Troll Threshold
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Thursday, October 2, 2025 14:14
VIEWED: 10983
PAGE 8 of 13
Rue called Geezer "Slick" and then Geezer "responded in kind" (escalated, actually) by calling Rue obssessed, unfunny. Then in response Rue said Geezer was delusional to which Geezer replied that Rue was snarky and created an implied threat as well as insult Meet me outside Spagos, Rue, and I'll show you Uber-man." The humor-challenged liberal commentator and sometimes stalker has not yet issued a reply. More as it occurs....stuck-up killjoys.
In that exchange, I think Geezer was being a name-calling jerk, and claiming it was all a "joke" is the oldest trick in the book (one that Ann Coulter knows well 
). Causal- your support for that kind of behavior Hear, Hear! was less than what I would expect from you.
So how SHOULD that thread have gone? Well, I don't support name-calling, starting with "Slick". It's hard to call "foul" on name-calling if its part of your repertoire. But assuming that Rue had not started with "Slick" and the thread had gone on exactly as before, where you you be in that exchange, and why?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
place holder
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Holding a place for you Causal.
I'm going to try a say something, but I'm having a hard time making myself clear even to myself.
For some, what they say and how they act flows directly from their ideology. I ran into that in another bbx in which politics and religion were both banned. When I pointed out that “God bless America” was both political AND religious, I was accused of “bringing politics into everything”. 
(And for my pains I was turned in to the FBI. But that’s another story. 
) I can’t say much about other cultures, but I do know that as an atheist I run into this with my fellow Americans quite often. The reason why this is so, I think, is because many Americans are culturally and intellectually sheltered. A fundamentally different POV offends and even frightens them.
If we intend to have honest and meaningful discussion - and I realize that’s not some people’s intent- then we have to moderate our behavior even when emotions are running high. That means no name-calling, no sniping, no rhetorical dirty tricks. But certain people violate conversational etiquette all the time. They call names, they change the topic, they mischaracterize others’ positions. For most this is simply an unconscious response to feeling threatened. There is ONE person who seems to do this deliberately. I can imagine this person looking into the bag of dirty rhetorical tricks and thinking… what shall I use now? Sarcasm? Innuendo? Name-calling? Re-direction? Occasionally this person just dumps a whole trash-bin into a thread.
What to do?
Ignore.
Ignore.
Ignore.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rue called Geezer "Slick" and then Geezer "responded in kind" (escalated, actually) by calling Rue obssessed, unfunny. Then in response Rue said Geezer was delusional to which Geezer replied that Rue was snarky and created an implied threat as well as insult Meet me outside Spagos, Rue, and I'll show you Uber-man." The humor-challenged liberal commentator and sometimes stalker has not yet issued a reply. More as it occurs....stuck-up killjoys.
In that exchange, I think Geezer was being a name-calling jerk, and claiming it was all a "joke" is the oldest trick in the book (one that Ann Coulter knows well
So how SHOULD that thread have gone? Well, I don't support name-calling, starting with "Slick". It's hard to call "foul" on name-calling if its part of your repertoire. But assuming that Rue had not started with "Slick" and the thread had gone on exactly as before, where you you be in that exchange, and why?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Holding a place for you Causal.
I'm going to try a say something, but I'm having a hard time making myself clear even to myself.
For some, what they say and how they act flows directly from their ideology. I ran into that in another bbx in which politics and religion were both banned. When I pointed out that “God bless America” was both political AND religious, I was accused of “bringing politics into everything”.
If we intend to have honest and meaningful discussion - and I realize that’s not some people’s intent- then we have to moderate our behavior even when emotions are running high. That means no name-calling, no sniping, no rhetorical dirty tricks. But certain people violate conversational etiquette all the time. They call names, they change the topic, they mischaracterize others’ positions. For most this is simply an unconscious response to feeling threatened. There is ONE person who seems to do this deliberately. I can imagine this person looking into the bag of dirty rhetorical tricks and thinking… what shall I use now? Sarcasm? Innuendo? Name-calling? Re-direction? Occasionally this person just dumps a whole trash-bin into a thread.
What to do?
Ignore.
Ignore.
Ignore.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
Ditto
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Having taken a step away from this thread, let me try to start over again.
