CDZ What makes a good poster?

[Foxfyre]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

In my opinion:

A good poster says what s/he means and means what s/he says.

A good poster can do that without the use of ad hominem or personal insult though negative adjectives and adverbs may be used to make the point. Calling out rhetoric, behavior, concepts as wrong, unacceptable, even evil, is far different than attacking a person's character or person.

A good poster can articulate and explain a concept or issue in his/her own words. At times a well chosen link supporting their argument can be effective, but should not take the place of their own point of view and argument. Those who cannot make a coherent case for their point of view but just spout the assigned talking points of the week or month come across as not only clueless, but usually come across as ignorant and/or mean spirited. Those who don't make their own argument but but post link after link after link or who copy and paste cherry picked phrases not only come across as ignorant and/or mean spirited, but are boring as the dickens.

A good poster can discuss the issue with all pros and cons and doesn't dig up a lot of unrelated old bones to use in lieu of discussing the actual issue.

And I think a good poster knows what the topic is and stays on it as much as reasonable. He/she is not dragged off course by the 'professional' (probably paid) people who show up on every thread with the explicit goal of derailing it, changing the subject, twisting it into something else. For example, by page four of this thread, nobody was discussing the thread topic any more but were off on something entirely different. That is no accident when it happens.

I agree with almost all of your post, particularly your point about personal attacks and insults. I try my best to remain civil and if a poster starts insulting me and launching personal attacks, I put them on ignore. There's really good reasons to do this other than keeping your blood pressure down. First, fame wars kill threads. Nobody wants to read screen after screen of two people insulting each other. Second, once you start attacking a person, your chance of convincing them you're right drops to zero. If you really want to hit these people where it hurts, ignore them.

I love to read well written posts but many of us do not have great language skills. I think people sometimes try to substitute quantity for quality. Most people do not read more than 100 words or so. I know it really feels good to fully express yourself or offer a detailed rebuttal, however don't expect people to take the time to read 5 screens of text.

I know. And one of my worst faults is being too wordy in my posts. It comes from being an old competitive debater and coach. It is difficult for me not to try to frame my argument in a cohesive and complete structure and hopefully difficult for the other to refute.

I do agree that you are always civil and capable of making your own argument for things which I probably disagree with more than I agree. But I do appreciate that you have a rationale for what you argue, and you have my complete respect. I read your posts.

(You have also caused me to think through my own arguments and sometimes do some additional research. And that too I appreciate.)

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

my favorite poster

 

[Flopper]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

In my opinion:

A good poster says what s/he means and means what s/he says.

A good poster can do that without the use of ad hominem or personal insult though negative adjectives and adverbs may be used to make the point. Calling out rhetoric, behavior, concepts as wrong, unacceptable, even evil, is far different than attacking a person's character or person.

A good poster can articulate and explain a concept or issue in his/her own words. At times a well chosen link supporting their argument can be effective, but should not take the place of their own point of view and argument. Those who cannot make a coherent case for their point of view but just spout the assigned talking points of the week or month come across as not only clueless, but usually come across as ignorant and/or mean spirited. Those who don't make their own argument but but post link after link after link or who copy and paste cherry picked phrases not only come across as ignorant and/or mean spirited, but are boring as the dickens.

A good poster can discuss the issue with all pros and cons and doesn't dig up a lot of unrelated old bones to use in lieu of discussing the actual issue.

And I think a good poster knows what the topic is and stays on it as much as reasonable. He/she is not dragged off course by the 'professional' (probably paid) people who show up on every thread with the explicit goal of derailing it, changing the subject, twisting it into something else. For example, by page four of this thread, nobody was discussing the thread topic any more but were off on something entirely different. That is no accident when it happens.

I agree with almost all of your post, particularly your point about personal attacks and insults. I try my best to remain civil and if a poster starts insulting me and launching personal attacks, I put them on ignore. There's really good reasons to do this other than keeping your blood pressure down. First, fame wars kill threads. Nobody wants to read screen after screen of two people insulting each other. Second, once you start attacking a person, your chance of convincing them you're right drops to zero. If you really want to hit these people where it hurts, ignore them.

