Specific Issue Arising from Previous Thread

[Twitch]

It's one thing to discuss a topic asking for Loungers' opinions and quite another to discuss the merits of corporal punishment in schools or whatnot. Opinion is welcomed when someone asks everyone for it. Example- image of hat- "what's others opinions on this hat? I might buy it."

When someone is disucssing a topic that often requires empirical evidence or references from experts it STILL usually ends in people having opinions whether kids should be spanked in the school systems regardless case study footnotes.

Any number of times I have stated I don't agree with someones position but I respect it. Usually when a topic gets thrashed I will offer no more than 2-3 retorts because more responses appear to be dogged arguement rather than polite discussion. There are ways to disagree. It's usually not in the exact verbiage but rather in the tone.

I sense the undercurrent of this particular thread as one that some participants want wholehearted argue with other Loungers and I can't guess the reason. However thick or thin the veneer of cordiality here is it deserves continued respect rather than resentment

The idea that we cannot have respectful discussions and only arguements is a bankrupt concept indeed.

 

[Fletch]

My rule

Give evidence. Always. Even if all you have is hearsay, say so. Don't argue from your own authority.

It's amazing how many people, smart people who ought to know better, walk right into a flamefest because they hold so tightly to their own authority - often on some utterly piddling sub-specialty.

 

[Dagwood]

A recent California Court decision noted:

“As one commentator has observed, online discussions may look more like a vehicle for emotional catharsis than a forum for the rapid exchange of information and ideas: ‘Hyperbole and exaggeration are common, and ‘venting’ is at least as common as careful and considered argumentation. The fact that many Internet speakers employ online pseudonyms tends to heighten this sense that ‘anything goes,’ and some commentators have likened cyberspace to a frontier society free from the conventions and constraints that limit discourse in the real world.’”

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I sense the undercurrent of this particular thread as one that some participants want wholehearted argue with other Loungers and I can't guess the reason. However thick or thin the veneer of cordiality here is it deserves continued respect rather than resentment

I don't sense the undercurrent and it certainly wasn't intended. I am trying to understand what some people are saying about disrespect/unmannered responses/put-downs/scapegoats etc. I don't see these things very often but clearly they're being perceived as major issues by some members. I want to know exactly what is considered OK and what's not (and then decide whether i agree or not).

I can't count the number of times i've read a post along the lines of "that's uncalled for" or "that's way out of line", whatever, and then look back and find it's simply someones response to being corrected. Maybe people aren't used to being told they're wrong? Or won't accept the evidence which proves they're wrong? Or think that this website is one big love-fest where no-one will tell them they're wrong?

bk

 

[surely]

I won't apply it to others, but yes, my stated questions and answers are silly. And i did pick a very straightforward example (but one, i might add, that has occurred on FLounge). But this whole notion of people being picked on, or made scapegoats.

Let's say someone needs a lot of correction - constantly - but every time claims they've been upset or the correction was out of order. How much does one need to pussy-foot around the over-sensitive? Those with the thin skin someone mentioned above.

bk

To my first underline: Forever the gentleman and isolate. I like that.

To my 2nd: ZERO In the context of this lounge, one only needs to avoid being patronizing, scornful, dismissive, rude, .... However, I find quite acceptable the well turned phrase which completely destroys the thin skin's argument even though they may not get it now and, alas, may never.

Your question imo should be turned around: How should a person who feels offended express and justify their position? Should they have the right to react with equally objectionable behavior? Perhaps on the street where a reasonable perception can justify strong reaction.

But here in the lounge I think there should be no need "to pussy-foot around"; dance around yes. We have the luxury here of reflection and editing.

 

[Candied violets]

Perhaps it's a cultural question of sorts. After coming back from living in Japan I found most Americans sounded very didactic and strident to me. It seemed everyone was making proclamations, even about the smallest matters. "No one does X." "I can't believe you'd think Y isn't the best." etc. This was especially true on-line.

I think it's because I don't like things that appear confrontational and traditional Japanese societal thought supported this. If I needed to correct someone, I didn't say "You're wrong." Instead it was coached in terms of "I didn't know that. I always thought... (with evidence if needed as in the case of the aforementioned zippers)"

On the other hand, most Americans I knew in Japan hated this sort of "mealy-mouthed sidestepping." They felt it wasn't forthright and could be perceived as condescending. It's all a matter of taste I suppose. I prefer the sugar coated variety, others don't. However, knowing that I am "thin skinned," I just get out of the kitchen -so to speak- when it gets too hot.

 

[Fletch]

Perhaps it's a cultural question of sorts. After coming back from living in Japan I found most Americans sounded very didactic and strident to me. It seemed everyone was making proclamations, even about the smallest matters. "No one does X." "I can't believe you'd think Y isn't the best." etc. This was especially true on-line.