I’m certain that no matter who we picked in this thread, we could go back and find some post where they were rude, insulting, harsh, or what have you. I’ve done it, Rue’s done it, Sig and Citz and Frem have done it. We all have. It’s not a matter of some being innocent and some guilt—we’re all guilty. Let me say that again, so that maybe we can restart the discussion from an honest place: we’re all guilty. All of us have been hurtful and mean and ugly at one time or other. All of us have made ad hominem attacks, all have insulted, all have been mean. I’ve done this at some points, just as we all have. I don’t think there’s anything hypocritical in calling for change, because I’m not excepting myself from what I perceive as the problem. I’m saying we are all, on one level or another, participating in a couple of patterns of behavior that I think are problematic. And to change those patters, I think there are two key areas we all need to work on:
1) Calm, rational discussion. I think that if we all worked at it, we could talk about the issues with dignity and civility, and, if necessary agree to disagree. I think we’re all guilty of the kind of emotional back-biting that makes these threads ugly and hurtful. And I’m hoping that we can all back away from our petty enmities and hurts and grudges (all of us, myself included) and talk with one another calmly, rationally and civilly (myself included).
2) Transcendence of partisan/ideological camps. Some of us identify with these camps more than others. Some do on particular issues, others wholesale. But I believe that, once again, all of us are guilty of engaging in partisan/ideological attacks at some time or other. And I think this muddies the waters of discussion. I’d like to see us approach each other as people who have ideas, not as members of some camp or other. I’d like to see us give up our shit lists of people we don’t like (myself no less than anyone else) and re-engage with each other as mature adults who want to be involved in discussion with each other.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've stayed out of this thread, but the Soupcatcher/Causal exchange caught my eye. I want to contribute this.
I'm a liberal, ain't no secret about that. My current boss is a conservative, literally a member of the John Birch Society. He is also well educated, in particular a student of history. We manage to discuss politics every few days, enjoyably. We find a lot of common ground. He's a veteran and a militarist, yet we both disagree with the War in Iraq. Maybe for different reasons, but we have reached the same conclusion. Neither of us likes the Bush Administration very much, mostly for the damage they've done to civil liberties in this country. We disagree, politely, about the nature and threat of the Communist Menace, and about economic theory.
There are several areas where I think he's just flat wrong, and I'm sure there are areas where he thinks I'm nuts, but we step carefully around those.
And most importantly, we work together well. I'm becoming his go to guy, his best resource after himself, when there are troubles.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Agreed. When I said some ppl are unconscious, I wasn't pointing to any particular ideological "side". I think we're all unconscious at one time or another about one point or another. I've made a sincere effort in the past few months to bring my most rational side to the board and (pats self on back) I think it's working.
But there ARE people- NOT YOU- who deliberately create turmoil. You won't find them genuinely pledging to make the same effort as you. And my point was... what to do about THAT?
IMHO we're past "naming and shaming". Besides, it generally doesn't work and it risks internet gang-warfare. So maybe we should just set certain rules of behavior so that everyone knows ahead of time what to expect. Name-calling, for example should be banned. Threats or implied threats. Directly misquoting or mischaracterizing another's position. Them if rules are violated, that person goes into internet timeout. It works for K-garten, it should work here!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Enjoyed the post; I think it's a good project to put some humanity behind the word liberal. I hope that the opposite works, too, of course. Because the reverse also happens: all social conservatives are evil morons, therefore I'm an evil moron. Well, come now, can it really be that easy? The kind of thing you describe really works both ways. You said how some atheists feel persecuted when the majority is theist--well on this board republicans, conservatives and Christians sometimes feel persecuted because they are in the minority. Maybe your project of humanization can be pushed out to everybody such that we all see each other primarily as people, and only then liberals, conservatives, or what have you.
The first step to changing a group from the other - to be feared and defended against - begins when you personally know someone from that group. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you asked an American, "Do you know any Christians personally?" they would answer in the affirmative since about eighty percent of Americans self-identify as Christian. I would expect an alternative question, "Do you know any atheists personally?" to elicit a much smaller affirmative response for a variety of reasons. If the first conversation you've ever had with an atheist occurs on a message board then I'd argue atheists are still the other. If the first conversation you've ever had with a Christian occurs on a message board then I'd really like to know where you grew up, because I'd put the odds on that at slim to none.
When someone from a strong majority, a majority that is a cultural norm, tells a member of a non-cultural norm minority that they need to be able to see things from his/her perspective it highlights a lack of awareness. Everyone in this country is exposed to the perspective of the cultural norm on a daily basis. You can't escape from it. That is what it means to be the cultural norm.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
that person goes into internet timeout. It works for K-garten, it should work here!
It's a good idea , but how's it going to work?
" You've been bad, now go sit in the corner and I'm unplugging your modem for 5 minutes."
:<)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME