Hmmm, I found this interesting and oh so true

[DuckiesDarling]

I've seen it all over the net and I've seen it here.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/7634287/Democratisation-or-just-plain-nastiness/

[DuckiesDarling]

lots of views no posts.. hit a little too close to home? :)

[falcondfw]

It should have hit a little too close to home.

[darkeyes]

It should have hit a little too close to home.
Not really Babes.. I have a life....

[DuckiesDarling]

Spend a little time online and you're likely to encounter a spat. Not a debate in which both sides are explored and new views formed, but a scrappy back-and-forth which often devolves into vitriol. Blame is laid on the internet - a medium which has changed the concept of communication beyond recognition.
However, the worldwide web provides a tool to seek and learn more about any given topic while also giving users the power to cosset themselves, reading bloggers whose views they share and blocking people with whom they disagree.
On Twitter, you can choose to be named or anonymous.
Its fast-flowing stream of consciousness allows a thought that has only briefly been in existence to be condensed into 140 characters and launched on the prevailing tide.
Last week when the emotive Marriage Equality and Alcohol Reform bills were read in Parliament, opinions zinged back and forth. Diplomacy was sometimes seen.
One user tweeted: "Apologies. I sometimes wonder why we bother arguing over Twitter. It's so frustrating."
Its recipient replied: "It is pretty pointless, especially when it comes to subjects based on complicated academic research."
And then it was gone.
If views or arguments gain enough traction they become news.
Last month, documentary producer Barbara Sumner Burstyn wrote on her Facebook page: "Oh, so fallen soldier Jacinda Baker liked boxing and baking - did they forget she also liked invading countries we are not at war with, killing innocent people and had no moral compass."
The fallout was swift, escalating into death threats that needed police intervention.
When Kim Dotcom joined Twitter he quickly picked up 132,000 followers. Last week he fell foul of them after tweeting a list of rape "jokes".
Kiwi journalist Duncan Greive wrote a disparaging review of hip-hop group Home Brew Crew, which blocked his Twitter account as a result.
One of the most recent high-profile stories involving online arguments followed media personality Charlotte Dawson attempting to take her own life following abuse from Twitter users.
Australian columnist Catherine Deveny wrote an opinion piece on the subject of these online "trolls" - somewhat diplomatically calling Twitter the "democratisation of information".
Human nature means opinions are divided on any topic but the (mostly anonymous) comments underneath an online news story or comment piece quickly descend into scrappy, illogical insults with people railing against the news, the messenger and each other.
Ad Feedback (http://www.bisexual.com/about-stuff/advertising-feedback/?pos=STORYBODY&adsize=300x250&area=s.stuff)


Social media means mass protest marches of previous decades are now easier to organise but accusations of apathy may be a result of people using online petitions and Twitter hashtags as an alternative.
Canterbury University marketing senior lecturer Ekant Veer has been researching the way people now form relationships on social media.
"Social media has not necessarily meant we are more lonely, but that we engage with physical and virtual relationships in a more fluid way," he says.
"It used to be that you would have to engage with the person in front of you - and many still believe this - but now you engage with who you want to, regardless of their physical presence.
"I see this as different, rather than a decline. But traditionalists will see this as a destruction of society.
"It's all about perspective."
Mr Veer's research is anecdotal and uses 30 "heavy users" who spend more than two hours a day on social media or online gaming.
"Feeling comfortable or confident in conflict depends on the nature of people. We've got kids who've had mobile phones since the age of 10 or 11 and it is second nature to communicate through text, tweet or Facebook. They have issues with being in conflict, especially in a face-to-face situation.
"If you are online and someone says
something to you, you can walk away and think of a witty comeback.
"You can do this with Facebook, text and Twitter, but when you are face-to-face and haven't had time to think, people struggle.
"People haven't had the chance to practise these skills. It's not a breakdown but it is a change in how people perceive their personal relationships."
He says social media users tell him they often feel more comfortable sharing secrets online than with parents or close friends.
"The traditional notion that you can trust someone you can see is different now."
Mr Veer's research suggests that people who use social media as their primary means of communication tend to struggle with face-to-face communication - and have the potential to be introverted or withdraw from conflict altogether.
"Online, they can be forthright or aggressive because they have time to put it together, but sometimes it's like a playground fight with meaningless things along the lines of ‘my Dad is bigger than your Dad'."
Spats may also take the form of passive aggression, where people write pointed comments but will not name their target.
"You see things like: ‘I'm not going to name names but someone's been a real bitch recently'.
"Online you feel more protected. You can get your emotions out and vent - even if you anonymise it slightly - it lets the person feel more in control.
"They might feel out of control because someone has said something horrible about them but they regain some of that control and power through social media updates.
"People use it for a bit of attention-seeking as well."
The ability to block rather than get involved does not translate to lessons in long-term relationships, he says.
"The real world doesn't work like that. If your husband or wife does something that upsets you terribly, you can't just walk away and not speak to them for 10 years. That will degrade to nothing.
"I can logically assume that someone who just blocks someone will be the type of person to put their head in the sand in real life because they haven't learned to deal with conflict resolution."
However, some still see debate as a sport.
Christopher Bishop, president of the New Zealand schools debating council, says a dinner table populated by friends quickly becomes a noisy affair with point-scoring all round.
His mother and father were debaters and he joined a team at Hutt International Boys' School, aged 13.
Now 28, he says the subjects he took at school - history, economics and English - were conducive to debate.
"I liked language and I liked arguing," he says.
"If you can argue about current affairs and politics, you'll enjoy debating. I can't remember a time when I wasn't in that world.
"Debaters are able to logically organise their ideas in a way that helps explain things better.
"I don't think the fundamentals of arguing have changed with Twitter and Facebook, just the mechanism. Good argumentation is good argumentation if you are reasoned, cogent, reasonable and relevant."
Auckland psychologist Sara Chatwin says face-to-face confrontation allows people to take visual clues from facial expression and the tone of voice.
"There is a degree of honesty when you face off with someone. You go back and forth and form a dialogue. Social media tends to form more of a monologue.
"With Facebook, for instance, the opinion remains at the top, it doesn't mould and reform and change with the debate. It is still there and it becomes scrappy.
"I am in the field of personal relationships and I speak to people who want to be in them. Social media has not helped. It is essential to learn face-to-face resolution."
She often hears people talking about misinterpretation of text and messaging when meaning and tone become lost in translation.
"It's weirded things out for a lot of people. It makes everything so impersonal, it's an easy way to pass the buck, be nasty or ignore people. It can be tricky and deceptive. In some senses it makes avoidance easy. We have become quite boxed-in and limited.
"Social media has so many benefits but we really are missing out on important meaningful conversation."


Just in case some don't want to click a link :D

[Gearbox]

100+ views and nobody wants to engage you in this particular discussion DD?:rolleyes:
Just saying.lol

[DuckiesDarling]

apparently not, Gear. Guess it does hit home for a few who can't post a freaking thing on here unless it's to have a go at someone else. The art of debate has long been forgotten and it's nothing but a game of oneupmanship all over the net. Amusing how it goes, now isn't it? Personally, I'd rather argue intelligently than just have someone insulting all day long but then I have more than one working brain cell.....

[Gearbox]

apparently not, Gear. Guess it does hit home for a few who can't post a freaking thing on here unless it's to have a go at someone else. The art of debate has long been forgotten and it's nothing but a game of oneupmanship all over the net. Amusing how it goes, now isn't it? Personally, I'd rather argue intelligently than just have someone insulting all day long but then I have more than one working brain cell.....
Your doing exactly what your protesting about. That's why nobody is daft enough (except for me of course.lol) to engage you.
This thread is an accusation aimed at an undisclosed portion of whoever reads it, and a declaration that YOU are not of that group. So you'd have to be of a certain few types to join in.
I for eg, am of the argumentative/confrontational and sarcastic nosey bas***d type that just can't shut his gob (control his fingers) when he knows he realy should just walk on by.:tongue:
Like a fish seeing the shiney sharp hook sticking out of the worm, but is just to curious to let the chance of meeting the fisherman pass him by. Who knows? Might want me for a pet.LOL

[DuckiesDarling]

ROFLMAO, Gear, I never said I wasn't one who could sling mud now did I? I'm actually rather good at it, but I prefer a clean fight to muckraking, we have enough of that on tv right now with the political ads.

