Terry: you and some others have GOT to stop assuming... and requiring... that folks here are greatly educated. You KNOW that isn't the case. Most of us are just everyday, run of the mill folks, who spent some kind of time in or connected to someone in the WTBTS. You KNOW education was not a priority there... so why in the WORLD demand it here? You folks have GOT to stop trying to turn this into a psuedo-intellectual website dedicated solely to debating the existence of God - that really isn't what it is. Create another site for that (or "room") and link it, if you need to. But the lion's share of newbies are NOT going to fit the "intellectual" mold YOU seem to want them to. Some are still going to have some kind of spiritual "need"... which doesn't require so much "high" thinking... and until you understand that... and start there... you're going to have the "problems" you seem to be having.
In that light, your contempt for their lack of critical thinking (and critical thinking skills) is... well, almost reprehensible, IMHO. Because you KNOW where they come from, where they've been... and what their experience has been. Yet, you utterly dismiss it because of your... impatience... and intolerance... for those you believe to be inferior to you, intellectually. Isn't that a bit hateful? Most didn't get it overnight. Many made the same asinine arguments for the WTBTS at one time. I did. How, then, can any of us expect more from them than we were able to give at one time?
Your comments here, though, indicate you think them stupid (vs. misled/misinformed)... and because of that have contempt for them. Again, this is the underlying problem of why people "contend" here as they do. THEY are taught and conditioned to fight... and it takes some time to throw that kind of conduct off. Those who claim a higher intellect, however, should use that "intellect" to restrain from fighting.
The truth, however, is that "adult" conduct has absolutely nothing with education or intellect. It has to do with regard for others... no matter what you think or feel about them, or how you view them. Immature, childish conduct is not limited to any class, dear one.
7.Facts are better than mere opinions. Source your facts.
Again, you are overlooking who comes here and how they've been taught to make their case. WHY??
8.Ask yourself what you are trying to persuade others to accept. Being clear about your call to action makes you more effective.
Now, you're trying to turn this from a social exJW site to a university class on critical thinking and writing. Again, WHY?? If that is what Simon wants, why isn't that in a disclaimer and part of the site rules? HE doesn't care, obviously (because he apparently knows how to choose which threads to start and/or even bother with). If you want a site that teaches exJWs critical thinking and writing... or how to debate and argue according to "standard" methods... why not start such a site yourself? I cannot imagine that it wouldn't be successful and possibly quite quickly.
But most of those who come here don't come equipped with what you're requiring. I certainly didn't. And as a result, most probably leave pretty quickly, too. Because NO ONE wants to feel inferior by someone else's indication that they are. I mean, isn't that what they're trying to leave? If they "go there" on their own, because of something posted that was not intended to offend, that's on them; they need to examine why they allow what others say to make them feel "bad." But if the INTENT is to make them feel bad... well, most of them probably will.
9.Learn to IGNORE trouble-makers by NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THEM. Trouble-makers crave a fight. It puts them on center stage. Ignoring them shuts them out in the dark with their poison all to themselves.
This is good advice, when warranted; however, I think caution should be used here because of the human tendency to form cliques and take sides. Who's to say who is a "trouble-maker"? If someone offends one, they risk offending all those who "like" that one, as well. I think folks should take care to make this an individual... personal... and discreet decision. Because openly labeling folks as "troublemakers" smacks of the WTBTS' practice of "marking." I don't think moderators should do it (and I absolutely commend Simon, et al., for trying to "quietly" handle ones who show themselves to be troublemakers)... because it smacks of "elder" conduct. I mean, if we truly ARE adults, we don't need others to tell us who to pay attention to and who to ignore, do we? It should be obvious. It would be, to those who are truly EMOTIONALLY adult.
10.Be quick to apologize if you offend. If you are in an emotional state of mind, cool off before you post.
Yes. Always. As to both. I have learned, however, that there are people who simply do not... cannot... apologize. Indeed, some have been taught to "never" apologize. I had a supervisor once who would say to me, "Don't apologize!" Even though I maybe screwed up on something (numbers in a budget, etc.). I didn't "get" this - I made an error and so I apologized for it. But he was adamant - one NEVER apologizes... for anything. Of course, his relationships (both personal and professional) suffered.
Also, cooling off before posting can not only remove the need to apologize later... but also the ugly embarrassment and chagrin one might experience when what they posted is called to their attention... publicly and by many. Or if they happen to have a moment of clarity and go back and read. Nothing like feeling like you wanna crawl under a rock, you know?
So, dear Terry... that was my $0.02 worth. Okay, $2.00 worth, whatever. But I appreciate the opportunity you created for me to give it. I often marvel at how some here "speak" to others... and, again, the contempt is palpable on many occasions. I don't get that, given what most of us experienced... or know others experienced... due to their connection to the WTBTS. Absolutely doesn't make sense to me.
Anyway, peace to you and, again, thank you for the opportunity!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
badseed
Good points. Too bad that the posters who need to read this probably won't. I dislike when someone calls a new member with only a few posts a troll. Totally unacceptable. The person making the statement should have his account restricted to a few posts a day. It's not good for business. It's like if I owned a restaurant and had a regular customer hanging out telling new customers who walk in how bad the food is. I'd tell him to shut up or take his business elsewhere. No need for people who drive business away.
-
AGuest
Apologists are welcome here, as long as they stick to the rules of debate,
Is that stated in the rules, dear Wobble (peace to you!)? If they are, shouldn't the "rules of debate" also be stated there? If not, how in the world do you propose to hold folks to a rule that does not exist? And isn't it the posted rules that define who is "welcome" here? I mean, I get that some here might not welcome others... for whatever reason(s)... but that's personal, isn't it... and not indicative of who is/is not welcome on the board entirely?
Dear ones, this board has been around for a long time and done quite well. Not for all, true, but I think that if those who are trying to change it to become a more... ummmmmm... "elevated" place for exJWs to meet and discuss topics... they're in for a rude awakening.
Perhaps changing the board is not what's needed, though. Perhaps what could happen is that the thread title must indicate (by special icon or wording/initials) that traditional debate is expected (with a link to the "rules") and non-traditional debaters will be asked to leave/removed. Then, those who wish to debate... in the traditional style... can start a thread that literally requires such conduct. Contrastly, those who want to post what they wish, how they wish (i.e., without adhering to the traditional rules of debate), can do so in a thread that doesn't have such subrules. Should either deviate, they could be given warning and/or asked to leave by a Moderator (and if they refuse, have their account temporarily locked).
Thus, those who do not wish (or know how) to debate in the traditional manner can be free to post as they wish (but can look in on traditional debating to learn, if they wish to), and those who do wish to so debate [traditionally] can be restricted from making desparaing comments in a non-traditional debate thread.
How's that? Make sense? I think it's a fair compromise.
Otherwise, given the different personalities... and expectations... here, I can't see how there will truly be an end to the differences over "debating."
Peace, to all!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
jay88
Shhh,........do you hear it? Yes, applause!!! ....I had to pat myself on the back. I got threw just about all of Shelly's Manuscript,...jk
jay,