Why are we all so nasty?

I think that the repetition of a point of view happens until the person feels heard. Or gets the response they are seeking. And unfortunately, since we don't sit in the same parlour during these heated discussions, it's easy to look for points of disagreement rather than agreement. And not to admit that while we may disagree, we do hear the other side.

I would also include the steering wheel as another device that causes people to go insane.

It ends up being completely circular as rational people try to explain over and over again to trolls that their rudeness is unwelcome.

Back at work after a few week break, I muttered to the guy I share an office with, "When I hear about the chaos in Lebanon, I just can't believe it's happening."

Like an attack dog, he spewed invectives about Afghanistan being free, $3.00/gal for gas puts the lie to the "No blood for oil" crowd, and weapons of mass destruction have definitely been found in Iraq, thus putting a finger in the eye of the "Bush Lied" crowd. (I proudly display that bumper sticker above "Who would Jesus bomb?") He said even more people would have been killed by Saddam, so we need to feel no guilt about civilian deaths or torture to extract information from prisoners rounded up from the field of battle.

All I could say was we both knew this day would coming and that the attack radio shows he listens to are convincing people like him to become a bunch of Nazis. I closed the door and left.

I have to admit it did shake me up a bit. I guess my observation about Israel and Lebanon made him defensive and so he went on the attack. This is classic Karl Rove strategy.

I had a guy like that at my former workplace. He could always be counted on to spout whatever talking points were on the conservative top 10 list without variation. It was as if he had no independent thought of his own on any issue. On our internal message board his avatar was Rush Limbaugh. If someone made a statement about any non-conservative idea that he couldn't completely refute, he would nitpick the details of the argument with barely-contained glee. He would parse someone's messageboard posting into individual passages and carefully address each one, as if the global truth of the posting rested on the individual truth of each phrase. If he really didn't like something that you posted, he would parse the posting then march to your office to call you an idiot in person. It just amazes me that some people can be so dogmatic and not have an independent thought. It was like he was the Manchurian Candidate of conservatism.

Oh @!$%# off, what do you know?

Err, wait, you're also in Columbus...

Uh, good point! ;)

Ohio State may be big, but I'll find you eventually... then beat you over the head with whatever James Joyce tome you're carrying at the time!

Who you callin arsehole, "Arsehoe"

I honestly don't believe that anonymity or fear of reprisal have any bearing on people's attitudes toward one another. I have witnessed forums in which everyone knew each other's names and lived geographically close to one another become overrun by open verbal warfare and hatred like you read about. Although it often remains hidden behind masks of artificial pleasantry, people are just plain spiteful and obnoxious. When some people are tucked safely away behind their computer screens, for some reason the masks come off and the venom starts flying. I think this nastiness is more a reflection of some false sense of being the champion of the universe that comes to people when they are online-- especially to those who view everything as a competition.

I like the bozofilter idea by the way. If people want to spend all of their time wallowing happily with their own amen choir it would give them the opportunity to do so. It would also make it possible for those of us who tire of the competition and one upmanship to tune out the worst offenders who prefer this game of nastiness. Until you weed out the people who are incapable of listening to both sides without blowing a gasket, the downward spiral of the conversation will continue.

I agree with DBS. I have seen the same rudeness in face-to-face confrontations. The common thread I attribute this to is the lack of consequences for being a prick. I do not condone violence, but the threat of consequences, physical or otherwise, does make conversations more civilized.

The quality of the conversations and communication was best when I was a Marine. Everyone knew that being a prick carried consequences. Even the hulks that may have been bullies in high school found out pretty quickly that there were people much nicer than they were that were much more dangerous than they were. Predictably, instances of prickish behavior usually occurred when the prick outranked their victims and usually ended after the prick spent some time in the field where they seemd to have great difficulty.

You may be right that it's just people in general. I find myself saying 'I hate everyone' at least twice a week as people do $%#&&* things to me or other people around me. But I also think that people are emboldened by the fact that they can't be taken to task by their words/actions online because there is a sense of separation from their physical self. Just my opinion as well.

Goldwin rules!

I mean Godwin. LoL :)

My very first article on Newsvine contained your suggestion. I am of the opinion that everyone on the Internet should be identifiable and verifiable. I don't call for legislating that, I call for all the good guys to start doing it and excluding the bad guys. By bad guys I mean illegals, criminals, child porners, etc.

I understand that by using real names people might be less inclined to get a nasty attitude with others, but it would also make others not post at all. Some of the best articles I have read on Newsvine, have been written or seeded by someone with an alias. People are worried or concerned about privacy issues that have nothing to do with wanting to make mean comments on the Vine.

