Just so you know, my thread in GD was not aimed at this Group or anyone in it...

[nomorenomore08]

I have no personal beef with any individual poster on DU, even if we disagree passionately at times.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. It seems to be a worthwhile conversation.

I'm largely indifferent to tone.

Ad hominem, inaccuracy, dishonesty, fallacious logic and refusal to provide citations are all greater sins.

[nomorenomore08]

2. Agree completely. And I realize I can be a tiny bit hotheaded at times, but otherwise

I would certainly say that reason and logic are preferable to blind emotion. What I was really addressing in that OP is what I see as disingenuousness, e.g. people complaining that so-and-so is alienating his/her "allies" when, if all it takes to turn someone off is a few (debatably) overly harsh comments, then they weren't much of an "ally" in the first place.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. A lot of people seem to think this group is the source of whatever problems they have with or in GD

Conveniently forgetting the history of the same exact problems and personalities going back 10 years or more, far predating the existence of this group.

This is not aimed at you, BTW.

Also some people seem to think they're being extra-clever by tossing around "MRA", as if throwing those three letters out magically invalidates every single one of the many people (most of them never having posted in here, either) they've had disagreements over the years with. Never mind the fact there's not a single person on DU who is linking to "MRA" sites or self-identifying as such, to my knowledge.

It's a ridiculous game, like I said it's what passes for a hobby in some corners, it's the #1 reason admin gave up on meta, IMNSHO.. and it's pretty much continuous. One does not need to be Nostradamus to see that a week, a month, a year from now there will be some near-identical iteration of the same stuff that is going on now.

Personally, I've filed the whole thing under "massive waste of time".

[nomorenomore08]

4. As I've said, it really dismays me when real, serious issues take a backseat to personal beefs.

Like this whole stupid "war" between HoF and the Men's Group, in which I've mostly tried my best to stay neutral. Feminist issues are important, (some) "men's issues" are important as well, so personally I see no reason not to try and make friends with both sides.

P.S. Good to talk to you again. Hope you had a nice holiday season.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. You, too.

I find much of it pointless, especially since it's all been done before. And I do think there's broad agreement on the political fundamentals, across the board. (Some people don't like that, when they adopt a stance which is wildly out of sync with how the majority feels, and then try to declare it the "progressive" position by fiat.)

And I find the name-calling and an hominem stuff downright repulsive and totally uncalled for. Everyone is here voluntarily.

I stay out of a lot of those threads because I find either my words are twisted into something I didn't say, or people argue against what they wish I had said, or else if I say something the other "side" agrees with, I'm only saying it as a ruse or to hide my "true" feelings. It's pointless. I've said pretty clearly, over and over, what I think and how I feel about most of these topics.

[nomorenomore08]

6. I know you're basically an honest and straightforward guy. I don't see how you've become such a

caricature in a few posters' minds. Calling a laid-back, progressive-minded dude like yourself an "MRA" is about as laughable as it gets. Should be a clue, I suppose, that you and they are essentially arguing over almost nothing - on the basic, essential issues I think we're all mostly on the same page: pro-choice, anti-violence, anti-exploitation of any workers including sex workers.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. I'd never heard the term until it came up here on DU.

All the more funny when I heard someone or other was convinced that I was one of the "leaders" of that "movement", you know, stealh-moonlighting on DU.

I mean, the impetus for me to sign up on this place, originally, was a flurry of political energy spurred, in part, by my attendance at the March for Womens' Lives, in DC in April of '04. Odd way for a stealth MRA poop-bah to hatch his secret DU plot.



What I think really happened was, when DU3 came online, I like many was refreshed by the transparency and the freedom to openly acknowledge certain long-time disruption phenomena which had previously been obliquely talked about but were always hush hush... Things like sock, "shared" and zombie accounts, and the like. And I discovered that one of the numerous totally useless life skills that I apparently possess, is the ability to spot particular personality or posting patterns, combined with an uncanny memory for meaningless data. And I fully admit that a pet peeve of mine at the time was characters who flouted basic site rules (like: dont get banned, dont have multiple accounts) while simultaneously lecturing other people on the site about rules and behavior.

So, I enthusiastically spotted a few of these characters once or twice, called them on what they were doing, which probably led to an outsized reputation as either having spooky powers or at least being an overzealous "troll hunter". Really, I fell into the trap of taking this place a bit too seriously.

The implosion of meta, and a couple terms on MIRT, i think cured me of this. Of course I realize that the same return customers who I spotted, before, are back again and posting on DU now... I just don't really give a shit, anymore.

(I don't understand why people who claim to hate a site would continually come back to hang out on it, but, not my problem.)

As for the rest of it, I think most of these "fights" have been had at least once, if not more. Take "ogling". There was a big fight over "ogling" in 2011. Another, I think, in 2007. There will probably be another one in 2017. Team A will say "don't ogle" and team B will get indignant that some random stranger is assuming they do. And, so it goes.

[Bonobo]

8. You have done a GREAT job staying neutral IMO. nt

[Bonobo]

7. I appreciate you saying that.

Speaking for myself, I really do like all sorts of input from different posters as long as it is done while respecting people as people with feelings and not trying to paint them as monsters to suit a personal rhetorical agenda.

I suspect almost everyone here at DU is a great liberal with oceans of humanity in their heart and that should be remembered.

