Name calling on the forum

Back in my youth we use to have a saying,"Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me." Having watched a couple of threads on this forum disintegrate into name calling, maybe we should be examining the pro's and con's of such activity. Does it bother you? Why do you think people do it? Politicians seem to do quite a bit of it, particularly south of the line, why do you suppose they do it? What do you feel about those who resort to it? I really think this needs to be discussed, how about you?

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

It's really gotten out of hand in the past six or eight months - and I don't like it one bit.

Everyone's a big man behind a keyboard where they know there will be no repercussions.

There's enough hate going on around the world, we don't need to add to it here.

I joined this forum to meet and learn from like-minded individuals who share a passion for the outdoors. The amount of distaste among members recently has left me wondering how few people here are still seeking the same.

I'm with you GN - "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all."

I haven't noticed any harsh name calling in this forum, so let's keep it real. Been offended is really the issue, few words from a stranger should mean nothing....

There are two clinical factors here Gun Nut…that should be understood before we get to far into it;


A) The Online Disinhibition Effect

The online disinhibition effect is the reduction or abandonment in remote electronic communications of those social restrictions and inhibitions that would arise in normal face-to-face communication.

If you’re really interested this is who coined the phrase.

https://www.learning-theories.com/on...ect-suler.html

B) Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics;


More than a few of these were prominent in the ‘Guns are the Problem’ thread, by the usual players.

1) Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive;
2) Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent.

3) Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong because, but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias. Essentially, these all say that the opponent is prohibited from commenting on the topic in question because of what’s in their resume or not in their resume or because of some possible bias.

4) Your resume is not big enough for you to comment on this and my resume is irrelevant to whether I can ban you from the discussion by pointing out the inadequacy of yours. This is an admitted know-nothing banning you from the discussion on the grounds that you do not know enough.

5) Badgering. This is repeating the same intellectually-dishonest debate tactic again and again in an attempt to wear out the opponent. There seems to be an implicit notion that if you say the same incorrect thing over and over enough times, that makes it true or that by saying it enough times you can make an incorrect statement have more weight in the debate.

I like this point in particular:

5) Badgering. This is repeating the same intellectually-dishonest debate tactic again and again in an attempt to wear out the opponent. There seems to be an implicit notion that if you say the same incorrect thing over and over enough times, that makes it true or that by saying it enough times you can make an incorrect statement have more weight in the debate.

There is a further aspect to this that has occurred to me, " I win," if I can draw you in to personally slandering me, and Sawbill shuts the threat down.


You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mbhunter

It's really gotten out of hand in the past six or eight months - and I don't like it one bit.

Everyone's a big man behind a keyboard where they know there will be no repercussions.

There's enough hate going on around the world, we don't need to add to it here.

I joined this forum to meet and learn from like-minded individuals who share a passion for the outdoors. The amount of distaste among members recently has left me wondering how few people here are still seeking the same.

I'm with you GN - "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all."

---

I don't know that it's gotten worse in the last few months but agree 100% with the rest of your statement!

Part of the issue is that many members have a history and in some cases rhetorical or "in good nature" barbs are thrown around and other members who are not familiar with the history can see those comments as insulting.

When a couple or a group of people are chatting over a cup of whatever or around a campfire there is a natural, human desire to come to some kind of an agreement or middle ground, even if it's agreeing to disagree.. As Mike pointed out being behind a keyboard totally removes any desire to do so. There's also the possibility that people who lack that desire naturally might migrate to this type of community where antisocial tendencies become less of an inhibitor to inclusion.

Unfortunately, as always, with the good (tonnes of varied knowledge and experience, a chance to connect with people who share your passion etc) comes the bad (people who start 'discussions' with the sole purpose of ramming their opinion down the throats of others, cherry picked arguments, taking things out of context, the driving need to have the last word and any number of other ways to for one member to display dominance other another.

If this bothers you do what I do, understand that it is a natural urge to display dominance and picture the two bickering members as a couple of neighborhood dogs trying to show dominance over each other at the dog park :moose:it comes to them naturally, they probably will not hurt each other but sometimes they need to be separated for their own good because one or both just doesn't know when to stop. At least you'll get a laugh out of it.