My name is Bill and I'd be more than happy to appear here as Bill, from Edmonton Alberta, Canada, but my name is Bill, not Bill29-X5Z-2R. So I appear as Writelife. It's a limitation of technology and life - there are just too damn many of us Bills.

Having said that, WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE???!!! Unless you're revealed to the world as who you really are, you behave like a twit? I want to ask, "Were we all raised in barns?" but farm people are far better behaved than any of the idiots you run into online.

In the book "The Snow Leopard" by Peter Matthiessen he talks about an incident where a sherpa was treated very poorly, disrepectfully by some of the people on the expedition and he asked the sherpa something to the effect of, "How can you work for these people? How can you respect them?"

The sherpa answers with, "I respect the work."

I took this as meaning the clowns he worked for were irrelevant. What he DID defined him. And in this case, that was the work. So to adapt how well he worked based on the people he workded for meant that he was allowing them to define him.

I think it is the same online. Yes, there are idiots out there, there are vulgar and stupid people all over the Internet. Does that mean I should allow them to define my behaviour? In many cases, that is what happens. We allow the medium, or our perception of it, to define our behaviour.

But whether your friends and family know it or not, if you're an ass online then ... well, you're an ass everywhere. You are what you do.

Sorry for the rant ... :-)

I thought it was a well-written rant. :)

I generally come off as much more formal in my writing than I actually am in person, possibly due to being an avid reader, and my writing style is often misinterpreted as either arrogance or condescension (killfile mentioned something similar in another thread).

Then again, I've also noted a tendency in some people online to be, basically, looking for a reason to start a fight... I don't know if this is their way of acting out on their own inferiority complex (usually masked by an egocentric personna), or if they're just trolling for the fun of it. Personally, I don't see what's fun about making an arse out of themselves to make people instantly detest them, but I guess that's their attention-getting thing... any attention, even the crappy kind, is what they're after.

Writelife, that was a wonderful essay. Thanks for being here.

Try William, or "William" in another language.

I've been a William before - in a second year class/seminar at university. There were three Bills so it was decided I would be William. But everytime my name was called I would sit there waiting for someone else to answer. My brain doesn't seem to respond to it (though, oddly, my signature is William.)
:-)

Writelife: My definition of a rant requires invective, emotionality and repetition. It generally doesn't contain subtle quotes from wise books, intelligent lessons, and the structure of a well thought-out argument. You didn't write a rant; as oldfogey says, you wrote an excellent little essay. Thanks. (And thanks, Irma, for seeding the article.)

winsomecowboy, you are describing me to a tee. I know just how you feel. Somewhere along the way I found out how wonderful the experience of making others feel good can be. By making them feel good we can then revert to our primal selves and be as agressive and sarcastic and pompous as we want. Fun, isn't it? This is only half tongue in cheek. It has been a long day at the office. Thanks for being here.

Yeah i get the half tongue in cheek thing alright. I've spent my entire career combining comedy with acting like an @!$%#.

I regret that part of me that relishes making people feel attacked. I also regret the pleasure I get in carefully constructing airtight little snarks.

Part of me enjoys putting people who are attacking others back on the defensive. I also get pleasure in tearing apart snark with facts. I enjoy countering talking points with facts. I freely admit that I usually tend to respond to those attacking or using snark who I disagree with. Part of what I enjoy or feel the need to do is to somehow shape the national discussion even if a small way toward whay I believe would be more rational and moral policies.

Of course, there can be a fine line between the former and latter. I also admit that being anonymous allows me to let of some of the bile and anger that builds up when I look around and see what is slowly happening to the country. So some times someone who I perceive to be attacking and need to be put in their place, really wasnt or the snark wasnt intended as snar.k

Another reason that political discussions get heated is because a lot it at stake. In my opinion the current administration is fundamentally dangerous and corrosive unlike any other in modern history. I try to point out why with facts because I have an urge to do something about it. The issues are also explosive - torture, terrorism, war, civil rights, religion. Its not an accident that the debate has become increasingly polarized and explosive after a Presidential campaign in 2000 where the winner promised he would be different. He has been different, only worse instead of better.

Part of the problem is the rise of political groups that contantly feed followers with polarized talking points and anger.

Of course there are conservative and liberal flavors, but Im more familiar with those pointing out the hate by conservatives supporting those that currntly run the country.

