How to disagree without personally attacking other babblers
Probably many of us have either taken formal training, or read self-help articles or books, or simply learned through life experience, about interpersonal skills and conflict resolution. I know I have! And yet, this medium, of posting on a discussion forum with people that many of us haven't met in person, sometimes encourages us to ignore or abandon our usual practices and go at the faceless screen names, even though we have gotten to know each other very well.
Sometimes I think we're like a family of siblings - we get to know each other's online personalities so well that we know exactly what buttons to push and exactly where to slide the knife in, and any boundaries that we would normally not cross when talking to other people in our lives disappear, or get pushed way back.
So...I wonder if we can discuss ways we've learned of dealing with conflict without personally attacking the person we're dealing with.
A note: it would be great if we could not drag fights from other threads into this one. Perhaps the first rule of this thread should be: no using negative examples of OTHER people's behaviour - if we must use a negative example, we use a negative example of our OWN behaviour.
Can we do it? Let's see. :)
I'll start. They're oldies but goodies - "I" and "me" statements, and labelling behaviour instead of people.
So, if I get really upset because someone has posted something I consider sexist, instead of saying, "You're so sexist!" or "You're a sexist fuckwad!" I could instead say, "It really upsets me / makes me angry when you say that because it sounds sexist to me. The reason I think it's a sexist thing to say is because xyz."
That way, I am not labeling someone ("You are sexist!") but instead naming my own feelings ("I'm angry"), giving my opinion about the statement/behaviour ("that sounds sexist to me") and explaining why ("because xyz").
It would also require the person on the other end to hear "I am angry because I feel that what you said was sexist" instead of "I hate you because you ARE sexist".
I find that if I pick my nose while posting...I wind up back editing to add in all the missing T's. For the greater good of the board, I vow to work on this behaviour.
Good old active listening. If you disagree with, or just don't fully understand, something someone has written, rephrase it in your own words: "So if I understand you correctly, you're saying....", and then go on to either refute it, or ask for clarification.
Give people the benefit of the doubt. If I say something wrong, or hurtful, or ignorant, or misguided (and I will), it's not because I meant to. Feel free to point out my mistakes, or tell me how it made you feel, or just express a different opinion. But don't assume it was intentional, or personal.
Admit that we all have things to offer, and all have things to learn. Thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis. We are here to improve ourselves and each other. Work from that assumption.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are mine and mine alone, but you are welcome to them if you like.
Something I've learned from 29 years and 50 weeks and 1 day of being married is that being right is overrated. Too often on a discussion forum being right is what it's all about. People bring more than their ego's to an argument (discussion), they bring their passions. To quote Melville, "And he piled upon the whale's white hump, the sum of all the rage and hate felt by his whole race. If his chest had been a cannon, he would have shot his heart upon it." Look guys, it's an internet discussion forum. It's supposed to be a pleasant interesting and informative pastime. One can just agree that there are more than one point of view sometimes even if what you're really thinking is that the other person is sadly miguided. It won't really affect the course of world events anyway.
I'm reminded of a museum display I saw once, of two locked sets of moose antlers still with fragments of skull attached. That's how they died, locked in combat. There's a metaphore here for behaviour on this board sometimes.
If we could tone down some of the excessive interpretation of remarks and take them at face value, that would be nice.
Yeah, 3 different people just complained about me calling them a moose.
Agreed, Timebandit, and I think that ties into Weltschmertz's suggestion that we step back and ask for clarification before assuming that someone either meant what they said the way we interpreted it, or assuming the worst about people's motives or what they meant by saying xyz.
Probably the fathers' rights crowd - because you didn't mention unclers?
Careful - that's sometimes met by: "Straw man!! I never said that!! You put words in my mouth!!"
If you really want to be circumspect, you'll say: "Before I reply, I just wanted you to confirm my understanding of what you're saying..." Then, if s/he doesn't answer within 10 seconds, let loose.
