SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen
    Mail

  • July 2022
    S M T W T F S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘Internet Ettiquette’

How to Make Enemies and Irritate People

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 25, 2007


As much as I enjoy debates in Care2, I have noticed that certain people tend to engage in tactics that cause the debates to degenerate into slugfests instead of allowing them to end on a civil note. Here are some examples of what they do: 1. Lie constantly. It does not matter if what you say has no basis in fact whatsoever. As long as you can make a counter to any statement of fact or logical argument that someone makes, you will appear to be on an equal level with your opponent.
2. Never bother to provide a basis for your assertions by linking to a credible source of information or providing a reference regarding a matter that is not common knowledge. Of course, if you are already doing No. 1, then No. 2 comes naturally.
3. Engage in the practice of what I call “parroting and nitpicking” constantly: Making an exact copy of your opponent’s arguments and answering them point by point exactly instead of stating a new point of your own to move the debate forward. This has two effects: It makes you appear equal to your opponent, no matter how dumb your statements turn out to be, and it encourages your opponent to respond to you in the same way, taking the debate into an endless circle.
4. When you are accused of lying, just call your opponent a liar as well.
5. Engage in frequent sarcastic insults to annoy your opponent.
6. When your opponent complains that your tactics are unfair or dishonorable, accuse him of not really wanting a debate.
7. If you know your opponent has a short temper, wait until his patience has run out and he has gotten angry and then take advantage of the situation to torture your opponent still more!
8. Never admit you are wrong about anything. Always accuse your opponents of not thinking or of being stupid, brainwashed, ignorant, mindless, etc.
9. Use religion as a excuse to justify your extreme position. If your opponent is not of the same religion, use that fact against him.
10. Keep the debate going as long as possible until your opponent gives up in frustration, allowing you to claim “victory” later.
11. Last. but not least, CREATE NEW PROFILES TO INFILTRATE AND THEN DISRUPT GROUPS YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY BLOCKED FROM, THUS VIOLATING THE GROUP OWNER’S PROPERTY RIGHTS!

If you use these tactics repeatedly, you may appear very successful in debates. But you will also gain the contempt of most people who have a sense of honor and ethics. And that contempt for you personally may also lead to a rejection of your position as well, even if the position has some truth in it.”

Orignally authored and posted here by Dale Husband

My comment to this Blog:

“May I add: Play Tag, i.e have a couple of friends in the wings who can pick up the relay stick when you have been beaten to a pulp by the opponents, ideally you would have them start the argument all over or bring up irrelevant, off topic points, such as the looks of your opponent, his ideas about dogs, or a complete distortion of his points/arguments.”

Ketutar’s Comment on the same Blog:

“Point 9. should be “ideology” instead of “religion”. Political ideologies are used the exact same way.Also, I’d like to add the “change subject” point. When you have nothing to say, when the opponent has proven your points faulty or lacking, when it’s obvious that your opponent is correct, winning etc. change subject.

Also, use of support – gather your friends around to give you more “credibility”. “Betty here understands exactly what I’m saying, why can’t you?” Friends can also be used to confirm your ideas, and it doesn’t matter if the ideas are relevant or not to the Issue. “Yes, Tim, it IS raining. YOU are absolutely correct!”, or as distraction – have a couple of friends flood the thread with kittens and irrelevant discussions.

If the opponent isn’t distracted, accuse her of being persistent like a pit bull… (Or “Coming back to the main topic in a psychotic manner”)

Balthasar Gracian said that if one cannot get rid of one’s vices, one needs to turn them into virtues – and one strategy is – if you cannot diminish the opponent’s virtues, turn them into vices…”

Shalom!