Right wingers declare a war of intimidation

Journalists: It's time for some articles on the pro-Bush blogosphere

Does calling attenion to this further inflame the problem? How do we address this growing issue - will turning the other cheek work in an era of mass media, negative campaigning, high priced political consultants and sophistitcated focus groups?

I agree SpookyET. If someone wants to really find you, they most likely will.

I don't know that it's really about things quite as nefarious as murder, pedophilia, etc (though I suppose it could be). However, it's certainly possible that people could be put in a situation where postings could cause trouble personally or professionally if someone figured out who the person was. A hypothetical example - a new user starts posting articles about depression caused by an unhealthy marriage - maybe they don't want their spouse to know about it but need an outlet for discussion on the issue.

Some people obviously aren't concerned with everyone knowing a little about their personal background (username is easily identifiable or avatar is a real picture), whereas others have usernames and avatars that completely obscure their true self. Is it just a coincidence or are they actively trying to build an online persona that is completely separate from their personal life?

There's this sentient being I'm married to and she's like a black hole of rationality, provocatively designed stuff just gets sucked up, never to be seen again, almost like it never existed. Because of this I have to find other ways to express myself which is profoundly interesting. I now only have to overcome the anxiety I have that she will kill me in my sleep.

Irma - Certainly less satisfying, but sometimes survival, not satisfaction, is the issue at hand. Regarding matters of true gravity, I fear we are well past the point where civility is the issue. We are into the realm of incommensurables, where differences will be settled by something beyond words, civil or shouted, but for the time being we shout, in rehearsal for what comes. But I sincerely commend you and Mr. Brown for attempting to drag us away from the precipice.

By your comment above, I would hazard a guess: your user name stands for Common Sense :-)

That makes it sound like we're all vying for the lead role in the school play... and the internet provides the stage.

I didn't cite any source because it's my opinion and original thought (at least I've never run across the idea put that way before).

The assumption was yours that I was talking only of people with which I disagree :)

To further clarify there are a few people on Newsvine that I typically agree with and they write as though they are part of a large group though that group is certainly not found on this site. And there probably are many more people out there that agree with them, though here most do not. So they are somewhat justified in the belief. Having the notion you speak for others doesn't make you bad, all our politicians are supposed to be doing just that.

The article is addressing people that post useless troll-like comments. I am suggesting that many troll comments are posted with the notion they are speaking for (or defending) a larger group.

To illustrate and give anybody in denial the ability to say it's only other people I'll use myself as an example. Recently I made my own troll comment, after thinking about it for awhile I realized why and thus was born this theory and I ran across an article to post it on. In this case I felt some strange compulsion to defend other people's actions though I had no desire to actually spend time to refute the assertions. So what came out was just a troll-comment. What made it even worse of an offense is that it was in answer to somebody that I'd previously decided to ignore as their comments have always seemed intended to provoke not inform.

The assumption was yours that I was talking only of people with which I disagree :)

This might be unfari, As luck would have it I looked at your comment page, I saw the "troll comment" you refer to as well. I also looked at several atticles you have seeded which have a consistent theme. In fact I started writing about it as an example of the snide comments you say you try to avoid, but opted not to judge on one comment without taking more time to look at the context. Needless to say I have other prorities so I left it out.

Now the fact you refer to the comment as troll comment addes a different pespective.

My last comment wasnt particularly clear, but perhaps to some degree I am the one that is projecting:

I wrote:

Doesnt the assumption and quick projection of mob mentality upon those you disagree itself feed the vitriol?

The fact is that I often perceive a mob mentality by many "right wing" Bush supporters. I try to do it bases on evidence and not assumption. A glace at your columns at leat suggests you might be part of such a "mob". This is one of the reasons I assumed you were talking about those you disagreee with.

I recognize that this isnt exclusive to right wingers by a long shot. I also make an effort not to be part of a mob and to question my assumptions. If you looked at my page you may very well conclude that Im part of some liberal mob.

I stand by my comment that the tendency to attibute mob mentality to others is part of the problem and not a belief that people are ahead of a mob as you suggested (I understand you label this as just your opinion). It effects me as well.

For example, my response to one persons argument defending the Bush adminsitration is colored by others who make similar claims. Of course some defences are better than others and some criticisms are unfair, and a tendency to lump them simplistically lessens the chance for dialogue. Over time I am less and less inclined to give both the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt or his supporters.

As another example I often see people claim that the media is very liberal as a unthinking tool to discredit anything seen as liberal, while make more reliable anything is conservative. It becomes self-reinforcing if view all information with such a prism.