As for the Tone Argument, I truly think that it is a reasonable discussion.

I never thought that criticizing a person's tone means that I think the tone is MORE Important than the issue, just that if you want to have a reasonable discussion and actually affect people -as opposed to merely berating them- then you should choose your words and your tone carefully.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Ya know, when I see those threads...

I see a few people who always seem to be in the middle of them somehow and then a few others who often as not show up at "just the right time" to back up the main antagonists. Timing is everything, eh?

Funny thing is that a couple of them I seem to remember from years ago when they weren't nearly that antagonistic, and may have been a lot of fun. Makes you wonder what may have happened in the meantime. There are a few others that seem to be in the middle of the fray a lot, but in other threads appear perfectly civil and friendly. Even in these threads maintain a certain amount of civility, but still can't stay away.

There are one or two that in the back of my mind I think a little too much booze, or other substances, but obviously can't make an accusation. Just fits a pattern, is all, and could be lots of things going on. Not all of them bad.

At any rate, it absolutely amazes me how even an innocent thread can be derailed so fast, and how a troll post hits its mark so often.

[nomorenomore08]

10. I think for one or two of the people you're talking about, coming to grips with certain personal

issues has caused them to become more vehement - or dare I say, more militant - about some things. Which I would never condemn by any means, but it has taken me aback slightly.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. I have no business speculating on what the issues, if any, may be, but...

while I may even sympathize with whatever they are, I still have a problem with them spilling over and disrupting a public board. If they are that serious, some assistance may be useful, and we can't do that here.

Militant positions are one thing and can be dealt with on their own, but using them as a springboard for widespread attacks just isn't right.

[nomorenomore08]

13. I admit I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, personal attacks are discouraged with good reason here.

On the other hand, I can relate to people's frustration with those who are either disingenuous or simply clueless.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Yeah, it's easy to say just turn off the computer, but...

I remember going back to DOS days and froups where you just had to have the last word, and perceived bigotry, idiocy, and whatever had to be fought to the last electron.

It was even worse then, with one listserve I was on having realistic death threats, another a poster lost his job when someone sent lies to his employer, and yet another where a woman was attacked. All over some opinion that got completely out of hand. And those were some of the more civil ones!

I get testy here sometimes, and I know it's because it's a handy place to anonymously blow off steam. But I'm not happy or proud of it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. I get that one doesn't know what issues a given poster is dealing with.

Therefore I think it's not reasonable to demand "nice". However, I think it is reasonable to insist upon "factual".

[opiate69]

16. Ok.. Going to try to put this as nicely and inoffensively as I can...

Anybody who cannot see how being universally incivil, bellicose and obnoxious in presenting their opinions is anathema to effective communication is simply not reachable. (And no, I'm not talking directly about you, nomore08.)

[nomorenomore08]

17. I agree with that. And I accept the possibility that some posters are simply rude, unpleasant people

But the problem, as I see it, is those who use others' supposed "incivility" as an excuse when they simply don't like the message, or how it's presented. It's the whole disingenuous "I'd agree with you if you were nicer about it" sort of thing that gets to me.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. The flip side of that is, some people with long histories of toxic behavior use "....tone argument!"

as cover.

Let's be real. People have been paying attention; and despite the fact that we can't see meta anymore, people remember what went down there, too.

It is worth noting, when people talk about "the current conflagration in GD".. it's not "current". It's been going on in one form or another pretty much continuously for YEARS.

I don't engage anymore, I've pretty much given up, because when I disagree, my words are twisted into some ridiculous straw caricature and taken out of context. When I agree, I'm painted as putting on an act or somehow "hiding" my true feelings. Pointing out the behavior only seems to further on additional iterations of it, which I'm sure this post will do as well. So I've pretty much said "fuck it", and stopped taking certain aspects of this place seriously- at all.

I'd say this, though: if all sorts of people from all different groups and approaches keep mentioning that there's a problem, if randomly selected juries keep seeing a problem, if the same problems crop up over and over again with your* behavior no matter who you're talking to... it's possible, just possible, that the problem isn't some conspiracy or refusal to listen on a particular issue- the problem MAY ACTUALLY BE your behavior.


* -again, not "you"

[opiate69]

19. All well and good, however,

How does one decide when someone is using it as an excuse?

[nomorenomore08]

20. It's not a perfectly objective matter by any means. But when people take things overly personally

and turn threads into discussions of people's "feelings" rather than substantive issues - as, I'm sorry to say, occurs rather often on threads dealing with gender issues - and then turn around and accuse others of strawman arguments while indulging in strawmen themselves, it's hard not to notice.

[Bonobo]

21. In all honesty

I would proudly hold up the posts and discussions here in the Men's Group as examples of open attitudes and pretty good behavior.

I think we discuss a variety of subjects and truly try to (comparatively) refrain from nastiness.

Furthermore, we have opened the doors to just about everyone by unblocking nearly all DU members.

[sibelian]

22. "we have opened the doors to just about everyone by unblocking nearly all DU members"

Hello!



Not that I was ever banned, I hope...

[Bonobo]

23. I don't remember if you were or weren't but your voice is welcome! nt

[nomorenomore08]

24. Oh yeah, this group is mostly fine. I was talking more about GD threads. n/t