Inflammatory emotional charged phrases

[Dr. Shane]

Why don't we just list these phrases so we know what others don't want to see or hear. No sense in walking on egg shells.

I will start first.

Political cartoons. 95% of all political cartoons are, by their vary nature, inflammatory. Let's cut them out.

[Clio]

Starting sentences with "You always"

Starting sentences with "You"

Making assumptions about others walk with Abba Father and True Jesus.

Clio

[Bravus]

I'm not sure this is a game that can actually be played - at least not without rendering us all mute. What the exchanges that led to the idea to post this thread (which I know is well intentioned) made very clear for me is that what is inflammatory emotionally charged language, versus what is simply description of a situation, is a matter of perspective: what you see depends on where you stand.

I think avoiding the term 'Bush-hate' and its various permutations would be a valuable start, though. It ascribes an emotional state to people, rather than simply describing their actions.

On the left, we'll try hard to avoid too much glee when the administration's chickens come home to roost. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In the final analysis, I think it comes down to empathy: Shane, you know Neil well enough, and Neil, you know Shane well enough to know what language hurts or insults. It's a matter of being willing to try to read our posts *from the perspective of others* and being kind and humble enough to edit them to avoid such offense. It's difficult but worthwhile.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

In the final analysis, I think it comes down to empathy: Shane, you know Neil well enough, and Neil, you know Shane well enough to know what language hurts or insults.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think that would be a faulty assumption. I play well with others when I know the rules. Yet I am not a mind reader. Give me the rules and I will obey.

So far we have:

1. Political cartoons

2. The word "You"

3. Bush-hate

I will also add

4. liar

This is helpful. We can all learn a little better how to communicate with each other more sensatively by discovering what each other's hot buttons are. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Why don't we just list these phrases so we know what others don't want to see or hear. No sense in walking on egg shells.

---

And how will the personal growth of an individual be achieved unless they hear what they don't want to hear?

Shane, There are 2 problems with this thread. The first needs to be thought thru....Limiting subjects that are pertinet to the forum. It indicates a desire of control, and takes away freedoms of speach.

The 2nd problem also needs to be thought thru...You put out what you don't want to see, Clio puts out what she doesn't want to see, Bravus does the same and pretty soon, everyone who participates will not be able to say anthing for fear of offending someone. By asking what tics people off, you are creating the very egg shell that you seek to aviod.

No, what needs to be done is that everyone follows netettique.

What does that mean?

That means that you are respectful in your discussions with the other person. You are curteous in your replys and posts. You seek to clarify, and NOT restrict discussion. That doesn't mean that those discussions don't become heateded at times.

You don't become a troll, and subvert the discussion. "Troll" by netettiquet definition is being abusive in language and using language to stir up heated feelings to deliberately or indeliberately subvert a discussion. It is a simlar tactic where girls control one another thru the use of humorous putdowns. When called upon it, the abuser usually says "But I wasnt doing anything." It is common among the girls at school and it is called verbal abuse. The male form of it can be depicted by a couple of boys at a table with adults, where one boy is kicking the other under the table, and when the 2nd boy hauls off and hits the first over the table, the 2nd gets into trouble for defending himself.

You do not debate in one post and then switch to humor the next without indicating so. It is a real challenge to read tone in this form of limited communication already, and it becomes a problem when the poster gets lazy in his communication and the readers misreads or doesn't understand his communication. By using these 'instant graemlins' to reflect what you are attempting to post, the reader is automatically alerted that there is a tone that may not be indicated otherwise in the post.

You wanted to know what 'pushes my buttons', Shane. There it is..[snip- a major portion of additional things that can be said.]

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

That means that you are respectful in your discussions with the other person.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The problem is this: what is respectful to one isn't to another. Believe me, I am involved in a multi-racial/cultural marriage so I know this well. A fine example is when I have given my wife space when she is upset I have been trying to respect her. She has interupted that as me not caring. When she has flirted around with her exboyfriend and I didn't get jealous (because I trusted her) she interupted that as I didn't love her. So the word respect means different things to different people.