However should you feel you have been insulted, targeted or otherwise bullied on the forum or by PM, report it and the Mods/Admin will deal with it.

I tried to have an open debate back in Aug on a thread titled the 'Silent Majority'...it too turned into what has become a common debacles. I posted this comment at the time.

Quote:

---

"It find it disappointing that on this forum there is such a lack of decorum in having discussion or debate.

Why do discussion always end up posters openly displaying a lack for respect for others peoples views/ opinions, post responses filled with condescending, arrogant comments and down right personal attacks. It’s counter productive and discourages open debates.

---

It gets real frustrating having to deal with those that constantly violate the most common edequette of debating. I'm sure it stifles participation with newer members that are are leery to get involved in the "usual BS".

As far as actual name calling goes, as far as I can see it involves one individual, who the moderators refuse to deal with.

Apart from various name-calling ("the worst kind of quisling," "wormy little back-stabber"), he's recently accused me of being mentally ill and of admitting that my professional work is dishonest, and has slyly insinuated that I'm involved in drug dealing.

Other members have called him on his behaviour, and he simply shouts them down and suggests that if they knew what was really going on, they'd be on his side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rugger

However should you feel you have been insulted, targeted or otherwise bullied on the forum or by PM, report it and the Mods/Admin will deal with it.

---

The record suggests otherwise. If my name was Amanda Lynn Mayhew, I suppose the threads would have been removed. The moderators are being more than a little selective in enforcing the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rugger

I don't know that it's gotten worse in the last few months but agree 100% with the rest of your statement!

Part of the issue is that many members have a history and in some cases rhetorical or "in good nature" barbs are thrown around and other members who are not familiar with the history can see those comments as insulting.

When a couple or a group of people are chatting over a cup of whatever or around a campfire there is a natural, human desire to come to some kind of an agreement or middle ground, even if it's agreeing to disagree.. As Mike pointed out being behind a keyboard totally removes any desire to do so. There's also the possibility that people who lack that desire naturally might migrate to this type of community where antisocial tendencies become less of an inhibitor to inclusion.

Unfortunately, as always, with the good (tonnes of varied knowledge and experience, a chance to connect with people who share your passion etc) comes the bad (people who start 'discussions' with the sole purpose of ramming their opinion down the throats of others, cherry picked arguments, taking things out of context, the driving need to have the last word and any number of other ways to for one member to display dominance other another.

If this bothers you do what I do, understand that it is a natural urge to display dominance and picture the two bickering members as a couple of neighborhood dogs trying to show dominance over each other at the dog park :moose:it comes to them naturally, they probably will not hurt each other but sometimes they need to be separated for their own good because one or both just doesn't know when to stop. At least you'll get a laugh out of it.

However should you feel you have been insulted, targeted or otherwise bullied on the forum or by PM, report it and the Mods/Admin will deal with it.

---

I love this analogy:

If this bothers you do what I do, understand that it is a natural urge to display dominance and picture the two bickering members as a couple of neighborhood dogs trying to show dominance over each other at the dog park :moose:it comes to them naturally, they probably will not hurt each other but sometimes they need to be separated for their own good because one or both just doesn't know when to stop. At least you'll get a laugh out of it.

I have a seven year old golden I've been walking around our subdivision for the last 7 or 8 years, since he was a pup. He pretty sure the whole subdivision is his territory and he looks indigent or offers a challenge to any dog we happen to meet in passing.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Anyone who has been on a debating team knows, that once an attack is on the person and not the idea , you have lost.

Quote from Dr.Phil McGraw---"He who yells first,loses". IMHO,anyone who gets upset enough to go ballistic on an internet thread has more serious issues than debating inexperience. That "Ignore" list works wonders for people that deliberately troll or harass someone. It's a more viable alternative when handling a bully when you can't just kick 'em in the berries. :moose:

Odd.