I find the accusation of straw-man gets thrown around a lot when people start feeling they are under attack. Again the term to me implies an intent to either deflect or derail the current discussion. If I've completely misinterpreted your words, then just say "Actually, that's not what I meant at all...". I don't mind. My misunderstanding is completely ignorance-based, not malice
And I don't want to be circumspect, or obtuse, obscure, or whatever. I want to share, and learn, and contribute. The rest of the world has enough competition and animosity in it.
Here's a typical exchange:
Comments?
Both posters are reacting to each other, rather than trying to figure each other out. The implicit assumption in each person's response is that they already know what the other is trying to say or do, and they've gone on the offensive/defensive.
To say something I wrote is "wrong" doesn't tell me anything other than you disagree with me. I would immediately ask for your opinion, and get you to detail what it is you disagreed with in my post. Similarly, saying something is "dangerous/ill-advised/stupid/unworthy" is not of much use without explanation. If you feel that the statement is self-evident ("If you don't already understand why, then it's not worth explaining to you") then you've begun making assumptions about me as a person, and the discussion can only get worse from there.
What if we all just assumed new screen neames?
Quoting Michelle from the other thread so I can respond in another post:
Well, my thoughts are as follows (and I have been talking about this with the other mods too).
I think Infosaturated is correct, that this place is intimidating to newcomers and, frankly, the amount of hostility and anger here lately is unhealthy. babble culture has expanded to include nastiness, snarkiness, rudeness, hostility, anger, and I also agree that the mods (okay, I'll speak for myself - I, as one mod) have given a lot more leeway for this type of behaviour to some longer-term babblers than newbies or people who don't post as frequently. It has resulted in a complete lack of self-control in some, and defensive reactions in others.
I also agree that long-term babblers who engage in this kind of behaviour get a free pass when it is seen by them, or some others, as "righteous anger". All this "righteous anger" that gets a pass - and that even I as a mod engage in occasionally - is making babble a really scary place for all but the most outgoing, most thick-skinned newcomers and occasional posters. Lately, there is so much fighting and anger. Not pleasant.
I think that, even if people have a good reason to be angry with someone else, we should start really focusing on a "no personal attacks on other babblers" policy that really, really means "no personal attacks".
Not "no personal attacks on other babblers unless you get really mad at someone."
Not "no personal attacks on other babblers unless you do it in a really passive-aggressive, snide way."
Not "no personal attacks on other babblers unless you think someone said something really bad/non-progressive/against babble policy."
Because of the really unhealthy dynamic on babble lately, I think that it should be simply, "No personal attacks on other babblers, period." No matter what.
How does it get enforced? I would prefer to enforce it without any bannings or suspensions at all, except for obvious spammers and really, really nasty trolls. Why no bannings or suspensions? Because I think bannings and suspensions reinforce the culture of anger and temper tantrums on babble by regulars. When the mods regularly use "the stick", people will feel they can engage in poor behaviour up to the point where the mods use "the stick". I think it also encourages infantile behaviour - when you treat people like children with the whole "reward/punishment" thing, then they become conditioned to act like children.
I would say it gets enforced by the mods stepping in and naming the behaviour when we see it, and then, if we need to name it again for the same person several times in one thread, asking them to leave the thread (but not others) if the behaviour becomes extreme.
We would also, of course, step in and name it if we could see that someone was baiting people and hoping for a reaction so that the mods would come down on the people who react (and by that, I mean posting stuff against babble policy, as interpreted by the moderators). But that would not absolve babblers of their responsibility to not respond with personal attacks. We are all responsible for our own behaviour, and no one "makes" anyone insult people, no matter what they say "first".
It would also, of course, be the responsibility of the moderators to ensure that when we do step in, we don't take advantage of our privilege as mods to bend the rules and be snarky about it ourselves (something that I know I do on occasion).
Perhaps we could also have threads in rabble reactions that go back to basics when it comes to interpersonal skills - how to disagree without posting personal attacks, things to do other than a knee-jerk flame reaction to offensive posts, etc.
Would this work for people, at least for a while? I know it will probably feel like a constraint, but I think it's possible to have passionate discussions without tearing each other down and intimidating all but the most thick-skinned of participants / potential participants.