If we don't want to make a list (which neo-conservative would be on) than we will have to just be up front with each other. If I use a word or phrase that offends someone they can tell me politely by saying, "Shane, please don't use the phrase 'bleeding-heart' as it rubs me the wrong way" and we can respect each others' wishes.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The problem is this: what is respectful to one isn't to another.

---

What!!!!!????? You don't remember what they taught you in kindergarden? You had better go back then and relearn those things, Shane.

Quote:

---

Believe me, I am involved in a multi-racial/cultural marriage so I know this well. A fine example is when I have given my wife space when she is upset I have been trying to respect her. She has interupted that as me not caring. When she has flirted around with her exboyfriend and I didn't get jealous (because I trusted her) she interupted that as I didn't love her. So the word respect means different things to different people.

---

This is not netettiquet, but rather marital problems. I do suspect that if you address those problems, you will also figure out the problems of netittiquet.

Quote:

---

If we don't want to make a list than we will have to just be up front with each other.

---

Sorry, Shane, but if you google "netittequet ", you will find lots of information regarding what is respectfull and netittquet rules.

Quote:

---

If I use a word or phrase that offends someone they can tell me politely by saying, "Shane, please don't use the phrase 'bleeding-heart' as it rubs me the wrong way" and we can respect each others' wishes.

---

Dare I remind you that this has happened before and this has gotten the current repremand from Stan....The honest truth is that it is not working...Telling you to not use the phrase "Bush-hate" does not work, because you continue to use it. Nico has talked to you about it, Bravus has also, I know I have...It doesn't work, Shane...You continue to use it...It is best for me to place you on ignore....But you are a moderator, and the software will not let me ignore a moderator...Thus, I, and others, have no recourse but to listen to this abuse. This is known as abuse of power....You continue in behavor, even when asked not to do it....Dare I compare this [your] abuse of power to what Bush is doing in office???? While it is in keeping with the theme of this forum, I doubt that you would be able to listen to anything else I would say, because Bush is your darling president, and he does no wrong in your sight..

The remedy is to ignore you, Shane...But there is a problem with that..... The problem is, Shane, you get lonely when people don't respond to you. When they get tired of your antics, they ignore you, and when they do, you know just enough of some outlandish thing to say to get some response....

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] I found this on the web. There are others similar, but this summerizes them nicely. You can find further expliantion at this site -

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html

where they go into much more detail. It would do us all a lot of good to review them.... [/]

* Introduction

* Rule 1: Remember the Human

* Rule 2: Adhere to the same standards of behavior online that you follow in real life

* Rule 3: Know where you are in cyberspace

* Rule 4: Respect other people's time and bandwidth

* Rule 5: Make yourself look good online

* Rule 6: Share expert knowledge

* Rule 7: Help keep flame wars under control

* Rule 8: Respect other people's privacy

* Rule 9: Don't abuse your power

* Rule 10: Be forgiving of other people's mistakes

[cricket]

A beneficial stance might begin with discussion of ideas, rather than people. Writing from a standpoint as an observer of posted thoughts and ideas can dampen one's emotionally charged responses. The idea can be discussed in a rational manner without emotional involvement when one takes one's self out of the conversation.

Try writing without using the words "I", "we", "they" and especially "you". It is difficult at first, but once a person gets the hang of it, it becomes (almost) second-nature.

[Bravus]

Good call, Chrys.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

You don't remember what they taught you in kindergarden?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is offensive to me. Let's try to be sensative to each others' feelings. Remember one of those inflammatory emotional charged words is "you".

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Telling you to not use the phrase "Bush-hate" does not work, because you continue to use it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I have used it because it is a reality - just like others calling the President a liar (to them it is a reality in that they precieve it to be true). But if that reality upsets other members or lurkers here, I have said, "Fine, I can play well with others. I won't use that term."

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Dare I compare this [your] abuse of power to what Bush is doing in office????