[darkeyes]

Your doing exactly what your protesting about. That's why nobody is daft enough (except for me of course.lol) to engage you.
This thread is an accusation aimed at an undisclosed portion of whoever reads it, and a declaration that YOU are not of that group. So you'd have to be of a certain few types to join in.
I for eg, am of the argumentative/confrontational and sarcastic nosey bas***d type that just can't shut his gob (control his fingers) when he knows he realy should just walk on by.:tongue:
Like a fish seeing the shiney sharp hook sticking out of the worm, but is just to curious to let the chance of meeting the fisherman pass him by. Who knows? Might want me for a pet.LOL
Quite, babes... dunno 'bout wantin' ya for a pet.. but some1 to sit an have gud barney wiv over a glass a plonk sounds cool.. peeps in glass houses, Gear babes hey?;)

[Long Duck Dong]

you lot are no fun.... what happened to the good ol knuckle sandwich or the bunch of fives on the nose...? they did not really solve any arguments but it was quicker than reading thru a few dozen posts insulting people and you could shake hands and have a beer afterwards lol...... well we did when I was younger....

was reading a story about a group of trolls that haunted a few social networks trolling people with some of the nastiest, vile remarks that I have seen on the net..... when the buggers were tracked down, it was found that they were all professional, intelligent and mature adult males in executive postions in businesses.....a core group of about 5-6 of them... people that you would think, would know better, but no.....

NZ is currently working on the cyberbullying law that ( if not when ) it gets passed into law, will really put a dent in the cyber trolling, cyber bullying shit that is going on and allow the legal system to deal harshly with people that troll net forums, or use iphones / ipads to bully other people...... the main opposite are the greenies and the people that do not want peoples right to express themselves, to be infringed upon...... maybe its me, but things like inciting people to commit suicide, are not forms of reasonable expression by any stretch of the imagination.....

I am thankful that drew is quick to deal with the cyber trolls and bullies with the nasty remarks, in this site and that it still remains one of the few refuges from the rest of the cyber world..... we have our fair share of disagreements and debates, but for the old farts like me that just wanna pull up a chair and read, its like the old open fire place where I can warm my toes and toast mushmallows ( and *accidently * put one in DD's hair ) and feel like I am sharing a beer with other people.......

so cheers, you orrible lot....lol.... and I ain't getting the next round, one of you young'uns can do it lol

[Gearbox]

ROFLMAO, Gear, I never said I wasn't one who could sling mud now did I? I'm actually rather good at it, but I prefer a clean fight to muckraking, we have enough of that on tv right now with the political ads.
Oh God, politics is one thing I can't bring myself to argue about. I just can not pick a good one out of any bunch to stick up for. So I'd just be slagging them all off for NOT being who the non-existent good one is/isn't.LOL

@Fran- Last time I had a glass of wine was with a hookup. He gave me a right bolocking about refusing to meet him initialy for being too old.lol I denied it for a ful 5 secs, but gave in. White wine! I won't say what exactly it does to me.:tongue:

[DuckiesDarling]

Lord, I miss wine but now that they made my county wet I can get some if I ever get off these steroids. Worst part of being in NZ was being right there in Malborough, the wine region of NZ with someone who detests wine. That was okay, his flatmate and I had more for us. White, Red, Blush... it's all good to me.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Gear wrote *Oh God, politics is one thing I can't bring myself to argue about. I just can not pick a good one out of any bunch to stick up for*
I have to agree with him wholeheartedly..:}
Sorry DD, caint get no arguement outta be today. Hugs Hon
Unpolitical Cat

[void()]

I enjoy some aspects of communication on the web and internet.