Unionist, are these examples of behaviours you yourself engage in and you're asking us for advice about how to handle it? Or are you posting examples of other people's negative behaviour? What tools do you think people on either side of that dialogue could use during that exchange?
Caissa: is assuming a new screen name a way to disagree without attacking other babblers?
Infosaturated, I was kind of hoping this thread could focus on being sort of a group educational tool, a resource for babblers to come up with suggestions about how to interact with each other in ways that do not include personally attacking each other when we disagree.
Would it be okay if we continue the discussion about my post in another thread, like perhaps this one?
Weltschmerz: Both posters are reacting to each other, rather than trying to figure each other out. The implicit assumption in each person's response is that they already know what the other is trying to say or do, and they've gone on the offensive/defensive.
To say something I wrote is "wrong" doesn't tell me anything other than you disagree with me. I would immediately ask for your opinion, and get you to detail what it is you disagreed with in my post.
I disagree with the vignette and W.'s interpretation. No one ever limits him or herself to typing "You are wrong." The quote the statement in question and explain why they feel it is wrong. (Ok sometimes, they'll throw in a little ad hominem and that's wrong.) I do think that most of us react to statements, trying to ferret out their implications, not to people, and that banning personal attacks would help those that don't fall into line.
This ferreting out of implications may be where the rub lies. It takes a fair deal of collaboration and respect to agree to engage in this exercise. Not available between people who would rather focus on where the Other is Wrong than examine the underpinnings of their statements and what they can lead to. Of course, it's a fine line between actual underpinnings and consequences and building a straw man from what someone wrote. But we ought to be able to recognize a trial of intent when we read one and turn it down as not kosher here.
With all due respect, it is the welcoming of the obvious yet pseudo-polite trollery that I find most frustrating here. They come in regular waves, and completely disrupt all intelligent conversation for weeks at a time, usually during elections and crises, the time when I'm seeking and appreciate the input and viewpoints of respected babblers most of all.
Then why not ignore them? That could be one way of dealing with people who aren't breaking babble policy but that you find you just don't agree with - ignore them.
Or, if you feel they're being pseudo-polite (e.g. being passive-aggressive and insulting people in "pretend polite" ways), then perhaps another way of dealing with it is by just flagging it for the moderator and bypassing it. Or, if you feel the need to really respond, then just state (without personally attacking them) why you disagree with what they posted.
Would that work?
Having new screen names or maybe rotating screen names might cause some people to read less into posts and try to understand more of the actual meaning. I think also that asking for clarification is a good idea. I remember when I first started posting I did not put in as many qualifiers and tried to have a discussion the same way as I would with real people who know me and know my background and real life views and advocacy. The nuance of ones views gets lost in a short post where people do not know you and therefore feel free to read in whatever the worst interpretation might be.
So read carefully and don't presume the negative would be the first thing for me and then secondly if one is posting about a difficult issue then take the time to put in the nuances that show that you are not a right wing knuckle dragger but are tying to have a thoughtful discussion on a difficult issue.
Michelle asked: Caissa: is assuming a new screen name a way to disagree without attacking other babblers?
My light-hearted point was Michelle, that if the environment has become incredibly personalized, possibly not knowing who each other was might help us to focus on arguments rather than past encounters.
Actually, we practically DON'T know who most people are already, which leads to frenzied speculation about who are folks and how bad they "really" are under their cute monikker. Multiplying these would just multiply the problem. It seems so much simpler to keep focussed on the arguments and avoid the paraphrasing-to-better-skewer pattern.
Perhaps we need to all stick to the issues instead of speculating on each other's motives. I've probably been on the dishing out end of this a few times, and have often been on the receiving end. But I think this is also difficult because we tend to see issues from a broad perspective.