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is offensive to me as it becomes like personal attack. We need to try and remember not use the word "you". This feels like an inflammatory emotional charged question to me.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I doubt that you would be able to listen to anything else I would say

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Again that word "you". I believe it would be better to speak in general terms and not personalize. Personalizing our comments tends to make them inflammatory and emotionally-charged.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Shane, you get lonely when people don't respond to you.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is also offensive to me. The word "you" is used again and to me, it really feels like an inflammatory emotionally charged attack. If we speak in general terms I think we can avoid such perceptions.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Try writing without using the words "I", "we", "they" and especially "you". It is difficult at first, but once a person gets the hang of it, it becomes (almost) second-nature.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I follow your intent here and it is great, Sister Wall. That is how reporters write. However I think the word "I" is hard to avoid in a forum like this. After all we are discussing our opinions on political matters. We are going to say things like "I think..." I believe..." "I feel..." But when we start saying "You think..." "You believe..." "You feel..." we clearly get into the inflammatory emotionally charged area.

[Bravus]

Agreed: I cheered the general thrust of Chrys's post without thinking through every detail and still think she's on the right track, but being able to use 'I think' is important. This is one of the ways we signal to others that these are our opinions, not Holy Writ, and although we hold them for reasons we think are good, we realise that they're 'disputable matters' (Romans 14:1) and we're not going to judge others who disagree with us. So if we can eliminate 'you' (except in frank and honest praise!) but retain 'I', that'd work, I think.

[cricket]

Some people believe that eliminating the words, "I think" would cause confusion as to whether the poster is making a generalized statement as to what is fact, versus what one clearly understands to be personal opinion.

Eliminating the words, "I think" and substituting the words, "some people think" is a plausible alternative. It allows the writer to remove one's self from the conversation; it allows him to present ideas.

In addition, this angle of writing allows the writer to grow. Defense of what "some people" believe does not necessarily mean the writer is defending what he or she believes. It leaves a window open for changing one's personal views.

[Dr. Shane]

Good point, Sister Wall. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[there buster]

TO ALL:

I have simply stayed away from CA, and will continue to do so, until this problem is rectified.

There's are several reasons that roughly 1600 of the registered users rarely post here.

On one level, that is to say, on the technical level of language and its appropriate and inappropriate usage in discussion/debate, the problem here is quite simple.

A few simple rules, impartially enforced, would clear things up in a hurry.

But if the rules appear elusive, and difficult to enforce, it almost always indicates a significant level of dysfunction in the enforcement powers. This is not criticism, nor accusation, but simple logic.

Certain types of slanderous and inflammatory posts are not only allowed but encouraged, some are tolerated, a few are excoriated. Such differing treatment of similar postings leads to confusion.

It's O.K. if X and Y do it, but Z must not. No wonder it's so difficult to figure out. To the average poster, it's like chaos theory. There may be a pattern, but it's too complex to calculate with confidence.

Given that kind of uncertainty, it's just easier not to take a chance.

As Chesterton said of Christianity, civilizing certain posters hasn't been tried and found wanting, it's been found difficult and not tried. In some cases, many regulars have become so accustomed to the abusive behavior, they don't even notice it anymore.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

This is offensive to me. Let's try to be sensative to each others' feelings. Remember one of those inflammatory emotional charged words is "you".

---

This is called 'confrontation", Shane. I have been sensitive to your feelings and mine keep being violated. Quite frankly, I have attempted to reach out, and it does NO good. You are the problem here, and you shift the focus on to anyone but yourself. And to be quite honest, I am tired of it. If I don't confront you and tell you that YOU are the problem, then you will continue to abuse everyone here. Since I have no desire to control your behavior, I want to place you on an ignore list. Unfortunately, you are a moderator. And as such, the software will not allow me to do that. And you take advantage of it.

Say what you will, Shane...You can have the last word.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I have simply stayed away from CA, and will continue to do so, until this problem is rectified.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

First let me say, I have missed you here and just thought you were posting in forums I wasn't reading.

I have noticed that this problem is not limited to the World Affairs forum or to Brother Neil and myself. Often times, I think, we get excited or passionate when we read a post and we respond in such a way that we offend others - even when we do not intend to. I have found that two things tend to help me. The first is waiting to respond. That is, coming back later and responding to a post instead of responding right away. The other is proof-reading with prayer. Asking God to show me if there is anything offensive or if there is anyway I can make the same point in a less offensive way.

One would think that each of us would find issues we need to work on when we seriously look into the mirrior. I have made it a practice each evening to pray the Psalms 139:23, 24 prayer. "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Certain types of slanderous and inflammatory posts are not only allowed but encouraged, some are tolerated, a few are excoriated. Such differing treatment of similar postings leads to confusion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I don't know exactly what you refer to here, However the "rules" depend highly on the moderator of the forum. One moderator may allow something another will not. The contradictions you may see may simply be the difference between moderators.

However moderators are sinners too so it is possible that they may unintentionaly apply a double standard although I doubt any here would ever intentionally do so. Moderators are not saints, beyond reproach. I suspect most would welcome constructive critism. Perhaps it would be helpful if some became more aggressive in editting emotionally-charged language and when doing so, instead of reprimanding the posting member for using such language, simply state "Please reword without emotionaly-charged language"

[there buster]

Quote:

---

What the exchanges that led to the idea to post this thread (which I know is well intentioned) made very clear for me is that what is inflammatory emotionally charged language, versus what is simply description of a situation, is a matter of perspective: what you see depends on where you stand.

---

This would be true only in post-modern philosophy, where facts and truth are essentially unknowable. Then one could say, "This is my truth."

But reality exists, as do facts, and factual statements

Let me give you an example from one of your own posts.

You stated that Alberto Gonzales "tried to get us into the torture business." Apparently you believe that is a fact. A moment's contemplation demonstrates the falsity of that statement. It represents a conclusion (on your part) about an intention (on someone else's part) which that third party nowhere stated.

That passed muster easily, although it was inflammatory. However, a statement such as "Clinton bombed Somalia to divert attention from Monica," would be considered inflammatory.

That's only one example.

If someone says "gay marriage is not a civil right," as I have, and back it up with evidence, it's not an inflammatory statement. It's a statement about the law. (of course, one could take the position that any statement that anyone disagreed with was inflammatory, but that would end discussion.)

A reply which indicates that such a position is "hard-hearted," is not a statement about the law, nor about fact, but an assumption about character and motivation. Yet, in the instance, the first was considered inflammatory, and the second not.

And that's only one class of difficulty. There are the nearly endless "you better get on your knees" and other assumptions about both character and motivation.

I was fascinated by the assumptions and even accusations that followed my cryptic mention of Gresham's law. Lots of people assumed lots of unsavory things about my intentions, but not one person actually asked what those intentions were.

The real answer is sitting out in the open in a couple of recent threads, and explicitly mentioned in a recent post. In fact, it stares up at you everytime you logon to CA.

[Bravus]

"The Gonzales memo reaffirms his opinion that the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war applies neither to al-Qaida members nor to Taliban detainees."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6790622/

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/

I saw it as a statement of fact: a legal opinion that the Geneva Convention prohibiting certain ways of treating prisoners does not apply to some specific prisoners seems to me to constitute an attempt to remove protection from torture from those prisoners. Perhaps my wording was slightly sloppy, but I would maintain that it is essentially a statement of fact. A statement of fact can be disputed, and you're welcome to do that, but if a statement of fact is considered inflammatory speech we're in trouble in terms of carrying on a conversation.

[there buster]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf

Even without reading the memo, your statement was inflammatory, because you said he "tried to." For which, there is zero evidence.

As an academic, you above all people should realize that individuals are asked to research all sorts of arcane questions.

That is in fact what the memo is about.

Fact: the Geneva Convention does not apply to al Qaeda and other terrorists. A cursory understanding would make that clear. They are not uniformed, they are not the agents of a state.

According to the Geneva Convention, a combatant from a hostile power who is found in disguise, that is, not in uniform, may be summarily shot as a spy.

(Just to forefend sloppy reasoning, I guess I have to state that I am not thereby advocating the summary execution of every al Qaeda member).

Fact: To repeat, the Geneva Convention simply does not apply to al Qaeda. You may dislike that, but the words of that treaty cannot be stretched to that degree.

Neither Alberto Gonzalez nor any other Administratioin "removed that protection" from the terrorists. They placed themselves outside of the Geneva Convention by their conduct.

