Is The Forum Getting More Antagonistic?

[Alzrius]

Well qualifying language is often necessary in the era of easily offended people.

I often wonder what the catalyst was for this "easily offended" mindset.

I don't know that there was any specific catalyst, per se. But one of the more insightful takes I've seen on why discourse seems to be more contentious now is that a wide range of topics are now regarded as moral issues, and it's much more difficult for people to compromise on positions (or countenance alternative positions) when that's seen as abrogating their morals.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The real issue is when people intentionally interpret a person's post in the most extreme way, or intentionally take it out of context so that they can justify being offended.

It's as if some people are actively looking for reasons to be offended.

yeah (and yeah I am as guilty as anyone) part of it is that it is impersonal communication... in person you see me, you hear me (I communicate much better). the tone and body language is lost on here. Also just the decency and comradery a bit (go to a con and you wont argue in person as much as you do on a board) before texting, before the internet was huge, people noticed it in emails... and before that letters. You don't read in the voice of the writer, but in the voice of your current mood.

AND IT ADDS UP... if you start off a little annoyed but come to enworld to relax, and the first poster tells you how wrong you are about how you pretend to be an elf in your moms basement you get MORE annoyed, and when another poster tells you that you need to have hard facts and proof or else there opinion is better then yours you get MORE annoyed by the time you read the 7th response to the 3rd thread you can be VERY ticked off... even though that poster you are reading was being jovial.

Now take all of that and add that yes I feel this board used to be better and has gotten worse and you have a problem... people take what you say and take it to mean something other then what you mean (and that CAN already happen in person without all of the above)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't know that there was any specific catalyst, per se. But one of the more insightful takes I've seen on why discourse seems to be more contentious now is that a wide range of topics are now regarded as moral issues, and it's much more difficult for people to compromise on positions (or countenance alternative positions) when that's seen as abrogating their morals.

I think that there are a few, different reasons.

The first is the nature of communication on the internet. Generally, the internet (as a medium for communication) abhors nuance. In addition, the post/reply/reply/reply nature of forum communications tends to exacerbate and reward differences of opinion, as opposed to finding common ground- instead of thesis - antithesis - synthesis, you get, thesis - antithesis - more antithesis - even more antithesis - yo mama. Finally, it would appear that the internet prefers wise-cracking to wit; and as we all know, wit has truth to it, while wise-cracking is simply calisthenics with words.

The second is what you correctly note- the increasing use of morality for all arguments. When you certain arguments or viewpoints are believed to be not just incorrect, but to be immoral, then it becomes easy to attack the individuals making those arguments as immoral. If, for example, you think that people who enjoy pineapple pizza are not just terrible bard-lovers, but also immoral bigots, then you will likely find it easier to behave cruelly to them (and those people, in turn, will behave cruelly to you).

Third, I think that there are an increasing number of "real-world" divisions that are unfortunately getting reflected in all aspects of life. This board, with strict enforcement of rules, avoids that (good!) but that background antagonism seems to seep into a lot of things. But for various reasons ... people are just angry.

Fourth, and finally, impersonal communication through text tends to make it easier for things to escalate. You don't hear the tone of someone's voice. You don't see a twinkle in the eye. You don't see the very real reactions of people that you might hurt in your quest to pwn them.


I am sure that there are other factors people will point out, but those are some of the factors that occur to me.

 

[beancounter]

yeah (and yeah I am as guilty as anyone) part of it is that it is impersonal communication... in person you see me, you hear me (I communicate much better). the tone and body language is lost on here. Also just the decency and comradery a bit (go to a con and you wont argue in person as much as you do on a board) before texting, before the internet was huge, people noticed it in emails... and before that letters. You don't read in the voice of the writer, but in the voice of your current mood.

AND IT ADDS UP... if you start off a little annoyed but come to enworld to relax, and the first poster tells you how wrong you are about how you pretend to be an elf in your moms basement you get MORE annoyed, and when another poster tells you that you need to have hard facts and proof or else there opinion is better then yours you get MORE annoyed by the time you read the 7th response to the 3rd thread you can be VERY ticked off... even though that poster you are reading was being jovial.

Now take all of that and add that yes I feel this board used to be better and has gotten worse and you have a problem... people take what you say and take it to mean something other then what you mean (and that CAN already happen in person without all of the above)

Personally, I try to clarify before I jump to conclusions, but yea, in the heat of discussions it's not easy.

I never understood why people insist that other people are having "badwrongfun". It's a game, and WoTC clearly states that you should play it the way you want.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You could,( but in my opinion), it's a bit silly to think adults need to clarify that they're stating an opinion.

The problem is (and I'm absolutely guilty of this myself, sometimes subconsciously, sometimes deliberately) people are absolutely willing to generalize past their personal experience and do so with some regularity. Making it clear you're only talking about your own experience and not trying to suggest your statement is generally applicable is absolutely useful in disarming some problems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The idea that this is one of the least toxic sites is not incompatible with the idea that it could still be better, or that some recent mod actions have reduced trust in them. I'm pretty much in agreement with Alzrius on this so now it's two to one I guess? I doubt posting a poll would go well however, so I don't know how you'd ever get the data you want. Probably better to read the post as referring to personal experience rather than assuming it's intended to speak for everyone.

Then perhaps "general erosion" was a bad choice of words on that poster's part. That very much implies they view it as extending well past them.

 

[Fifth Element]

Then perhaps "general erosion" was a bad choice of words on that poster's part. That very much implies they view it as extending well past them.

The principle of charity extends not only to appending an implicit IMO, but also to not taking every word literally, unless something makes it clear they are being literal. So yeah, they could have used a different term, but before jumping on them about it, maybe find out, if it's that important.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well qualifying language is often necessary in the era of easily offended people.

There have always been offended people. There may appear to be more now because some groups are more comfortable speaking up about it, whereas before the consequences of doing so were more severe.

But I also suspect there really aren't more offended people now but rather a bias of perception fueled largely by the increasing prevalence of online discourse.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The principle of charity extends not only to appending an implicit IMO, but also to not taking every word literally, unless something makes it clear they are being literal. So yeah, they could have used a different term, but before jumping on them about it, maybe find out, if it's that important.

this reminds me of when we had a new student in 6th grade that English's was not her 1st 2nd or even 3rd language (maybe it was third but I know Russians and German were first two) and there were kids that would pick apart her words and laugh at her... "like come on you know what she meant"

I often wonder how many English's professors I interact with online based on the number of times I have seen people pick apart word choice... then again almost as many times they refuse to admit a word can have 2 or more meanings so...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Doesn't matter how many times I see this thread, I always read the title as "agnostic". Which is an entirely different conversation...