I cannot put myself above anyone else or pretend I'm innocent; however, there are a few things you need to know before you get into an internet fight, known as a flame war.
Once it gets heated, the other guy will inevitably say that you're "attacking" him because they have a "different opinion." That's right: the other guy will always say that all he did was voice his opinion and that's all. And for attacking his opinion, you've violated his civil rights, you're a NAZI fascist, and they must ban you immediately. It's almost always a ploy to discredit and vilify you by making you seem unduly hostile and unreasonable. It may, indeed, be that you attacked them, but chances are that it run a lot deeper from someone saying, "my favorite color is green."
In the words of Shelby Steele, "innocence is power." Saying that you've attacked them simply for disagreeing with them gives them a false sense of moral superiority. It garners an illusion of innocence by placing guilt on your part.
Of course, offering an opinion is not inherently harmless or praiseworthy. If someone were to say, "all Scandinavians are stupid punks! They ought to kill every last one of them," that would certainly be an opinion, but it would hardly be seen as harmless or reasonable.
Furthermore, making a factual statement that is in dispute, and combining it with an opinion may also cause for hostility. If someone were to say, "Michael Jackson was a child molester, and his fans should be ashamed of themselves," it's more than understandable why his fans would be upset with this, as most Michael Jackson fans likely choose not to believe that he was guilty of molesting children, whether or not the evidence, taken objectively, leads to the same conclusion.
Opinions that may be valid, but which contain hyperbole or which are too presumptuous about the opposing views are also a pain in the ass. Now, of course, I'm not perfect, but the fact remains that it's so annoying to hear that you're either an old fart or a young punk simply because of your entertainment preferences. It would be sad enough if it were true that people were only attacked for opposing things in entertainment, but also, they're often attacked for supporting or defending things.
Often, people are reasonable about a well-reasoned opinion, such as, "I think that in the new comics, Superman lacks the avuncular presence he once had, and has a more aggressive stance, so I find it hard to read the newer comics, and prefer material from when I was growing up," but are not thrilled with, "those losers made Superman this stupid little Twilight kid and now he's a baby throwing a bunch of tantrums! You '90s-kid losers can't possibly like this shit and call yourselves fans! Give me 'The Pied Piper of Steel' any day!"*
One might urge someone offering the former complaint to give it another chance, but rather speak in a more confrontational tone to the later. When it comes to entertainment, empty and acerbic criticisms of the material are often perceived as thinly-veiled insults not only to the creators of the work, but to fans and the intended audience/demographic.
Often, there are blatant generalizations made about the audience or intended audience, usually based on age and broad, unprovable generalizations about the age group in question. Almost inevitably, those making such complaints are usually sickened by a taste of their own medicine.
A lack of logic, can also be grating, even when there is no intent to insult the other poster.
Imagine if someone said, "if you're wearing mostly red, you must be a member of the Norteños," then observe the following debate…
"The Flash wears mostly red, and he's obviously not a member of the Norteños."
"He's wearing crimson, not red."
"Crimson is a type of red, and usually, he's usually not in crimson anyway, it's usually closer to flame red."
"But it's a uniform. Not clothing."
"It may be a uniform, but it is still clothing."
"But it's very form-fitting, I was talking about baggy clothing."
"That's not what you said, and besides…"
This Abbot & Costello routine can go on forever. Now, even though the guy who thinks everyone who wears red is a gangbanger isn't really insulting anyone, it's still grating to see this guy ducking and weaving to support his non-logic. But then, imagine if the guy accused the guy who insists that wearing red doesn't make you a gang member of "not making sense," or something.
Moving on, another standard of flame wars is when somebody says, "excuse me for not blindly accepting everything they give us," when someone defends something, especially if it's popular in some circles. Also, expect the word "worship" to be bandied about.
Claiming that you "worship" something or that you are "blindly" accepting it absolves them of having to defend their position and makes you out to be the irrational one. Imagine if you had written drawn-out defense of what a controversial--and in whatever board or group you're in, unpopular--and being hammered with, "well, excuse me for not just blindly falling in line with him." They've not only refused to acknowledge your points, but they've basically accused you of being blind, when you may have written something absolutely scholarly.
The irony is that the aim of this, most of the time, to convey a sense of victimhood or in some other way, feeling put-upon as the "odd man out," even when they're the majority opinion in the board or group. It gives them victim status, and thus, hero status. I call it the Timmy O'Toole effect.
Another thing you can count on should you find yourself in a flame war is being accused of being angry. Now, you might be thinking, "okay, so they accuse me of being angry, so what?" But if you know what I'm talking about, then you know how it pisses you off, thereby making them wrong and pissing you off some more.
Now, the goal here is, of course, to discredit you and make you seem foolish, petty and, most importantly, irrational. It reduces anything you say to a comic tantrum. It also reduces you to two options.
When someone calls you "angry," and you get angry, you are, obviously, proving them right. If you lay into them with more extreme your insults, name-calling, cussing, references to their mother and sexually demeaning your comments, then you're proving them right. However, even a cute little jab or continuing to express a strong opinion will still beget this behavior from them.
Your other option is to shut up.
But who cares what they think? Well, other posters. When someone pulls out the anger card, it takes some pretty good maneuvering on your part for the other posters to really get that it's the other guy--and only the other guy--who's to blame. It's common for people who aren't even necessarily against you to tell you to "chill out" simply for offering a strong opinion, so what do you do?
