Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell

[DuBois]

I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.

I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

Okay, here's the thing: if these two posters have a history, they need to sort it out via PM or something. I like both of them, and I have no interest in taking 'sides', so I will be completely honest.

In this particular thread, I didn't see LaciGirl call anybody a 'gluttonous sinner'. I saw her critique the ethics of a particular behaviour (buying food with the intent of throwing it out). Which the OP actually *invited* criticism of.

Calling a behaviour unethical =/= calling a person who sometimes behaves that way unethical. Heck, I do stuff that even *I* think is unethical. I live in a 2.5 bedroom house by myself, while homeless families sleep in their cars in the same city. That's not a sustainable or ethically defensible situation, but I have my reasons. And I could totally discuss them with someone without it deteriorating into rudeness, because it's about one aspect of my behaviour, not about me as a person.

Lady Pekoe said: 'As somebody who works in the meat industry, I am really used to the LaciGirl's of the world feeling like they have every right to "explain" to me the all about the "ethics" of my industry'. The thread wasn't about the meat industry in particular, and nor were LG's comments. This post took an abstract discussion into personal territory. And the phrase 'the LaciGirls of this world' is dismissive and rude. It lumps LG into some big category of obnoxious people.

Nearly every time a thread goes downhill, it's because someone starts either making it personal, or taking things personally. That's my honest opinion, although not one that I expect will make me popular in this thread.

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

[Scuba_Dog]

I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.

I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

Okay, here's the thing: if these two posters have a history, they need to sort it out via PM or something. I like both of them, and I have no interest in taking 'sides', so I will be completely honest.

In this particular thread, I didn't see LaciGirl call anybody a 'gluttonous sinner'. I saw her critique the ethics of a particular behaviour (buying food with the intent of throwing it out). Which the OP actually *invited* criticism of.

Calling a behaviour unethical =/= calling a person who sometimes behaves that way unethical. Heck, I do stuff that even *I* think is unethical. I live in a 2.5 bedroom house by myself, while homeless families sleep in their cars in the same city. That's not a sustainable or ethically defensible situation, but I have my reasons. And I could totally discuss them with someone without it deteriorating into rudeness, because it's about one aspect of my behaviour, not about me as a person.

Lady Pekoe said: 'As somebody who works in the meat industry, I am really used to the LaciGirl's of the world feeling like they have every right to "explain" to me the all about the "ethics" of my industry'. The thread wasn't about the meat industry in particular, and nor were LG's comments. This post took an abstract discussion into personal territory. And the phrase 'the LaciGirls of this world' is dismissive and rude. It lumps LG into some big category of obnoxious people.

Nearly every time a thread goes downhill, it's because someone starts either making it personal, or taking things personally. That's my honest opinion, although not one that I expect will make me popular in this thread.

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

When the action or history of the OP indicates that there most likely is an issue with character as well as behaviour, I'm not sure what else people should do?  Should they just give false opinions?  Who does that help?  I think if a person posts about a dilemma, especially one that repeats itself, they need to be prepared to hear opinions and answers they may not like.

Also, etiquette is very much about character and personal behaviour, so I don't think we could stop discussing those things and be very effective.

[Spoder]

Actually, LaciGirl said,

"I found this thread fascinating as well.  Thank you for starting it, jpcher.  Now I'm starting to think about the ethics of consuming food for reasons other than nutrition or moderate pleasure, and I'm pretty sure I'm believing that it's unethical. Gee.  What a conclusion.  Nothing like thinking my way through this and coming to the conclusion that gluttony -- one of the traditional "seven deadly sins" -- is wrong.   ."

The bolded is way beyond snarky and pretty much saying that anyone who would do this or agree with this is gluttonous and a "sinner"

I read that and assumed that she was having an internal eye-roll moment. At herself. I did not read an iota of snark in it towards anybody else, and I still don't. I'm not particularly trying to defend her, it's the honest truth.

[P-p-p-penguin]

I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.

I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

Okay, here's the thing: if these two posters have a history, they need to sort it out via PM or something. I like both of them, and I have no interest in taking 'sides', so I will be completely honest.

In this particular thread, I didn't see LaciGirl call anybody a 'gluttonous sinner'. I saw her critique the ethics of a particular behaviour (buying food with the intent of throwing it out). Which the OP actually *invited* criticism of.