Fact: al Qaeda and others are coached to claim torture and brutality whenever they can. That has been discovered in captured training manuals.

So, you're the President, or AG, and you need to know, just where are we with these people?

You ask for a legal opinion. Someone goes and researches the law, and comes back with all the technicalities and nuances of the law. It describes what torture is according to relevant statutes, and what it is not.

Since these terrorists have a demonstrable history of deception, how would we defend ourselves from charges of torture, etc.

A pastor of mine, who had a Ph.D. in counseling, did his doctoral dissertation on incest.

He surveyed the literature, gave careful definitions of what was considered incest and what was not. For example, adult siblings deciding to be sexually intimate is not generally considered incest, because there is no authority/power disparity. That's what the literature indicated.

So, by your reasoning, he must have been advocating sexual intimacy betweeen adult siblings.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Quote:

---

seems to me to constitute an attempt

---

If nothing else, those words in themselves should tell you it was your opinion, and not a statement of fact. You may believe it; it may even be true. But to take a highly emotional subject, and assume a person's intentions, rather than read his/her statements, is indeed highly inflammatory.

Let me state clearly, this is not about the Gonzalez memo. This is about either an unwillingness or inability to see the difference between facts that can be indepently verified, and someone's opinion about those facts, stated in inflammatory language.

This is one of the primary tools of the abuser and the manipulator, to, as the lawyers say, "assume facts not in evidence."

As I pointed out, I would not say, "Clinton bombed an apirin factory in Somalia to take attention away from Monica."

Why? Because

1) There evidence is that Clinton believed it to be a chemical/biological weapons facility. In retrospect, it appears that was false. But stating that he "bombed an aspirin factory" implies that he knew what it was when he ordered the strike.

2) I may "seem to me" that he was trying to take attention away from Monica, et all, but my opinions do not become facts simply because they are strongly held.

3)Such assumptions would clearly be offensive and inflammatory to his supporters. I could hardly expect them to take such invidious comments peacefully.

Posters have a right to expect that moderators can discern the difference between facts and opinions, and impartially enforce the rules.

[Bravus]

Ed, I can see your points here. I don't agree in all particulars, but I understand where you're coming from.

I'd just add that I often say 'it seems to me', not to signal 'this is my opinion, not fact', but to signal 'I'm humble enough about my opinions, and aware enough of how often I'm wrong, that I'm willing to phrase it tentatively'.

[there buster]

Here's the entire post:

Quote:

---

I find it ironic that some on the left are now seeing Gonzales as a reasonable option, on the basis that although he's the guy who tried to get the US into the torture business, at least he's unlikely to vote to overturn Roe v Wade..

---

As I said then, I expect more from an academic. One of my best teachers was a hard left liberal history teacher. But he knew the difference between the facts and his interpretation of those facts. We disagreed, but respectably.

He was merciless on sloppy reasoning, and I bless his memory every day for it. (For the record, it was a secular college and he was a practicing Jew.) He was a teacher.

[Jeannieb43]

Re: age differential in incest.

As I understand it, there must be a five-year age differential between the parties in order for sex between related persons to be classified incest and therefore illegal.

It is about power. If two kids are nearly the same age, they're not as likely to submit to sex against their will.

[Bravus]

Just thinking, now... The other way to get around this whole issue is to be less sensitive. I know Nico would disagree with me, and maybe she has a point, but perhaps it's just like any bullying: if they don't get a reaction, they'll stop. Or maybe they won't stop, but you won't have reacted...

The term 'Bush hate', as one example, annoys me very much, because I think it's used to stop certain conversations and as a substitute for thinking. But I have tried to stop reacting to it, both in terms of posting responses and in terms of my own emotional reaction, because my reaction doesn't change anything. So as far as I'm concerned it can be usd in every post - I'll just ignore it.

I'm not saying direct personal attacks on people are OK - there are still standards - but as I noted above, if we try to avoid 'pushing each other's buttons', that can devolve into using the sensitivity of our buttons to control other people's behaviour (and that's already started, see the 'cartoon commentary' thread). So, instead, how about a little re-engineering on our personal buttons to increase the required trigger pressure? Workin' on mine...