I love to read well written posts but many of us do not have great language skills. I think people sometimes try to substitute quantity for quality. Most people do not read more than 100 words or so. I know it really feels good to fully express yourself or offer a detailed rebuttal, however don't expect people to take the time to read 5 screens of text.

I know. And one of my worst faults is being too wordy in my posts. It comes from being an old competitive debater and coach. It is difficult for me not to try to frame my argument in a cohesive and complete structure and hopefully difficult for the other to refute.

I do agree that you are always civil and capable of making your own argument for things which I probably disagree with more than I agree. But I do appreciate that you have a rationale for what you argue, and you have my complete respect. I read your posts.

(You have also caused me to think through my own arguments and sometimes do some additional research. And that too I appreciate.)

I wish that more people would spend a little time researching the claim being made in threads before jumping in with all the rebuttal because many of the shocking claims are either completely bogus or they are written in manner to mislead the reader. In other words, they really are false news.

I've always enjoyed reading your posts. It seems like you use to post more.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

In my opinion:

A good poster says what s/he means and means what s/he says.

A good poster can do that without the use of ad hominem or personal insult though negative adjectives and adverbs may be used to make the point. Calling out rhetoric, behavior, concepts as wrong, unacceptable, even evil, is far different than attacking a person's character or person.

A good poster can articulate and explain a concept or issue in his/her own words. At times a well chosen link supporting their argument can be effective, but should not take the place of their own point of view and argument. Those who cannot make a coherent case for their point of view but just spout the assigned talking points of the week or month come across as not only clueless, but usually come across as ignorant and/or mean spirited. Those who don't make their own argument but but post link after link after link or who copy and paste cherry picked phrases not only come across as ignorant and/or mean spirited, but are boring as the dickens.

A good poster can discuss the issue with all pros and cons and doesn't dig up a lot of unrelated old bones to use in lieu of discussing the actual issue.

And I think a good poster knows what the topic is and stays on it as much as reasonable. He/she is not dragged off course by the 'professional' (probably paid) people who show up on every thread with the explicit goal of derailing it, changing the subject, twisting it into something else. For example, by page four of this thread, nobody was discussing the thread topic any more but were off on something entirely different. That is no accident when it happens.

I agree with almost all of your post, particularly your point about personal attacks and insults. I try my best to remain civil and if a poster starts insulting me and launching personal attacks, I put them on ignore. There's really good reasons to do this other than keeping your blood pressure down. First, fame wars kill threads. Nobody wants to read screen after screen of two people insulting each other. Second, once you start attacking a person, your chance of convincing them you're right drops to zero. If you really want to hit these people where it hurts, ignore them.

I love to read well written posts but many of us do not have great language skills. I think people sometimes try to substitute quantity for quality. Most people do not read more than 100 words or so. I know it really feels good to fully express yourself or offer a detailed rebuttal, however don't expect people to take the time to read 5 screens of text.

I know. And one of my worst faults is being too wordy in my posts. It comes from being an old competitive debater and coach. It is difficult for me not to try to frame my argument in a cohesive and complete structure and hopefully difficult for the other to refute.

I do agree that you are always civil and capable of making your own argument for things which I probably disagree with more than I agree. But I do appreciate that you have a rationale for what you argue, and you have my complete respect. I read your posts.

(You have also caused me to think through my own arguments and sometimes do some additional research. And that too I appreciate.)

I wish that more people would spend a little time researching the claim being made in threads before jumping in with all the rebuttal because many of the shocking claims are either completely bogus or they are written in manner to mislead the reader. In other words, they really are false news.

I've always enjoyed reading your posts. It seems like you use to post more.

Thank you. I did used to post more outside of the Coffee Shop but there for awhile the professional numbnuts, trolls, derailers, and attack machines made it pretty futile to have a reasoned discussion about anything. And I went elsewhere where there was somewhat less of that. But it seems better now and USMB is still home to me. I still prefer the CDZ or the Structured Debate Forum but every now and then it is possible to find a decent discussion even in Zone 2.

And I am doing better just tuning out the trolls, idiots, numbnuts, and other exercises in futility who seem to have little to contribute but false news, sound bites, assigned talking points, and insults. There are some people here who honestly can and do have something significant to contribute and I have learned from them and appreciate them a lot. As for the others, I pretty much choose not to waste my time.

 

[Jackson]

Many excellent thoughts on this board. I even read about honoring someone's right to be wrong. Don't support their ideas, but their right to think differently without demeaning them personally.

Of course, I think of some posters that just don't have that trait, the civility trait. Which is sad.

 

[blackhawk]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

 

[Flopper]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I saw a video not long ago about a study done on techniques of getting the opposition to agree with you. You would think that the best way is to present facts that show that their beliefs are incorrect and yours are correct. However, that does not work. Facts rarely shake strongly held beliefs because the opposition will not listen to you much less think about what you presenting. You never attack the person because that generally ends any usefully discussion.

The most effective techniques are based on compromise. Instead of attacking a person's beliefs, you establish a dialog on which you and your opponent can agree. In other words, you do exactly the opposite of what most people do on USMB.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I don't know that it is 'most' who can't or won't. It is just those who can't or won't seem to have a lot of time on their hands or their mission is to derail, detract, change the subject, and trollishly trash to the extent everybody else gets drowned out. I don't know how people like that sleep at night, but apparently they have sociopathic inclinations or otherwise no moral center or conscience at all.

But I do believe we outnumber them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I saw a video not long ago about a study done on techniques of getting the opposition to agree with you. You would think that the best way is to present facts that show that their beliefs are incorrect and yours are correct. However, that does not work. Facts rarely shake strongly held beliefs because the opposition will not listen to you much less think about what you presenting. You never attack the person because that generally ends any usefully discussion.

The most effective techniques are based on compromise. Instead of attacking a person's beliefs, you establish a dialog on which you and your opponent can agree. In other words, you do exactly the opposite of what most people do on USMB.

Technique in finding common ground to achieve a common goal is everything. I sure won't argue that. But you are talking about reasonable people in that scenario.

The components that leaves out are hyper partisanship and ideology whose goal is to win for its side. Truth, honesty, compassion, practicality, realism, accuracy, integrity, compromise, negotiation plays no part in that.

The unreasonable are not in any way interested or willing to accept a common goal or engage in mutual effort in most things. That is because their ONLY purpose is power, influence, and/or personal wealth for themselves to the exclusion of everything else. They are without conscience or integrity. And therefore their goal is to neutralize, crush, destroy any concept or initiative that would interfere in their real objective which is their own fortunes or world view.

When dealing with that mentality on a message board, I think honorable people can do little to combat it other than keep putting as much honest information out there as possible hoping those still capable of intellectual honesty and critical thought can see something other than angry vitriol, blame casting, finger pointing, and dishonest characterizations. And there are a lot of us I think who still do that. On both sides of the aisle.

 

[jwoodie]

It is difficult for me not to try to frame my argument in a cohesive and complete structure and hopefully difficult for the other to refute.

It may be that framing an argument is not the best way to share information. I probably come off as arrogant and sarcastic, but I try to present a conclusion (based on facts I believe to be true) for which I am open to legitimate correction or criticism. Unfortunately, many of the responses I get are emotional outbursts rather than rational replies.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is difficult for me not to try to frame my argument in a cohesive and complete structure and hopefully difficult for the other to refute.

It may be that framing an argument is not the best way to share information. I probably come off as arrogant and sarcastic, but I try to present a conclusion (based on facts I believe to be true) for which I am open to legitimate correction or criticism. Unfortunately, many of the responses I get are emotional outbursts rather than rational replies.

Well, insulting the other is rarely good policy in reaching an agreement or in getting them to respect anything said.

President Trump, bless his heart, has that down to a fine science, but he is damned by the opposition when he does insult some national leader, and then he is damned by the opposition when he doesn't. But the bottom line is, he has engaged more national leaders in REAL, not make believe, negotiations that benefit America than any President in my now very long memory.

I gave up trying to convince anybody of the rightness of my arguments long ago, even when I am 100% certain that I am right. But my goal is to a) put good information out there to counter at least some of the distortions, hate speech, and nonsense promoted by the numbnuts, idiots, trolls, and other exercises in futility. And b) to test my own opinion/point of view to see if it will hold up when challenged by somebody who isn't in the numbnut, idiot,troll, etc. classification. Immodestly perhaps, it usually does, but every now and then I can't defend my own position. And when that happens, it is back to the drawing board for me.

I would rather be right than trying to convince others that I'm right when I'm not.

 

[Flopper]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I don't know that it is 'most' who can't or won't. It is just those who can't or won't seem to have a lot of time on their hands or their mission is to derail, detract, change the subject, and trollishly trash to the extent everybody else gets drowned out. I don't know how people like that sleep at night, but apparently they have sociopathic inclinations or otherwise no moral center or conscience at all.

But I do believe we outnumber them.

I don't believe many people are trying to change hearts minds on USMB but rather to express their opinion. Their spouse has long since put them on ignore. The kids don't understand or care. Their neighbor is so senile, it's like talking to a post and the only person in the neighborhood that actually listens is the guy across street and he doesn't speech English.

I think USMB and other such forums give people a chance to vent their their frustration. It's much better to have them launching verbal attacks online than real ones at work or at their neighborhood school.

I use to post on a well moderate forum. The person that started the thread controlled it. It you went off topic, you're warned first and then booted off the thread. The same would hold true for personal attacks, etc... I don't know of any other way to control it. There are far too man threads for the moderators to control it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I don't know that it is 'most' who can't or won't. It is just those who can't or won't seem to have a lot of time on their hands or their mission is to derail, detract, change the subject, and trollishly trash to the extent everybody else gets drowned out. I don't know how people like that sleep at night, but apparently they have sociopathic inclinations or otherwise no moral center or conscience at all.

But I do believe we outnumber them.

I don't believe many people are trying to change hearts minds on USMB but rather to express their opinion. Their spouse has long since put them on ignore. The kids don't understand or care. Their neighbor is so senile, it's like talking to a post and the only person in the neighborhood that actually listens is the guy across street and he doesn't speech English.

I think USMB and other such forums give people a chance to vent their their frustration. It's much better to have them launching verbal attacks online than real ones at work or at their neighborhood school.

Maybe. But my hubby is my best friend, soul mate, and we discuss a lot of the things that I discuss on these message boards. I don't feel at all ignored. My kids are both very politically astute--one more left, one more right, but they understand a lot. As do pretty much all our friend and family who run the span of political opinion and ideology.

For myself I do not want to discuss controversial issues with friends and family except on a very limited basis. We all have full, active lives that are not all that affected by politics. There are so many more interesting topics to delve into with them.

However, our taxes, our healthcare, our livelihoods, our choices, options, and opportunities ARE affected by whoever is running the country and therefore we are all pretty much aware. But fussing and arguing about all that just isn't our cup of tea in real life. I won't do that on Facebook for the same reason. Twitter, yes.

But I enjoy doing politics and other controversial issues with people who are interested in those topics here and who EXPECT me to discuss those topics here. It is quite liberating.

 

[Flopper]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I don't know that it is 'most' who can't or won't. It is just those who can't or won't seem to have a lot of time on their hands or their mission is to derail, detract, change the subject, and trollishly trash to the extent everybody else gets drowned out. I don't know how people like that sleep at night, but apparently they have sociopathic inclinations or otherwise no moral center or conscience at all.

But I do believe we outnumber them.

I don't believe many people are trying to change hearts minds on USMB but rather to express their opinion. Their spouse has long since put them on ignore. The kids don't understand or care. Their neighbor is so senile, it's like talking to a post and the only person in the neighborhood that actually listens is the guy across street and he doesn't speech English.

I think USMB and other such forums give people a chance to vent their their frustration. It's much better to have them launching verbal attacks online than real ones at work or at their neighborhood school.

Maybe. But my hubby is my best friend, soul mate, and we discuss a lot of the things that I discuss on these message boards. I don't feel at all ignored. My kids are both very politically astute--one more left, one more right, but they understand a lot. As do pretty much all our friend and family who run the span of political opinion and ideology.

For myself I do not want to discuss controversial issues with friends and family except on a very limited basis. We all have full, active lives that are not all that affected by politics. There are so many more interesting topics to delve into with them.

However, our taxes, our healthcare, our livelihoods, our choices, options, and opportunities ARE affected by whoever is running the country and therefore we are all pretty much aware. But fussing and arguing about all that just isn't our cup of tea in real life. I won't do that on Facebook for the same reason. Twitter, yes.

But I enjoy doing politics and other controversial issues with people who are interested in those topics here and who EXPECT me to discuss those topics here. It is quite liberating.