Calling a behaviour unethical =/= calling a person who sometimes behaves that way unethical. Heck, I do stuff that even *I* think is unethical. I live in a 2.5 bedroom house by myself, while homeless families sleep in their cars in the same city. That's not a sustainable or ethically defensible situation, but I have my reasons. And I could totally discuss them with someone without it deteriorating into rudeness, because it's about one aspect of my behaviour, not about me as a person.

Lady Pekoe said: 'As somebody who works in the meat industry, I am really used to the LaciGirl's of the world feeling like they have every right to "explain" to me the all about the "ethics" of my industry'. The thread wasn't about the meat industry in particular, and nor were LG's comments. This post took an abstract discussion into personal territory. And the phrase 'the LaciGirls of this world' is dismissive and rude. It lumps LG into some big category of obnoxious people.

Nearly every time a thread goes downhill, it's because someone starts either making it personal, or taking things personally. That's my honest opinion, although not one that I expect will make me popular in this thread.

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

I also agree.  Lots of the arguments and snarkiness seem to begin because someone has interpreted someone's post in the worst possible light rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[LadyL]

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

When the action or history of the OP indicates that there most likely is an issue with character as well as behaviour, I'm not sure what else people should do?  Should they just give false opinions?  Who does that help?  I think if a person posts about a dilemma, especially one that repeats itself, they need to be prepared to hear opinions and answers they may not like.

Also, etiquette is very much about character and personal behaviour, so I don't think we could stop discussing those things and be very effective.

The bolded are separable and I thought that was one of the main points about etiquette - it doesn't matter if you have terrible character internally and walk around thinking nothing but rude thoughts if you *behave* in a polite way.

I am (like the rest of the species) a flawed person and my thought processes are not always admirable. However, I strive to be polite in my actions. When responses to posts focus on disagreements about thought processes rather than actions, it's hard not to feel like that both misses the point and gets too personal.

[Scuba_Dog]

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

When the action or history of the OP indicates that there most likely is an issue with character as well as behaviour, I'm not sure what else people should do?  Should they just give false opinions?  Who does that help?  I think if a person posts about a dilemma, especially one that repeats itself, they need to be prepared to hear opinions and answers they may not like.

Also, etiquette is very much about character and personal behaviour, so I don't think we could stop discussing those things and be very effective.

The bolded are separable and I thought that was one of the main points about etiquette - it doesn't matter if you have terrible character internally and walk around thinking nothing but rude thoughts if you *behave* in a polite way.

I am (like the rest of the species) a flawed person and my thought processes are not always admirable. However, I strive to be polite in my actions. When responses to posts focus on disagreements about thought processes rather than actions, it's hard not to feel like that both misses the point and gets too personal.

I'm not talking about thoughts or thought processes.  I'm talking about actual behavior and when an OP needs to perhaps look back at themselves and their own behaviors in order to find the solution for their issue.  When a problem repeats itself, that is often where the solution to it can be found.

If you are implying that we shouldn't suggest that as an option for an OP, then I disagree.  I think it's a valid suggestion.

[DuBois]

I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.

I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

Okay, here's the thing: if these two posters have a history, they need to sort it out via PM or something. I like both of them, and I have no interest in taking 'sides', so I will be completely honest.

In this particular thread, I didn't see LaciGirl call anybody a 'gluttonous sinner'. I saw her critique the ethics of a particular behaviour (buying food with the intent of throwing it out). Which the OP actually *invited* criticism of.

Calling a behaviour unethical =/= calling a person who sometimes behaves that way unethical. Heck, I do stuff that even *I* think is unethical. I live in a 2.5 bedroom house by myself, while homeless families sleep in their cars in the same city. That's not a sustainable or ethically defensible situation, but I have my reasons. And I could totally discuss them with someone without it deteriorating into rudeness, because it's about one aspect of my behaviour, not about me as a person.

Lady Pekoe said: 'As somebody who works in the meat industry, I am really used to the LaciGirl's of the world feeling like they have every right to "explain" to me the all about the "ethics" of my industry'. The thread wasn't about the meat industry in particular, and nor were LG's comments. This post took an abstract discussion into personal territory. And the phrase 'the LaciGirls of this world' is dismissive and rude. It lumps LG into some big category of obnoxious people.