First, I'm rather introverted. This means having difficulty speaking openly in person. One struggles with fashionable conversation and in keeping clarity. Despite what has been said, I am a lot more articulate and clear in online communication than in person.

Second is the ability it grants to step away. I appreciate this as in person am rather passionate and impulsive. Often will blurt out something tainted with a harsh tone. Even if I'm not meaning to come across having an attitude, or argumentative, in person it seems that way always. Slowing down communication seems to help me.

The article suggests these aspects may be used in nastiness. I can agree that is so. Have seen it occur here and elsewhere. These aspects however do not exclude being used for actual good and decent communication. They, like the technology which has spawned them, are only a tool. Guns despite having a dreary image are also only tools. Spons are tools as well but one could feasibly kill another with a spoon.

Use of tools is a choice as in how one chooses to use them. Not to harp but it ultimately boils down to personal responsibility. Also realizing one can not argue opinion helps. We can each have an opinion. None are fully correct, or fully wrong. Some are plainly lousy and could lead to fear and hate. These merit attacking because the world nees less fear and hate. And I'm not alone in this opinion, it is rather common.

Allowing fear and hate to dominate leads us to fighting over being kings and queens over the dung heap. Sorry, no desire to be lording over manure here. And people are not manure, nor are their ideas. Some as I said do stink. Prefer seeing the roses instead of wallowin in filth. Yes, you need fertilizer to have flowers. But the fertilizer is not exclusive of flowers as some seem keen upon suggesting.

One way I find to help is focusing on the good of people. I have high opinions of them until they reveal themselves otherwise. This is called being respectful, seeing others as equals. It can be difficult at times because I am likely to be able to see threads woven into other threads, and not just online communication threads, threads of history, culture, sociology. Others may, or may not see these. This means one has to provide back flll to even try beginning conversation.

People dislike slugging through back fill. Know I do, so know others do. It is needed at times though. And this hinders communication. It gives someone wanting to talk a barrier. Of course, much of that barrier can be abolished using this new medium. I dislike spoon feeding others. Am sure they dislike being spoon fed. But they may choice to avoid thought. That means a spoon is needed. If they think, google exists to help out vastly. There are other sites to help as well, google comes to mind readily.

To me, it does not seem harsh or nasty to suggest using google or other sites. Nor is it nasty to refer a person to previous discussion relevant to current one/s. Other people criticize this as being nasty. Is it not nasty to be expected to continually repeat oneself? Yes, it's personal responsibility again and lumped in with a friend called perspective. My spoons made of words can cut. I learned many years ago words is just an alternate way to spell sword. Again, nothing but a tool.

I'm not alone in cutting with spoons, words, swords. Does that excuse or condone me? No. I try not to cut others. I take responsibility. As said though, I find some ideas, perspectives repugnat and do address them as such. I will call stupidity as stupidity when it is that which is seen. Am sure others will do the same, expect no less.

In summary, we should understand that we use a tool. The tool itself is neutral. Our choices govern how the tool responds, acts. We should stop racing to the bottom because we have the potential to aspire to higher and ever higher. In rational, I do not see us coming to this however. Instead I foresee us continuing on a downward spiral. Been seeing it on this site for quite a while. It isn't all Drew's doings or lack of doing either.

We have chosen the course. Drew stands aside having created what he thought a nice idea. I can genuinely understand why he does not interact much here. It is better sometimes to say nothing than say anything.Drew chose to try helping others by offering a safe heaven for them to communicate. We have chosen to bring it through the septic tank.

Why? Does the idea of open communication frighten that much? What is gained in ignorance, which ensues lacking open communication? These are rhetorical questions, aimed at whomever needs to hear, to think on them. And they sum up a perspective.