User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Rants/Personal attacks

Personal Attacks

I hear you. Passive attacks and insconsistancy/hypocrisy can be hard to deal with. I've come to the conclusion that a lack of maturity and poor communication results in such things being passed over. To be fair, it is hard to catch everything, even though with all the RC vultures, you’d expect better. Best to stay detached to a degree and not let the things that slide get to you. Sardaukar 23:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

To a certain extent, the internet nurtures argument over discussion. In nearly all arenas, louder voices and bullies tend to be heard (if for no other reason than others go elsewhere rather than deal with crap). So... if one wants to be involved in discussions, one should expect a certain amount of, shall we say, variety in rhetorical techniques. Having a thick skin, focusing on the issues at hand, and ignoring certain types of attacks (intended or accidental) are all requirements for anyone who wants to stay sane. As you say, stay detached to a degree and let some things slide.

But that shouldn't mean that civility should take a backseat all the time. Or even most of the time.

For background: I wrote the rant originally because someone that I respect used a personal attack (on another site) in a discussion about... well, the exact topic is interesting to me but immaterial. At the time, no action was taken because it wasn't a particularly vicious or vitriolic attack and probably b/c the attacker had/has a reputation for engaging in honest debate. But what bothered me then (and now) was that the community ignored the attempt to win an argument by diminishing the point-of-view (and the person who held it) rather than discussing the merits of the ideas. In effect, b/c the personal attack wasn't egregious, it was allowed to stand.

I might not like it that there were no serious consequences in some/all of the instances you cite, but I like it even less when someone is called to account for an attack...and they are let off the hook on the grounds of "it's the internet" or "the name-calling wasn't that bad" or "the terms weren't horrific enough." – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely that civility should be expressed during discussions. I also agree that if someone flouts civility, they should be reprimanded. On this wiki for example and the internet in general, those that are in charge of keeping things civil have varying attitudes towards what is civil (moral relativism). Therein lays one problem. The next is the fortitude to act. Those in charge may lack the courage to do so, fearing reprisal from fellow administrators or contributors. Or, they may fail to act because of bias, nepotism or laziness.

A good admin team should be made up of mature, tested individuals who understand policy and have the moral fiber to act and good judgment in regard to how to act. This should be done in a civil manner as well so as to promote civility. Administrators should be exemplary in their behavior and serve as examples for others. They should also communicate with each other freely and be open to constructive criticism. A friendly admin team usually fosters a friendly community. But I digress.

A failure to reprove those that aren’t civil only emboldens them and others. The common excuses you cited such as “it’s the internet” is just an excuse to not act. The proof of it is if the tables were turned. Then the ones who would say “get a thicker skin” are the very ones crying foul. It’s a lack of empathy and a form of selfishness all too prevalent on the internet where anonymity is the cloak for their own nefarious actions or inactions.

Another problem is, as I mentioned, a lack of maturity. The internet is used by young people who can type whatever they want without fear of reprisal in most cases. The anonymity emboldens them. Cyber bullying is rampant. These kids can call others nigger or spic and giggle about it, but if I were to take them to the projects in Chicago, East L.A. or New York, they’d be walking with their hands in their pockets, their eyes on the ground and hoping nobody noticed them.

So I feel that name-calling is completely unacceptable in any form (being called dumb and being called a mother fucking cocksucker are both breaches of NPA), and that administrators should mete out warnings commensurate to the offense (the person calling someone a mother fucking cocksucker is worse than the person calling someone dumb). People shouldn’t have to “get a thicker skin” or “ignore the trolls.” If administrators are responsible, they’ll focus on the real source of the problem and resolve it quickly.

My apologies for the verbose reply. I’ll just end this portion by saying I’m not so naïve to think this problem will go away; in fact, the sad part is it is only going to get worse on the internet as a whole. I do have hopes that this wiki and GW2wiki will improve and keep the barbarians at the gates.

P.S. The foregoing shouldn’t be taken as some self-righteous diatribe. I’m by no means a paradigm of moral excellence. But I do my best to be civil and helpful. In the end all we can do is control ourselves.

P.P.S. As always I’m open to any constructive criticism you may have on my thoughts. Sardaukar 02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My only serious criticism is that you might be oversimplifying by lumping a lot of people into a single box. Yes, many of those who demand thicker skins of others cry foul for small offenses directed at themselves, but plenty have thick skin, too (it's easier to notice hypocrites). (But that's minor relative to the theme of your post.)

Also, yes, plenty of vandals, bullies, and trolls can flourish on the 'net because it's anonymous and many of those same people would wet their pants if caught by their targets (regardless of the neighborhood). But that's the price we pay for having a non-SOPA internet. (Similarly, living in a truly free democracy means that politicians are free to lie and fascists are allowed to recruit followers.) I think the net is better off allowing anonymity, even though it requires those of us interested in civility to work harder.

More importantly, we seem to agree on the original topic: calling someone an idiot (or hiding behind, "your ideas are idiotic") are personal attacks, whether or not admins (here or elsewhere) decide to respond. I rant about it because (a) these type of bullying tactics scare away important voices (not just the immediate target of the attack) and (b) they don't actually address issues of importance to the community; i.e. they are used to stifle debate, rather than engage in debate. (I also agree, although it's not obvious from the rant, that calling someone an idiot is less serious — and merits less of a response — than calling someone a motherfucker, which itself is less egregious than using a racial or group-based epithet, such as faggot or kike.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. You’re a very rational polite person which has been a boon for this wiki. Keep up the hard work. Sardaukar 16:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)