Nearly every time a thread goes downhill, it's because someone starts either making it personal, or taking things personally. That's my honest opinion, although not one that I expect will make me popular in this thread.

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

When the action or history of the OP indicates that there most likely is an issue with character as well as behaviour, I'm not sure what else people should do?  Should they just give false opinions?  Who does that help?  I think if a person posts about a dilemma, especially one that repeats itself, they need to be prepared to hear opinions and answers they may not like.

Also, etiquette is very much about character and personal behaviour, so I don't think we could stop discussing those things and be very effective.

I see your point. I'm not really talking about recurring problems, though. Yvaine worded it better than I did a few pages ago, when she spoke of people saying things like 'how can you do x, y, or z?' I think it is a fine line, but I always wince when I see it crossed. Of course, different people are offended by different things.

[PeasNCues]

Actually, LaciGirl said,

"I found this thread fascinating as well.  Thank you for starting it, jpcher.  Now I'm starting to think about the ethics of consuming food for reasons other than nutrition or moderate pleasure, and I'm pretty sure I'm believing that it's unethical. Gee.  What a conclusion.  Nothing like thinking my way through this and coming to the conclusion that gluttony -- one of the traditional "seven deadly sins" -- is wrong.   ."

The bolded is way beyond snarky and pretty much saying that anyone who would do this or agree with this is gluttonous and a "sinner"

I read that and assumed that she was having an internal eye-roll moment. At herself. I did not read an iota of snark in it towards anybody else, and I still don't. I'm not particularly trying to defend her, it's the honest truth.

An internal eye-roll moment that became an external eye-roll moment when she posted it and said that clearly this was an example of the sin of gluttony and was wrong.

[Lynn2000]

I like to read the threads in the "Forum Announcements" folder because I like knowing what goes on behind the scenes of things. (Anything, really, not just the forum.) I do see a lot of threads in which people talk about favoritism, about certain people being able to get away with being rude while others are chastised by the mods for what they see as minor comments.

To be honest, I don't really track posters well enough to pick out patterns involving specific people (i.e., whoever would be classified as "favorites"). I tend to just read the comments without looking to see who wrote them, unless I really agree or disagree with them.

I have noticed a few inconsistencies lately; for example, there was a recent thread that I felt was getting into personal insults, where I was kind of like  when I read some of the responses. I was discussing it in PM with some people and I know at least one person reported the thread to the mods. Yet, the thread never got locked, nor did a mod post to chastise anyone. (Obviously, if any posters were PM'd by mods to chastise them, I wouldn't know about that.) In contrast, I've seen a few locked threads recently where I could not divine why it had gotten locked, as none of the responses I read were rude, and the threads were short and had not really "run their course" yet.

But, are these inconsistencies the result of--as PPs said--a handful of mods and hundreds of threads, coupled with the subjective nature of "rude" comments? Or are they due to favoritism and mods locking threads that they personally dislike, especially those critical of some aspect of the forum? I honestly can't say; I'm not good at detecting that kind of thing. But, I find it worrisome that so many people--at least, people who post publicly--think that it's the latter. It does tend to make me a bit paranoid about posting sometimes.

I am going to post this, then go back and read the rest of the thread; because I have a feeling this thread is headed for lockdown...

[LadyL]

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

When the action or history of the OP indicates that there most likely is an issue with character as well as behaviour, I'm not sure what else people should do?  Should they just give false opinions?  Who does that help?  I think if a person posts about a dilemma, especially one that repeats itself, they need to be prepared to hear opinions and answers they may not like.

Also, etiquette is very much about character and personal behaviour, so I don't think we could stop discussing those things and be very effective.

The bolded are separable and I thought that was one of the main points about etiquette - it doesn't matter if you have terrible character internally and walk around thinking nothing but rude thoughts if you *behave* in a polite way.

I am (like the rest of the species) a flawed person and my thought processes are not always admirable. However, I strive to be polite in my actions. When responses to posts focus on disagreements about thought processes rather than actions, it's hard not to feel like that both misses the point and gets too personal.