Posted in Debate, Freedom of Speech, Human Rights | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Treat on-line Communities like Real Life ones…

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 15, 2006


I wrote this in an on-line Discussion Group I am in:

“I joined shortly after this Group was formed – I joined this Group specifically because the Owner promised a strict enforcement of the Code of Conduct. I like the Code of Conduct. I believe it should be enforced in all groups. Sadly it’s not, and sadly many people seem to take a perverse pleasure in violating the Code of Conduct on every occasion they get.I hadn’t been here for more than little over an hour before I saw members who were clearly here with the intent of disrupting, insulting and generally make a stink, especially towards the alleged Host and Owner. Something the Code of Conduct is very clear about:

“1 Respect and courtesy – All Care2 Members are entitled to express their views and beliefs in a safe environment without feeling attacked. Members may not infringe on the rights of any other person to express themselves in a safe environment. This policy includes:i. Any harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or otherwise objectionable posts.
ii. Any posts which are invasive of another’s privacy.
iii. Name calling or otherwise attacking the person posting rather than the content of the post. Disagreement is encouraged, but you should only comment on the argument or position taken, never against the person posting their opinion or belief.
iv. Any racial or ethnic slurs or insults relating to the mental, physical or intellectual qualities of any member.”

I later saw those same members, after they had been blocked from here, claim that they were blocked because of their political views.

Interesting, because not one single post they made had any political content or were made in a thread with a political Topic. It was clear that they were blocked because of their BEHAVIOUR.

I don’t know what it is that makes adult people think that just because we are on the Internet all social rules and codes have been suspended.

We do not accept that people follow us around, ridiculing, belittling or otherwise try to poke at us in real life – then why should this kind of behaviour be acceptable and as it seems, in some Groups of people even applauded, on the Internet?

We do not accept people joining discussions in real life yelling at the top of their lungs or constantly interrupt the discussion with comments and behaviour that has nothing to do with the Topic of the discussion or name calling and insults – so why should it be acceptable in discussion groups on the Internet?

We do not accept people being violent and abusive towards others in real life, then how come we accept this behaviour in discussion Groups on the Internet?

In fact, if someone came to a real-life discussion Group and behaved like that, the Co-ordinator/Facilitator would be expected to ask that person to leave, and if he or she refused, to call security to have him or her forcibly removed – and that person would be charged by law with at least “disturbing the peace” or “harassment” – yet when Hosts do exatly the same in discussion Groups on the Internet they are labelled dictators, abusive, cowards, hypocrites, biased etc.

The Code of Conduct is there to ensure that this place is a safe place for people to discuss and debate issues that interest them – and whether we like it or not, the Hosts are here to make sure the Code of Conduct is enforced.

We all have pretty good ideas of what the Code of Conduct means by what it says in the above quote, so claiming that the Code of Conduct is ‘open for interpretation’ is a load of horse manure – different Hosts have different bottom-lines and some have more patience with disruptors and bullies than others, that is true – but when they enforce the Code of Conduct they do it from pretty much the same basic understanding of what Paragraph 1, section I-IV of the Code of Conduct means.”

Some people, apart from taking great pleasure in tormenting others on-line, they also like to claim that they do so because of Freedom of Speech.

That is really interesting – when did treating others like crap become a right protected by Freedom of Speech.? It is also interresting that the same people that treat others like crap and whine about being denied their Right to Free Speech, frequently ask the Hosts and Facilitators to take action when they are treated the same way they treat others.

As a matter of fact I have only met ONE person on-line of this caliber, who does not run screaming to the Hosts of Groups when he is treated as badly as he treats others. I don’t like him, I don’t agree with him, because it seems that he does not acknowledge the existence of verbal and emotional violence – but I RESPECT him, because he takes what he dishes out without blinking.

But back to the matter of Free Speech – yes, we are ‘allowed’ to be verbally abusive towards others, but if we are we are also allowed to take the consequences of such behaviour – and as long as there are ‘documents’ such as the Code of Conduct in place, this means that we either end up being banned from Groups where we violate the Code of Conduct or from entire Fora.

“For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.” It might be a good thing to keep this in mind BEFORE we decide to treat others inappropriately.

Shalom!

Posted in Bigotry, Debate, Israel | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: