Is it outrage, or a HATE THREAD?

[stj]

Posters at trekbbs of course are not the only ones. Every bbs I've seen have some forum where people can post on miscellaneous or political topics. And every forum has some thread where some poster will cite some story, then exclaim in outrage. She or he then politely asks for comment (read, agreement,) then it's off to the races!

There are typically two problems. First, there is the way the original outrageous story is usually poorly cited, or taken from a grossly biased "news" source. Second, there is usually giveaway indignation at any with the poor taste to disagree.

I suggest that these are fake outrage threads. They are hate threads, where the poster's true intention is to, well, essentially, troll a public figure. The thing is, I can't see how that isn't still trolling. As such it is an offense against civility.

As to the cure, expecting that the original poster should measure her or his outrage to the reliability of the source is a start. The original poster is not precisely the author but as the publisher on the bbs, she or he is endorsing the source.

Further, everyone should understand that the intensity of outrage is not proportional to rightness. There is a special responsibility of the original poster to document the details that are supposed to be so outrageous. And there is a general responsibility to understand that a concern with piddly little details like fact and logic are not a sign of moral depravity.

As a rule, it would be best not to even start hate (or outrage) threads without being prepared to solidly support your case.

 

[Adm_Hawthorne]

I'm tempted to thread bomb this with an "in before the lock" gif. I've got a neat one from Avatar (the anime), but I'm not going to do that because it would be really immature and we're in the wrong forum for that.

That aside, what I think you're suggesting, if I'm reading this correctly, is that none of us should post things we disagree with and/or find outrageous if we are only going to disagree with people who take the opposite opinion on the topic.

I'd say that would pretty much stifle the whole purpose of a discussion board.

What's the point of a message board if you can't post something you disagree with and then have discourse with the people who disagree with you?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The OP sounds suspiciously like mini-modding to me.

If you don't like how someone opens a thread, you're more than welcome to not post in it, or you can attack the substance of their post. But complaining about how people run threads is a bit silly.

 

[Adm_Hawthorne]

It's also counterproductive to discussion in general.

I've seen some threads that started out quite questionable turn into really good threads. It's not the OP that really creates the thread's "personality" but how the posters decide to take the content within the OP.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

It's also counterproductive to discussion in general.

I've seen some threads that started out quite questionable turn into really good threads. It's not the OP that really creates the thread's "personality" but how the posters decide to take the content within the OP.

Exactly. The opening post is usually just a springboard. Everybody else makes of it what they will.

 

[JonathonWally]

Posters at trekbbs of course are not the only ones. Every bbs I've seen have some forum where people can post on miscellaneous or political topics. And every forum has some thread where some poster will cite some story, then exclaim in outrage. She or he then politely asks for comment (read, agreement,) then it's off to the races!

There are typically two problems. First, there is the way the original outrageous story is usually poorly cited, or taken from a grossly biased "news" source. Second, there is usually giveaway indignation at any with the poor taste to disagree.

I suggest that these are fake outrage threads. They are hate threads, where the poster's true intention is to, well, essentially, troll a public figure. The thing is, I can't see how that isn't still trolling. As such it is an offense against civility.

As to the cure, expecting that the original poster should measure her or his outrage to the reliability of the source is a start. The original poster is not precisely the author but as the publisher on the bbs, she or he is endorsing the source.

Further, everyone should understand that the intensity of outrage is not proportional to rightness. There is a special responsibility of the original poster to document the details that are supposed to be so outrageous. And there is a general responsibility to understand that a concern with piddly little details like fact and logic are not a sign of moral depravity.

As a rule, it would be best not to even start hate (or outrage) threads without being prepared to solidly support your case.

I for one am outraged, outraged by your outrage toward people who start outrage threads.

 

[Tan Ru]

I for one am outraged, outraged by your outrage toward people who start outrage threads.

I'm putting that on a T-shirt.

Where should I send the copyright fee?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfzLyPqko8w[/yt]

 

[Gryffindorian]

Damn, JW beat me to it.

 

[RJDiogenes]

While it's true that many "outrage Threads" cite questionable sources and are only started because the OP wants to flaunt his or her perceived moral superiority, many others are started with quite sincere intentions. As long as there is legitimate content Posted along with the link, there is no need to police these types of Threads; the denizens of TrekBBS are quite capable of research and rebuttal.

And if there is any genuine Trolling going on, that's when the Mods become outraged and woe betide he who crossed the line.

 

[stj]

I wrote in conclusion:

As a rule, it would be best not to even start hate (or outrage) threads without being prepared to solidly support your case.

There is no way to go from there to this:

That aside, what I think you're suggesting, if I'm reading this correctly, is that none of us should post things we disagree with and/or find outrageous if we are only going to disagree with people who take the opposite opinion on the topic.

So much for the high point in the discussion. (It's also impossible to find any outrage.)

This isn't rocket science. I think saying that spreading any sort of inflammatory smear is okay so long as it's "news" or aimed at a public figure, coupled with fake indignation at suppressing discussion when called on it lowers the tone of discourse. I think it also means pretending lies are as good as truth in the name of a deranged notion of manners that still allows loutish abuse. I suppose people can disagree but I don't think anyone really thinks these are extreme opinions. I think people around here are quite sensitive to starting threads hostile to a mere TV show or movie, and those aren't even people!

However I am shocked and saddened to discover that I'm guilty of something called "minimodding." I freely acknowledge that the moderators on this board believe it is a good rule to start threads expressing outrage or abusing public figures without being prepared to defend the case; to
decry objections as moral indifference to outrage; to have no responsibility for providing details; to cite sources without being thought of as endorsing them; to know that the more outraged you are, the more sensitive and honest you are; to be as outraged as you feel appropriate, without having to justify it. Plainly, this approach will maximize civility and discussion.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

stj, would you have started this if the other thread had been someone other than Oliver Stone? Would you care as much if the thread had been about somebody you DON'T like?