I see a couple faceless, nameless monikers who at times are no less guilty of some of the various behaviours. Quick to point fingers at others, without the willingness, to first examine their own involvements and actions that start things. Me, I'm always man enough to first look in the mirror, admit my own failings, (we are all human after all) and deal with that first.

Occasionally, I've crossed "lines". And on those occasions, I'm just as quick to say. "My bad". Nor do I hide behind a faceless monitor. My names John Bennett. Who I am, what I do. I have nothing to hide, or hang my head over. If more people didn't hide behind......

Do I get into it. Yep. Because I won't take crap from people. Not in person, certainly not on the net. I will always fire back, and the more it goes on, the more intolerant I become, the harsher my replies. As with hockey, it's normally the retaliatory that gets sent to the box.....can say, that while it has happened, it's a rare day where I will poke someone. Be it trolling, be it "name calling", be it.....even PMs threatening violence.


I'd say more, cite some examples myself, but really see no point. I concern myself with myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

Anyone who has been on a debating team knows, that once an attack is on the person and not the idea , you have lost.

---

^^^^

This has always been my take on online interactions and discussions with differing viewpoints. Once someone has resorted to an ad-hominem attack, they have effectively lost, and any discussion by them further is irrelevant.

However, if one is going to wade onto an internet forum, one must also realize the perils of doing so.

My philosophy on this is: why bother? Why bother getting involved in such nonsense with people you don't know and will likely never meet? So far, I have never been called a name or (as far as I can recall) called anyone else a name. It is just not worth the aggravation to get involved in this type of behavior. It's the internet - anyone can claim to be an expert. It is usually best to just let these people live in their imaginary world and ignore them. The ignore feature is great, and more people should use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The moderators are being more than a little selective in enforcing the rules.

---

I beg to differ on that but realize you have had issues with the way things are moderated so will simply say that if you feel someone has called you mentally ill or accused you of being a drug dealer report the thread. I am not aware of any coming across as someone blatantly doing this and I will check with the moderators to see if they are aware. If you feel we missed some of the obvious threads please re-report them and our team will take a look and make a decision on them.

Keep in mind that the reported threads should be obvious what is being said is offensive or against the rules. Many times reported threads are a result of members that have history and one member reads into the other member's comment (to them they may know what they are insinuating but to the moderators, who have no idea of any history, they may not see the issue).

Please keep in mind the moderators are volunteers that do their best to be fair and to balance things on here.

GunNut - the name calling is not tolerated and the moderators do their best to weed out those members that resort to it. At this time members that appear to be trying to disable a thread or chose to bicker with other members (or troll a thread) are removed from that discussion - based on the moderation teams discretion. Sometimes, if the team feels it is warranted, an infraction accompanies the thread ban.

The team does their best to be fair with the enforcement and we appreciate the help of the member base in reporting the posts/threads to us that may be of issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

As far as actual name calling goes, as far as I can see it involves one individual, who the moderators refuse to deal with.

Apart from various name-calling ("the worst kind of quisling," "wormy little back-stabber"), he's recently accused me of being mentally ill and of admitting that my professional work is dishonest, and has slyly insinuated that I'm involved in drug dealing.

Other members have called him on his behaviour, and he simply shouts them down and suggests that if they knew what was really going on, they'd be on his side.



The record suggests otherwise. If my name was Amanda Lynn Mayhew, I suppose the threads would have been removed. The moderators are being more than a little selective in enforcing the rules.

---

Like I said, where there is a history of say, subtle insinuations of sub level intelligence or both sides we tend to let some things go as bantering and rhetoric.
Comparing yourself to ALM is wrong in oh so many ways. Pertinent to this issue, is that she has never gotten into a discussion with any other member where insults were insinuated or any rabble was roused. Furthermore the post you are referring to seemed to be designed to target her and the a company she represents directly from the start. If a similar thread had been started with you as the target I assure you it would have been dealt with in the same manner.

As far as the comments you quote as having been directed at you, I do not recall those issues being reported (not to say they weren't) I agree that they not acceptable.