Really just nothing. It's tempting, but just don't say anything. You'd just be making things worse for yourself. If you defend yourself, they'll just see it as more bitching. If you go as far as to say, "you're right," you're rewarding their butting in. If an apology is really in order, apologize to the administrator or nobody in particular. The best thing to do is to find something else to do for a while and come back later with another post. If they continue to ride you on it even though you're trying to change the subject, then it may just be time to raise the white flag, but as you're leaving, say, "okay, but look: I was trying to change the subject to something positive. You're the ones stuck in this little quagmire of yours. I admit, I said some things I shouldn't have; but at this point, it just doesn't matter anymore."
Sometimes, your opponent will actually play to this idea and say that you "come off as" an idiot or "sound" like such a loser. Best thing to do in those cases,
Internet fights between two or more people with differing viewpoints are bad enough, but the internet sheriffs have a tendency to make things worse. Oh, I'm not talking about administrators, they have a right and a duty to maintain order. I'm talking about the sanctimonious pricks who come on and dress down someone who's been seen as a pest on the group.
Now, let me ask you a question: do you think these people usually succeed in making posters straighten up and fly right? Or do they usually make matters… WOOOOOOORSE? Of course they make matters worse. Usually, their targets are as tired of the fights as anyone else, but they're too proud to just walk away. And if someone's gonna make them improve their manners, it's not gonna be some jackass who keeps insulting them and twisting what they have to say.
If you run into an internet sheriff, the best thing to do is to just call them out on it. Don't do it immediately, wait a few times so you can really make sure he or she is truly the self-appointed sheriff of the Deep Space Nine board; but do it soon enough before they have a chance to walk all over you and distract from what you're trying to talk about.
And try to do it in a humorous way. Make it sting just enough that they start to feel like they're not impressing anyone, but not too much so that they have too much ammo or make them go after you full-throttle because you've wounded their pride that much.
Then again, that's probably anything, but think of his audience. Let them know that while you may be guilty of being too hostile, arrogant or anything else they may believe about you; that this bozo isn't going to make things better by targeting you.
Another thing you can count on should you find yourself in a flame war is being accused of being angry. Now, you might be thinking, "okay, so they accuse me of being angry, so what?" But if you know what I'm talking about, then you know how it pisses you off, thereby making them wrong and pissing you off some more.
Now, the goal here is, of course, to discredit you and make you seem foolish, petty and, most importantly, irrational. It reduces anything you say to a comic tantrum. It also reduces you to two options.
When someone calls you "angry," and you get angry, you are, obviously, proving them right. If you lay into them with more extreme your insults, name-calling, cussing, references to their mother and sexually demeaning your comments, then you're proving them right. However, even a cute little jab or continuing to express a strong opinion will still beget this behavior from them.
Your other option is to shut up.
But who cares what they think? Well, other posters. When someone pulls out the anger card, it takes some pretty good maneuvering on your part for the other posters to really get that it's the other guy--and only the other guy--who's to blame. It's common for people who aren't even necessarily against you to tell you to "chill out" simply for offering a strong opinion, so what do you do?
Really just nothing. It's tempting, but just don't say anything. You'd just be making things worse for yourself. If you defend yourself, they'll just see it as more bitching. If you go as far as to say, "you're right," you're rewarding their butting in. If an apology is really in order, apologize to the administrator or nobody in particular. The best thing to do is to find something else to do for a while and come back later with another post. If they continue to ride you on it even though you're trying to change the subject, then it may just be time to raise the white flag, but as you're leaving, say, "okay, but look: I was trying to change the subject to something positive. You're the ones stuck in this little quagmire of yours. I admit, I said some things I shouldn't have; but at this point, it just doesn't matter anymore."
Sometimes, your opponent will actually play to this idea and say that you "come off as" an idiot or "sound" like such a loser. Best thing to do in those cases,
Internet fights between two or more people with differing viewpoints are bad enough, but the internet sheriffs have a tendency to make things worse. Oh, I'm not talking about administrators, they have a right and a duty to maintain order. I'm talking about the sanctimonious pricks who come on and dress down someone who's been seen as a pest on the group.
Now, let me ask you a question: do you think these people usually succeed in making posters straighten up and fly right? Or do they usually make matters… WOOOOOOORSE? Of course they make matters worse. Usually, their targets are as tired of the fights as anyone else, but they're too proud to just walk away. And if someone's gonna make them improve their manners, it's not gonna be some jackass who keeps insulting them and twisting what they have to say.
If you run into an internet sheriff, the best thing to do is to just call them out on it. Don't do it immediately, wait a few times so you can really make sure he or she is truly the self-appointed sheriff of the Deep Space Nine board; but do it soon enough before they have a chance to walk all over you and distract from what you're trying to talk about.
And try to do it in a humorous way. Make it sting just enough that they start to feel like they're not impressing anyone, but not too much so that they have too much ammo or make them go after you full-throttle because you've wounded their pride that much.
Then again, that's probably anything, but think of his audience. Let them know that while you may be guilty of being too hostile, arrogant or anything else they may believe about you; that this bozo isn't going to make things better by targeting you.
The good news is that people can be very forgiving. Administrators especially when someone owns up to what they've done. However, there comes a time when you have to walk away, and when that happens, don't feel that it's a "defeat." It will be looked upon by others as such, but sometimes it's better to just walk away.
The question is: was your message worth fighting for or was it much ado about nothing?
The question is: was your message worth fighting for or was it much ado about nothing?
*Note that I used "The Pied Piper of Steel" as an intentional straw man story as it was a very unpopular issue from the Bronze Age. I think I've read it, but I don't remember it very well.
No comments:
Post a Comment