 

[Amaris]

Posters at trekbbs of course are not the only ones. Every bbs I've seen have some forum where people can post on miscellaneous or political topics. And every forum has some thread where some poster will cite some story, then exclaim in outrage. She or he then politely asks for comment (read, agreement,) then it's off to the races!

There are typically two problems. First, there is the way the original outrageous story is usually poorly cited, or taken from a grossly biased "news" source. Second, there is usually giveaway indignation at any with the poor taste to disagree.

I suggest that these are fake outrage threads. They are hate threads, where the poster's true intention is to, well, essentially, troll a public figure. The thing is, I can't see how that isn't still trolling. As such it is an offense against civility.

As to the cure, expecting that the original poster should measure her or his outrage to the reliability of the source is a start. The original poster is not precisely the author but as the publisher on the bbs, she or he is endorsing the source.

Further, everyone should understand that the intensity of outrage is not proportional to rightness. There is a special responsibility of the original poster to document the details that are supposed to be so outrageous. And there is a general responsibility to understand that a concern with piddly little details like fact and logic are not a sign of moral depravity.

As a rule, it would be best not to even start hate (or outrage) threads without being prepared to solidly support your case.

Human beings don't always base their emotions on cited sources. We see something that makes us angry, and then we post about it. Many members have the good grace to apologize or admit when they are wrong if they are shown clear, concise evidence to the contrary, but we're not logic machines. Yes, a little forethought and reason can stave off embarrassment down the road, but emotions have a tendency to waive logic and reason when they are intense and deeply felt. I don't think the majority of angered and outraged posts in such threads are faked. I believe they are legitimate, because most BBS members here don't post outrage threads all of the time, and we are aware of those who do, and gauge such constantly adversarial posts with skepticism.

 

[SPOCKED]

And if there is any genuine Trolling going on, that's when the Mods become outraged and woe betide he who crossed the line.

"woe betide..?" I want your children!

 

[Marie1]

And if there is any genuine Trolling going on, that's when the Mods become outraged and woe betide he who crossed the line.

"woe betide..?" I want your children!

He's Megatron, robots don't work that way...

 

[RJDiogenes]

I freely acknowledge that the moderators on this board believe it is a good rule to start threads expressing outrage or abusing public figures without being prepared to defend the case; to
decry objections as moral indifference to outrage; to have no responsibility for providing details; to cite sources without being thought of as endorsing them; to know that the more outraged you are, the more sensitive and honest you are; to be as outraged as you feel appropriate, without having to justify it. Plainly, this approach will maximize civility and discussion.

How did you obtain access to the "Moderator's Creed?" I'm outraged!

And if there is any genuine Trolling going on, that's when the Mods become outraged and woe betide he who crossed the line.

"woe betide..?" I want your children!

I even talk that way in real life.

 

[Adm_Hawthorne]

I think saying that spreading any sort of inflammatory smear is okay so long as it's "news" or aimed at a public figure, coupled with fake indignation at suppressing discussion when called on it lowers the tone of discourse.

YMMV

Meaning, one person's "smear" is another person's "truth", and it is how you decide to respond to the other person's truth that decides if the discussion is going to be "lowered".

I think it also means pretending lies are as good as truth in the name of a deranged notion of manners that still allows loutish abuse.

This sentence is a fragment, but I think I get what you're saying.

Public figures know going into the spotlight that both half-truths and flat out lies are going to crop up about them. If they didn't accept that, then they wouldn't take the job.

People believe and, yes, become outraged by lies all the time. If one sees it and can prove otherwise, then do so. That's part of the point of a message board discussion. You may perceive the person who is outraged by the 'lie' to be a lout or behave thus, but how you decide to interact with that person determines the course of the thread.

If what that person is saying is too outlandish and it's clear they are not being reasonable, hit the ignore button. That's part of the reason why it's there.

This is the internet. You don't change people's minds here.

I suppose people can disagree but I don't think anyone really thinks these are extreme opinions.

Meaning? If you're saying you don't think the people who are posting their outrage are actually outraged, I'm going to have to disagree with you. As someone else pointed out, most of the time, the outrage people post is genuine.

When I'm ticked off about something and I post about it, I'm genuinely that angry about it.

I think people around here are quite sensitive to starting threads hostile to a mere TV show or movie, and those aren't even people!

"Quite sensitive" would indicate that they are prone to posting these types of threads you're describing, and I don't really think so. That says a lot coming from a regular Voyager poster who is a Janewayite from way back.

Hostility in posting only comes when other posters decide to react with hostility. Again, it's up to the other posters to determine the course of the thread once the OP has happened.

However I am shocked and saddened to discover that I'm guilty of something called "minimodding." I freely acknowledge that the moderators on this board believe it is a good rule to start threads expressing outrage or abusing public figures without being prepared to defend the case; to
decry objections as moral indifference to outrage; to have no responsibility for providing details; to cite sources without being thought of as endorsing them; to know that the more outraged you are, the more sensitive and honest you are; to be as outraged as you feel appropriate, without having to justify it.

You could easily edit this down to "I'm aware mods believe posters are free to post how they like as long as it doesn't fall under the board's definition of spamming/trolling/flaming." Why the inflated language here and throughout this post?

Plainly, this approach will maximize civility and discussion.

I have to admit, I don't know what has you riled, but maybe you should take a break for a day or two and come back. Sometimes things look different after you've given yourself a personal time-out.