And, maybe we need to tone down the passion a little (this is something I am definitely guilty of). I think we are all passionate people - if we weren't, we wouldn't be trying to advance leftie politics and we wouldn't spend our spare time talking about it on the internet. And we put a lot of time into these issues, and have some expectation of solidarity with other leftie activists. So, we get very frustrated when people either don't support or oppose us on our issues. As a student activist, I often get frustrated when people try to tell me that my issues don't matter or that my position is wrong. And maybe some of my real world experiences have caused me to be a little on the paranoid side, especially when dealing with members of a certain political party.
And as we are all passionate lefties, I think one of our responses when we don't get the support of people is to challenge their left cred and say they aren't as progressive, etc.
Although, I also think excessive partisanship is a problem here as well.
But, I don't have a quick fix, so maybe the above was pointless.
Another thing to try is not to assume the worst about another person. If somebody posts something that is ambiguous enough to be interpreted in a couple of different ways, assuming that the poster had the worst possible intentions before labelling them sexist/racist/homophobic/whatever doesn't advance the discussion in a helpful way.
Example: typical of the folks here, I'm extremely opinionated. And when it comes to health care, my bread and butter, I'm arrogant as hell. So when I opined that all alternative medicine is one big steaming load of crap (or words to that effect), another babbler told me I was racist, because I was disrespecting Chinese traditional medicine, First Nations healing, etc (even though I said nothing about folk medicines).
Basically, this other babbler disagreed with me, and found a particularly creative way to launch a personal attack. What's more useful is to say you disagree, and here's why, and here's how you're wrong; to actually argue rather than just name-call. Like what Michelle said in post #2.
I'm not sure I agree about the excessive partisanship - I think that we can be as partisan as we want (it IS a political discussion forum, after all) or as non-partisan as we want, as long as we don't attack people who are the opposite.
Other than that, I agree with your post, genstrike.
Caissa, I agree that when we get to know each other (and perhaps feud with each other for a while) it seems to become less about each individual point of disagreement and more about keeping up the feud.
Yes, Michelle. I thought you would recognize me as "A" in that exchange. And Weltschmertz, your response missed the point. I was giving a very abbreviated version of a dialogue. When A says, "your idea is wrong", it's just shorthand for A disagreeing with someone's viewpoint, with or without lengthy explanation, perhaps after a long string of posts. Likewise with saying, "What the Dalai Lama said is stupid", for example - pretend it was surrounded by reasons, examples, etc. I hope you understand what I'm asking.
Well, as I said, I'm A, someone else (more than one person) is B.
I think neither one should characterize the other. I've been saying so for years. But it seems that when I (for example) say some things, like: "I think the Dalai Lama is an ass", or "I think the NDP support for Harper's omnibus crime bill was a betrayal of every progressive idea about dealing with crime", then attacks begin. So, I'm asking you - should I stop saying those things? And if that's the price of peace, is it worth paying?
Well, that is pretty much what I meant - the problem with the excessive partisanship is when it leads to us vs. them attitudes and turns babble into a battleground instead of a place for discussion, debate and learning.
Not that I want us to sit around agreeing with each other (it's no fun!) but this battleground often descends into personal attacks, speculation about other posters, and occaisionally conscious attempts to derail the thread.
Unionist, I was saying that if we find ourselves feeling angry over someone's post, angry enough to personally attack them, then there are ways of expressing our disagreement, or even our anger, without personally attacking the other person.
This is why I asked you whether the negative behaviour you were posting in that example was your own or other people's. Because, as I said in bold in the opening post, I was thinking it would be more constructive to, instead of posting examples of other people's poor behaviour, to discuss ways that we can improve our own skills at avoiding personally attacking other babblers. If you feel that you do not ever personally attack anyone (and that's legitimate) then perhaps you might want to share with us some of the discussion tools you find helpful when you are tempted to post a personal attack and then don't actually do so - without using examples of poor behaviour on the part of other babblers.
In answer to your question about whether you should stop saying things like those two examples you gave about the Dalai Lama or the NDP - no, I don't think there is anything wrong with either of those sentences. You have expressed an opinion and that is legitimate. That is not the sort of thing that this thread is addressing. We're addressing ways to express disagreement without personally attacking people.