Although I do enjoy discussing various issues, I actually do not like working in politics. I did volunteer work for a couple of candidates years ago and discovered that was not my cup of tea. I think most people enter politics for very noble reasons but the system corrupts them; that is, to do good some good stuff they have to do some bad stuff.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I don't know that it is 'most' who can't or won't. It is just those who can't or won't seem to have a lot of time on their hands or their mission is to derail, detract, change the subject, and trollishly trash to the extent everybody else gets drowned out. I don't know how people like that sleep at night, but apparently they have sociopathic inclinations or otherwise no moral center or conscience at all.

But I do believe we outnumber them.

I don't believe many people are trying to change hearts minds on USMB but rather to express their opinion. Their spouse has long since put them on ignore. The kids don't understand or care. Their neighbor is so senile, it's like talking to a post and the only person in the neighborhood that actually listens is the guy across street and he doesn't speech English.

I think USMB and other such forums give people a chance to vent their their frustration. It's much better to have them launching verbal attacks online than real ones at work or at their neighborhood school.

Maybe. But my hubby is my best friend, soul mate, and we discuss a lot of the things that I discuss on these message boards. I don't feel at all ignored. My kids are both very politically astute--one more left, one more right, but they understand a lot. As do pretty much all our friend and family who run the span of political opinion and ideology.

For myself I do not want to discuss controversial issues with friends and family except on a very limited basis. We all have full, active lives that are not all that affected by politics. There are so many more interesting topics to delve into with them.

However, our taxes, our healthcare, our livelihoods, our choices, options, and opportunities ARE affected by whoever is running the country and therefore we are all pretty much aware. But fussing and arguing about all that just isn't our cup of tea in real life. I won't do that on Facebook for the same reason. Twitter, yes.

But I enjoy doing politics and other controversial issues with people who are interested in those topics here and who EXPECT me to discuss those topics here. It is quite liberating.

Although I do enjoy discussing various issues, I actually do not like working in politics. I did volunteer work for a couple of candidates years ago and discovered that was not my cup of tea. I think most people enter politics for very noble reasons but the system corrupts them; that is, to do good some good stuff they have to do some bad stuff.

I did work for Steve Schiff's campaigns in the 1990's. He let me learn that there are people of integrity in Congress. The man was absolutely incorruptible. It was a very rewarding and educational experience.

 

[Jackson]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I saw a video not long ago about a study done on techniques of getting the opposition to agree with you. You would think that the best way is to present facts that show that their beliefs are incorrect and yours are correct. However, that does not work. Facts rarely shake strongly held beliefs because the opposition will not listen to you much less think about what you presenting. You never attack the person because that generally ends any usefully discussion.

The most effective techniques are based on compromise. Instead of attacking a person's beliefs, you establish a dialog on which you and your opponent can agree. In other words, you do exactly the opposite of what most people do on USMB.

What a great idea! Find a small concept in the controversy that they would agree to and find a commonality so that both become comfortable in the discussion. Then gently start with "I see your point, it;s making me think, but what about and then bring up another trivial matter that the other person could compromise with. Perhaps both could start thinking where they could compromise. Thank you for your post!

 

[Flopper]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

Some can most can't or won't and when you are dealing with trolls and hyper-partisans trying just seems like a waste of time and energy.

I saw a video not long ago about a study done on techniques of getting the opposition to agree with you. You would think that the best way is to present facts that show that their beliefs are incorrect and yours are correct. However, that does not work. Facts rarely shake strongly held beliefs because the opposition will not listen to you much less think about what you presenting. You never attack the person because that generally ends any usefully discussion.

The most effective techniques are based on compromise. Instead of attacking a person's beliefs, you establish a dialog on which you and your opponent can agree. In other words, you do exactly the opposite of what most people do on USMB.

What a great idea! Find a small concept in the controversy that they would agree to and find a commonality so that both become comfortable in the discussion. Then gently start with "I see your point, it;s making me think, but what about and then bring up another trivial matter that the other person could compromise with. Perhaps both could start thinking where they could compromise. Thank you for your post!

Of course this assumes that a person is here to discuss issues rather than just attack and insult the opposition.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Although I agree with most of your post, cognitive scientists have determined by many studies that facts and rational arguments do not change opinions. They only polarize opinions

Intriguing.