Ann Coulter is the best example of this mentality taken to extemes whereby she attribues everything to a mob mentality. Every piece of evidence becomes proof that all Democrats and liberals are traitors to and hate America. The fact that so many people buy and read her books is sad. Its ironic that her book slander is full of slander, and that she says that liberal name calling proves they have nothing else to offer.

the tendency to attibute mob mentality to others is part of the problem

you might be part of such a "mob".

If attributing mob mentality to others is a problem, why do you attribute me as part of a mob?

I have only ever seeded 6 links and 4 of those 6 was back when I was trying to figure out what needed to be done in order to post a link in a comment. The article seeded about Moore was an experiment to see if certain keywords placed articles in the featured writers list - and it did feature there for about 12 minutes which was inconclusive to my test. I thought about it some more and decided that further experimentation along those lines would be rude to the community owners as my interest wasn't in seeding news. The last one was news that was simply amazing to me, I didn't see it coming and at the time I seeded it there was no other links to stories about that on Newsvine, though many showed up inside minutes of that one.

I have posted plenty of comments including many that directly state my politics and I try to not parrot anybody. I nearly always think through my comments and after I write them I generally do something else for 5+ minutes then read it again before posting. I can't tell you how many times that has resulted in me deleting the comment entirely, usually because somebody else already commented something very similar in the lag time.

In my online and offline discussions and experiences there is a strong tendency in people in general to take sides and parrot others arguments. This is generally because it's far easier than creating your own arguments and because many times what you would say had already been said by somebody probably better known or respected than you. That online often leads to fruitless comments and a mob mentality where the number of people engaged in a discussion can be extreme. Making comments denouncing somebody else's comment as being such is contributing to the problem because they are mimicking the problem. Saying so here though where we are talking about the problem I think is fair.

In an aside I was watching the vote count on this thread, when you mentioned Ann Coulter in a negative light you received more votes than any previous comment in the chain. That somewhat illustrates my point.

If attributing mob mentality to others is a problem, why do you attribute me as part of a mob?

I merely pointed out how it influences peoples thinking including sometimes my own, I thought that was clear.

In an aside I was watching the vote count on this thread, when you mentioned Ann Coulter in a negative light you received more votes than any previous comment in the chain. That somewhat illustrates my point.

Wow you are quick to leap to conclusions based on scarce evidence! Do you really think people are just drones who automatically mark up a remark that includes such a reference? That if I had left the paragraph out on Coulter it would have made any difference? How do you know? It illustrated a point, one you apparently missed by your opening question.

No I didnt read every comment you ever made nor am I going to, it was telling the first comment was as you describe a troll but I hadnt seen your self description.

My point is that attributing mob mentality to others is part of the problem what exactly is yours again?

Bingo! We have a winner! This is so, so true.

Is it really? Gotta admit I've never had a drink before going online. What am I missing? Can't help the spelling much, nor the eye-hand coordination. ;)

...you'll note the vast array of poorly-spelled uncoordinated comments spread out before you, like a field of rotten, drunken strawberries ;)

Take alcohol out of the mix and the history of literature would be diminished by at least ten percent. The alkies die young but without it many would never have written a thing worth reading. And it's not just on the upslope, in foothills of three to four drinks, but also in descent, during what a friend once described as the "super-sobriety of the hangover", that a certain optimum may be achieved. Some views are available only via refraction.

Though there may be a world on the outside, I KNOW there's a world on the inside. All of us exist within cortical bubbles. From the operational and methodological perspectives, solipsism is our condition as rational agents. It's amazing we can communicate at all. All hail Wittgenstein!

Anybody that would get hooked up with AOL has every reason to be nasty and crude.

Anybody that would get hooked up with AOL has every reason to be nasty and crude.

Ten years ago, people didn't have much choice. In some locations, it was the only way to connect to the internet.

But sure, I'll add "former AOL customer" to my list of reasons to be nasty and crude. Thanks. :)

I remember those days...1996...you could have civilized conversation in a chat room. The best part was when someone I would type "@!$%#" and then you'd just get the boot and have to dial back in. Thinking about it now, that was some crazy gestapo stuff!

People were more kind. But what is funny about nastiness here is that I see myself having the kind of attitude I usually only display to my family. I grew up in a sarcastic household so in a lot of ways it's not a loss of inhibitions so much as it is the way I am when I'm most comfortable.

I'm kind of a smart ass.

But what is funny about nastiness here is that I see myself having the kind of attitude I usually only display to my family. I grew up in a sarcastic household so in a lot of ways it's not a loss of inhibitions so much as it is the way I am when I'm most comfortable.

Heh, same here.