I think it's because I don't like things that appear confrontational and traditional Japanese societal thought supported this. If I needed to correct someone, I didn't say "You're wrong." Instead it was coached in terms of "I didn't know that. I always thought... (with evidence if needed as in the case of the aforementioned zippers)"

On the other hand, most Americans I knew in Japan hated this sort of "mealy-mouthed sidestepping." They felt it wasn't forthright and could be perceived as condescending. It's all a matter of taste I suppose. I prefer the sugar coated variety, others don't. However, knowing that I am "thin skinned," I just get out of the kitchen -so to speak- when it gets too hot.

This is illuminating...Did Americans in Japan actually object to Japanese presenting evidence, or just to their being wishy washy?

I agree with you about our definition of forthrightness. It seems frankness isn't enough to satisfy us. You have to telegraph it: be bluff, brusque, even adversarial. Sugar-coated it's not, but neither is it plain or unadorned. It's the sour-apple or ground-glass coated manner demanding to be seen as more honest than the quiet earnest manner.

If you really want to see it in highly developed and resolutely self-unaware form, visit a well trafficked classical music discussion group. I used to participate in one where even the moderators would talk smack - and if called on it, take each other's backs as defending "standards," "artistry," "professionalism," etc.

 

[Candied violets]

Oh, they objected to the presentation, the wishy-washiness. I was actually speaking of myself in the "presenting evidence" example -- the non-confrontational phrasing has stuck with me even now. I don't think I ever got into an argument with Japanese friends or co-workers, so I didn't get to see how they would present evidence. It was usually stuff like conversations about our favorite music. Even in that case though, I tended to find people tried to agree. I would say something like, “Katori Shingo is my favorite member of SMAP" and my friend would reply, "Really? I'm surprised. Kimura Takuya is the most popular but Shingo is very funny and cute, isn't he?"

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

If someone's wrong, correct them, and try not to be a jerk about it.

If someone corrects you, try not to be a jerk about it.

 

[Paisley]

Re: Candied Violets' posts: This is called being charming. Charm is to manner as a good suit or dress is to clothing.

I wonder if cultivating a pleasant manner helps so many Japanese live together in such a small area.

 

[Fletch]

It certainly doesn't suit people in New Jersey. lol

 

[dollydaydream]

If someone's wrong, correct them, and try not to be a jerk about it.

If someone corrects you, try not to be a jerk about it.

How come it took me so many words to say that???!!! :eusa_doh:

 

[Atticus Finch]

Originally Posted by Miss_Bella_Hell
If someone's wrong, correct them, and try not to be a jerk about it.
If someone corrects you, try not to be a jerk about it.

How come it took me so many words to say that???!!! :eusa_doh:

If I recall correctly, Miss Bella Hell only recently graduated from law school. She hasn't yet learned to charge by the word.

Atticus

 

[LaMedicine]

Perhaps it's a cultural question of sorts......
On the other hand, most Americans I knew in Japan hated this sort of "mealy-mouthed sidestepping." They felt it wasn't forthright and could be perceived as condescending. It's all a matter of taste I suppose. I prefer the sugar coated variety, others don't. However, knowing that I am "thin skinned," I just get out of the kitchen -so to speak- when it gets too hot.

I had the exact opposite problem...and still run into it after over 40 years
I spent 4 years in the US, studied in US public schools, and came back here after completing 10th grade, then continued school in Japan. I was often chided for my directness by friends--not by teachers, mind you--if only for my willingness to share my experiences and opinions gained from them, and imply, on occasions say, that there may be different views, two faces to the same coin.
Now, after being a physician for over 30 years, I need to be tactful, direct at times, indirect at times, cajole, softly prod if needs be, and with all the years in between, you'd think that I'd be very much versed in how to conduct myself. Yet, I still get grief from those who know I spent some years growing up in the US waaaay back, and in fact, I get grief from people who, to me, are much more direct than I am.

Re: Candied Violets' posts: This is called being charming. Charm is to manner as a good suit or dress is to clothing.

I wonder if cultivating a pleasant manner helps so many Japanese live together in such a small area.

We almost literally live on each other's laps--close to 130 million in an area that is about California's size, I thought the comparison is, and of that, only 20% of the land is flat, thre rest mountainous. Also, one tenth of the poplulation lives in Tokyo proper...Needless to say, if certain sets of manners were NOT in effect (though sadly, much is disappearing) only chaos would reign. :eusa_doh:

One of the differences is that while in American/European cultures, individuality comes first and foremost (from what I observe, mind you, compared to how things are here), but in Japan, and in a lot of Asian societies, family and society comes first. It's gut reflex that something we do/say will not only embarass ourselves, but will reflect on our family, and embarass them. Defacing the honor of one's family name is a shame and stigma one sometimes ends up have follow him/her for life. Of course, there is less of that these days, but it still exists.

Ah, okay, I got fftopic: off my soap box.

