I’d prefer to be concise, to the point, and try not to “accuse” anyone in the process.
I find however, the best way to win an argument, is to use their own arguments against them; pointing out their flaws etc… (think the reasoning behind the use of the flying spagettie monster to poke fun at rediculous beliefs)
or even better get them in a classic rock and a hardplace situation… they are a “particularly abrasive person” if they do, and a “particularly abrasive person” if they don’t.
“The rise of the virulent right wing, exemplified by Cheney’s “Go F yourself” to Leahy on the floor of the Senate, just might, might I insist, have something to do with the decline of civil discourse in society”
No, I don’t like being insulted. No, I don’t think calling a large group of people’s work “dogshit” and calling a person an “asshole” on his blog are at all equivalent.
If you feel that way, seriously, then I guess you must be a saint who has never cursed his car, his cell phone, ATT’s customer service – I mean, SOMEBODY created all those things? Aren’t you afwaid of hurting their wittle feewings?
If you want to call Cocoa crap, go ahead (and look stupid). But if you call me an asshole, you’re just being a jerk. Find me one place on my blog where I’ve done an ad-hominem attack.
From my experience with performing background checks, I’d say that most, if not all, of a person’s Internet activities can be tied together given enough searching, access to a few databases, and a few pieces of information to start with.
Many blogging systems currently ask for a combination of a name, website, or e-mail. One could adopt David’s idea and use a Facebook profile URL or something that is clearly linked to a real person. However, I would argue that one’s activities could be automatically linked by software.
Since all activities must come from a person, then it doesn’t really matter if we know the person’s real name or not. The name is just another bit of information that leads to everything else. It’s a lot like a graph. You can start from 1 node and get somewhere but you can also start from another node and get to your destination just as quickly.
I respect your opinion on Joel, but I would highly disagree with what you said about the Wasabi and how you personally attacked Joel with your comments and very little base on what really is Wasabi. For what Joel say he wants from Fogbugz, Wasabi is perfectly reasonable. Now, why he wants those things so bad, things that only a customized language can offer is what you should focus on.
Many computer languages were born the same way Wasabi. How could you know that maybe in some years we won#8217;t be using it?
#8220;This legendary essay demonstrates the fine art of disagreement: the ability to respect the people you disagree with, and to earn their respect in turn. The only way to do that is to be civil, reasonable, and rational.#8221;
By putting his photo with a #8220;WTF#8221; in big red letters is a good example on how to be civil? The impression that I got after reading that article was that you lost all the respect that you once had for Joel Spolsky.
The title of this article made me laugh when I first read it, but I avoided reading the article for a while, expecting the worst, and I was not disappointed. This article reads so much like an aging person’s recollection of the “good old days”, which were never as good as they remember.
In this case, I was there for the “good old days”, and they were anything but civil. Go back and read the usenet archives from 1986. I don’t think there had been even 20 groups created, before the term “flame” got created. (Yes, I was there when net-news had TWO news groups.)
I even got flamed the following spring, when reporting news from the April issue of Byte Magazine that Apple Computer was secretly running MacOS software on Intel processors. Ah, vindication at last.
I once read some “law” of forum usage (I’m completely forget what it is and Google fails me) that went something like: The quality of discussion is in proportion to the time it takes until someone is refered to as a “nazi” or “Hitler”. I’ve read the responses to this blog for some time and I have to say that according to this law the information content of this site must be rather high.
@Andrew: You’re looking for Godwin’s Law, I think: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” It’s related to the logical fallacy reductio ad Hitlerum, or argumentum ad Nazium. Wikipedia has some pretty good articles on these.
By the way, Jeff: I’m a long time reader, first time commenter, and I wanted to give you kudos on the Penny Arcade reference.
“The first person to swear usually appears to be losing the debate, unless it’s some truly creative and appropriate profanity.”
See, I don’t agree with that at all. Language is fluid, and using profanity or an insult can mean different things. Certainly, I think we could agree the word “fuck” means completely different things to someone in Brooklyn versus someone in Salt Lake.
The world could use more of people calling a spade a spade. What’s the one group on the planet that uses less language to communicate to try not to offend anyone at all, who usually employ double-speak and lies to get what they want? That’s right, politicians. I think we’d all be a lot better off if some senator would go up to the Capitol floor and say, “You know, I think that George W. Bush is a fucking moron. I hope he dies.” It would be the truth.
A lie should not be the price for civility. I really don’t see the problem with the first quote in the entry. If that’s how the guy felt, I’m perfectly fine with him displaying his disgust. The whole, “if you don’t have anything nice to say” sure didn’t advance society any.
Whenever I’m tempted to respond to a rude poster in a calm, rational way I remind myself that you can’t reason with people on the Internet so don’t bother. That’s not why they are there. They are there to argue and vent their anger; logic doesn’t enter into it.
The most reasoned, rational response will just be meet with more vitriol as the person doesn’t care about engaging in honest conversation, they just want you to be as angry as they are.
So, you win if you ignore them and they win if they get you to respond.
There has never been civility on the internet. The first day I connected I ended up in a checkers room and was soon called names for not winning my first ever online game. Kids with no moral compass take every opportunity to make themselves feel better than everyone else by posting on forums and blogs things that could have been better left unsaid.
When I read this post, the first thing that came to mind was a quote from “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back”:
Jay: What the f**k is the Internet?
Holden: The Internet is a communication tool used the world over where people can come together to bitch about movies and share pornography with one another.
Wow, thank you for taking the time to address this issue. I actually know some technically gifted people that would love to share their insights but have so far avoided blogging for exactly these reasons. They just don’t want to end up wasting their time defending everything they say or publish.
Discussion and critical replies are part and parcel of the medium and the industry. But low level attacks disguised as comments can suck the life out of a blogger.
My Grandfather always used to say that “Swearing is the last refuge of the incompetent.” I am sure he was quoting someone but I don’t know whom.
I might be with Art on this one… Swears and the like have a negative connotation but online, in a world of text, they can convey emotion much more clearly and effectively (frustration being the most common use for myself).
I’m not saying that swearing is neccessary to convey strong emotions, but it can be sufficient without detracting from the overall argument.
I enjoy occasional abusive comments. They amuse me, either through outright daftness or in a rather arrogant (hey, I have my flaws), pitying way of chuckling at the poster’s inability to form a cogent argument. Mostly I just imagine their fuming rage as they beat their fists on the keyboard, and that brightens my day no end - it’s kind of Schadenfreude, which any sane person will agree is the most satisfying source of amusement in the world.
But my favourite approach is that of Jon R: Form a well-reasoned, circumspective and challenging response, and throw in some coarse vernacular to show that it can be used constructively. It’s the same technique as lies behind many great works: First understand the rules, then break them in a constructive manner.