I'm not talking about thoughts or thought processes.  I'm talking about actual behavior and when an OP needs to perhaps look back at themselves and their own behaviors in order to find the solution for their issue.  When a problem repeats itself, that is often where the solution to it can be found.

If you are implying that we shouldn't suggest that as an option for an OP, then I disagree.  I think it's a valid suggestion.

Why does character have to come into it then? To me, character implies morals and values. If it's just about behavior patterns that's fine by me.

[Scuba_Dog]

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

When the action or history of the OP indicates that there most likely is an issue with character as well as behaviour, I'm not sure what else people should do?  Should they just give false opinions?  Who does that help?  I think if a person posts about a dilemma, especially one that repeats itself, they need to be prepared to hear opinions and answers they may not like.

Also, etiquette is very much about character and personal behaviour, so I don't think we could stop discussing those things and be very effective.

The bolded are separable and I thought that was one of the main points about etiquette - it doesn't matter if you have terrible character internally and walk around thinking nothing but rude thoughts if you *behave* in a polite way.

I am (like the rest of the species) a flawed person and my thought processes are not always admirable. However, I strive to be polite in my actions. When responses to posts focus on disagreements about thought processes rather than actions, it's hard not to feel like that both misses the point and gets too personal.

I'm not talking about thoughts or thought processes.  I'm talking about actual behavior and when an OP needs to perhaps look back at themselves and their own behaviors in order to find the solution for their issue.  When a problem repeats itself, that is often where the solution to it can be found.

If you are implying that we shouldn't suggest that as an option for an OP, then I disagree.  I think it's a valid suggestion.

Why does character have to come into it then? To me, character implies morals and values. If it's just about behavior patterns that's fine by me.

For me, etiquette and a person's character are very connected.  People can hold very different value sets and have opposing morals but can still both be of good or poor character in all or just some situations. 

I have rarely seen a person's character called into question here though.  Mostly, it's a thought that perhaps the OP needs to look at their own behaviour in order to find the solution to their issue.

[Spoder]

Actually, LaciGirl said,

"I found this thread fascinating as well.  Thank you for starting it, jpcher.  Now I'm starting to think about the ethics of consuming food for reasons other than nutrition or moderate pleasure, and I'm pretty sure I'm believing that it's unethical. Gee.  What a conclusion.  Nothing like thinking my way through this and coming to the conclusion that gluttony -- one of the traditional "seven deadly sins" -- is wrong.   ."

The bolded is way beyond snarky and pretty much saying that anyone who would do this or agree with this is gluttonous and a "sinner"

I read that and assumed that she was having an internal eye-roll moment. At herself. I did not read an iota of snark in it towards anybody else, and I still don't. I'm not particularly trying to defend her, it's the honest truth.

An internal eye-roll moment that became an external eye-roll moment when she posted it and said that clearly this was an example of the sin of gluttony and was wrong.

So? (Meant non-snarkily  ). I'm just not seeing the problem. She, personally, has come to the conclusion that overconsumption of food, in general = gluttony = wrong. She's not calling any individual poster on this board a big sinful glutton!

Sure, maybe that's taking the discussion a little too far into abstract quasi-religious/philosophical territory for some people's liking. I can understand that. But why don't they just politely say so?

[Yvaine]

Calling a behaviour unethical =/= calling a person who sometimes behaves that way unethical. Heck, I do stuff that even *I* think is unethical. I live in a 2.5 bedroom house by myself, while homeless families sleep in their cars in the same city. That's not a sustainable or ethically defensible situation, but I have my reasons. And I could totally discuss them with someone without it deteriorating into rudeness, because it's about one aspect of my behaviour, not about me as a person.

I agree with this too. I don't always live up to my own standards, in a variety of areas. And I don't think I'm the only one. And I don't think it makes us terrible people, just imperfect.

[PeasNCues]

It's rude to bring your personal moral judgement of anyone's beliefs and actions to light - whether you are calling out an individual poster or a group of people who think differently than you.

[Shiraz_Much?]

Spoder-

I think that it really depends on a reader's interpretation.  I read that line as an external eye-roll and it came across very judgmental in tone to me.  "Gee.  What a conclusion."  That "sounds" very sarcastic to me.

ETA:  What Peas said.