 

[Idledame]

You know, those thin skinned people of whom you all are speaking know that you are talking about them, even if you aren't using their names. And they are feeling picked on. They apparently don't think they are being a jerk (jerks?) so they can't be expected to quit being one. (or many-I can't get the nouns to match in numbers or whatever--I bet Doran could do it). In short, and I am, I don't think it's possible to avoid hurt feelings. If the general civility on FL hasn't prevented it in the past, I suppose it's just inevitable. But it is very rare isn't it?

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

If I recall correctly, Miss Bella Hell only recently graduated from law school. She hasn't yet learned to charge by the word.

Atticus

I haven't even graduated yet! I am sure they'll teach me how to do that next year.

You know, those thin skinned people of whom you all are speaking know that you are talking about them, even if you aren't using their names. And they are feeling picked on. They apparently don't think they are being a jerk (jerks?) so they can't be expected to quit being one. (or many-I can't get the nouns to match in numbers or whatever--I bet Doran could do it). In short, and I am, I don't think it's possible to avoid hurt feelings. If the general civility on FL hasn't prevented it in the past, I suppose it's just inevitable. But it is very rare isn't it?

I'm speaking only hypothetically, and have no idea who we're *actually* talking about. (I can't speak for others though).

 

[Twitch]

OK if this topic is actually pondering the aspects of correcting someone during an online discussion we must agree that the topic must be one of which that is historical. By that I mean a topic where events occurred and were documented by the video or sound media or it was recorded for posterity in the written word format. This could be yesterday or 100 years ago.

The topic "anyone wear vintage underwear?" certainly leaves ANY comment possible as being valid. "Yes, I do" "who cares?" "no I don't" are all good answers.

A topic that says, "should I buy this hat for $5" is again wide open because it begs for all sorts of opinions- "Heck yeah" "Can't lose for $5" "not unless it's fur" "it's ugly" are valid retorts.

Answers to topics like these have no place for one person correcting anothers opinion. If you don't agree with someone else's opinion that's fine and if you feel it is necessary to say so you should do it politely.

It is topics where discussion of a recorded events facts may be used to prove a theory or point. We might be talking about land speed record cars that race several hundred miles an hour at the Bonneville salt flats and someone says, "Yeah, Mickey Thompson held the record at 406MPH."

Well the truth is that in order for these records to be valid a car has to run within a small percentage of that speed in 2 directions on the same day and Mickey's car broke and could not do it. So Thompson held an unoffical speed mark but not the record sanction by the international rule bodies that govern such things.

While this correction may stabilize things someone will STILL say, "Even so, he ran faster than anyone else up to then." So are we going to argue the details and split the hairs of definition? Why? For arguement's sake?

By a vast majority the bulk of conversation content here is point of view, opinion, belief or feelings orientated. We just don't have topics like "Cold Fusion Works" which would require extraordinary proof and would be met with equally weighty data to prove the opposite.

The problem stems from people correcting or disagreeing with others from entirely subjective points. We get subjective points of view rather than educated by study points of view.

In the real world if several folks who were not too familiar with one another had a chat and one said, "I belive in UFOs. I saw one once." Out of sheer cordiality there would rarely be anyone assinine enough to respond, "you must be nuts! That's all a lot of crap!" Likely you'd get a "sorry I just don't believe in that stuff."

The anonymity of the web unleashes peoples' inhibitions to adhere to respect for others. Work on that. Pretend real hard we're all actually in a lounge chatting it up. Perhaps that will stiffel the propensity to knee-jerk react with snide remarks.[huh]

 

["Doc" Devereux]

The anonymity of the web unleashes peoples' inhibitions to adhere to respect for others. Work on that. Pretend real hard we're all actually in a lounge chatting it up. Perhaps that will stiffel the propensity to knee-jerk react with snide remarks.[huh]

I simply treat everything I post on-line as though it were being published with my full name on it. Perhaps this might work for others.

I used to belong to one forum that insisted on members posting only under their own names, and I must say that it seemed to help avoid an awful lot of discourtesy.

 

[LizzieMaine]

All this can be summed up in one simple sentence: Never say anything on the Lounge that you wouldn't say to the other person's face in a public setting.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The problem stems from people correcting or disagreeing with others from entirely subjective points. We get subjective points of view rather than educated by study points of view.

Exactly. We've experienced both here. Purely subjective "four in hand knots are ridiculous" to purely demonstrable "zippers weren't used in men's trousers until the 1950s". Now, one is opinion and the other debatable. There seems to be a notion that to bluntly tell the person talking about zippers they are wrong, and to back it up with researchable facts, is discourteous just because they might get upset at coming to the realisation that they're not always correct. [huh] (honestly, not a made-up example)

The anonymity of the web unleashes peoples' inhibitions to adhere to respect for others. Work on that. Pretend real hard we're all actually in a lounge chatting it up. Perhaps that will stiffel the propensity to knee-jerk react with snide remarks.[huh]

It does. I'm with Doc D and Lizzie.

bk