I must be unique in that way then.

If you want to change hearts and mind, you have to establish a dialog and you can't do that by proving your adversary is wrong.

My opinion is this: Never refer to the person you are debating with as an "adversary". That only hardens them to your viewpoints... or in your words, it further "polarizes" their opinion against yours.

Furthermore, the person you are debating should not live in ignorance if facts are readily available to contradict their argument. Nor should they live in ignorance of facts. One of the worst things, I believe, is to let a person continue believing something that isn't true when there are facts and evidence to the contrary. How they handle that information is a burden for them to bear alone.

This. ^^

That's more to the point --- correcting the record. The partisan who insists on peddling mythologies isn't going to be swayed, but the third-party reader deserves to know what the reality is.

Submitting facts to set the record straight is fine. Just don't expect it to change the opinion of the person you are debating. Of course what we do on USMB is not real debating.

I agree, but I can't seem to get past the constant hyperbole. You see it within seconds in these forums. I can't even engage with people I pretty much agree with due to how the arguments are framed. Projection, stereotyping and dehumanizing seems to rule the environment here, so I tend to act accordingly. Oh well, no one is perfect.

 

[task0778]

As I see it, we each have 3 options to choose from when some asshat posts something that is, shall we say, less than respectful. Which does not necessarily mean a different opinion, one can offer an opposing viewpoint without being an asshat about it.

1. You can ignore it

2. You can answer back in kind (lower yourself to their level)

3. Or you can respond in an intelligent, responsible manner. Which ain't always easy when you or your post has been disrespected.

I go with option #1 often, most of the time you already know who the asshats are and I see no point in feeding the trolls. Once in awhile I roll with option #2 if I want to make a point, and if I'm feeling a bit feisty I might go after somebody who's really being outrageously asshatty, but usually my point is lost and I have merely wasted my time to no good effect.

Which leaves option #3, which I often strive to do. Sometimes I post something that is incorrect cuz I didn't bother to research anything first, and I am reminded that I am not infallible and all-knowing. I think a lesson every once in awhile in humility is not a bad thing IMHO. Many times I get an intelligent and responsible answer back, and sometimes it's from somebody who engages in asshattery. I think there's a lotta people around here who will give as good or better than they get, but probably would rather not get into an insult contest. Sooo, you can throw some mud back, ignore the SOB, or surprise the shit out of 'em with a mature, reasoned response.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I see it, we each have 3 options to choose from when some asshat posts something that is, shall we say, less than respectful. Which does not necessarily mean a different opinion, one can offer an opposing viewpoint without being an asshat about it.

1. You can ignore it

2. You can answer back in kind (lower yourself to their level)

3. Or you can respond in an intelligent, responsible manner. Which ain't always easy when you or your post has been disrespected.

I go with option #1 often, most of the time you already know who the asshats are and I see no point in feeding the trolls. Once in awhile I roll with option #2 if I want to make a point, and if I'm feeling a bit feisty I might go after somebody who's really being outrageously asshatty, but usually my point is lost and I have merely wasted my time to no good effect.

Which leaves option #3, which I often strive to do. Sometimes I post something that is incorrect cuz I didn't bother to research anything first, and I am reminded that I am not infallible and all-knowing. I think a lesson every once in awhile in humility is not a bad thing IMHO. Many times I get an intelligent and responsible answer back, and sometimes it's from somebody who engages in asshattery. I think there's a lotta people around here who will give as good or better than they get, but probably would rather not get into an insult contest. Sooo, you can throw some mud back, ignore the SOB, or surprise the shit out of 'em with a mature, reasoned response.

I have adopted a strategy that I try to follow without always succeeding:

--Don't feel the trolls
--Don't argue with idiots
--Don't engage in other exercises of futility

So as I choose not to personally insult people as much as possible, that means I ignore some more often than not. But not is sometimes how it goes too.

All in all I believe being pleasant, non combative, respectful as much as possible, and being logical, reasoned, and informed more than not being informed is the best way to be a grown up. Not bearing false witness, not repeating gossip, not parroting assigned propaganda and talking points is the best way to be grown up and also have integrity.

Irrational hatred and contempt just doesn't fit into that very well.