Resolving Perceived Domineering or Bullying Behaviour

[rick.leeds]

As has been said, and really just to reiterate, being offended by something is not, on it's own, a reason to report anything officially. I've seen a number of things I am offended by over the years; some of them - such as out and out racist comments - need action, many of them don't. The question comes down to why a person takes offence? Is it because they are being personally abused? If so, then that probably needs to be looked at. If it's because your personal beliefs are offended, that probably means you're in a debate.

[beowulf7]

I can't be the only one that sees offending someone deliberately as a sometimes legitimate ploy - can I?

Not everyone here is here for the joy of the debate. It's long been my perception that some contributors are promoting their views rather than debating. More, I would go so far as to say that there are some who are actually recruiting/converting and, and (this is where I think they cross the line) some of these who have recruiting agendas are less than honest. More specifically I am talking about one or two individuals who seek to "sell" a set of views by slipping in some easy-to-swallows but deliberately hide their more extreme views that they know would be unpalatable. Now there have been a few occasions when poking these people enough riled them up so far that the truth slipped out - in fact for a couple of guys it slipped out more than once and IMO directly as a result they're currently "away".

You know those "women have a way of closing down unwanted pregnancies" moments!

The point I'm making is that when deciding what is or isn't bullying (which I am against of course) you do need to consider whether or not someone is truly "mis-debating" in an honest debate or if they're reacting with a measured and possibly appropriate response to a different type of behaviour.

I'm not suggesting that "well meant zealots" (like me) are NOT subject to the same rules as everyone else - of course the rules of common decency and the forum apply to all and ought to. All I would say is that we have so far managed to have a grown up yet robust forum area and I put that down to the brilliance of our moderators. Robust is to be be encouraged. Bullying is to be stamped on. "Perceived Domineering" is a) subjective b) quite possibly the best way to expose someone's dishonesty.

[Crunkus]

"Perceived Domineering" is a) subjective b) quite possibly the best way to expose someone's dishonesty.

I don't understand what specifically you are objecting to.

[beowulf7]

Objecting? me??

Nothing really, just voting against policing to the point of outlawing "perceived domineering"

I'm in a period of reflective posting - not trying to change the world

[Crunkus]

Objecting? me??

Nothing really, just voting against policing to the point of outlawing "perceived domineering"

Who is outlawing "perceived domineering" or petitioning for it?

I guess Constantine's position was along those lines somewhat, but "perceived domineering" wasn't something quoted from his posts.

I'm in a period of reflective posting - not trying to change the world

I'm not saying you are. I just asked a question. It wasn't clear to me what you were specifically responding to. I tried to rectify that by asking the question. I got the impression that you hold that position. But that position had not really been challenged here...except briefly by Con, and again, not using those words. I'm guessing there was a mistaken impression as to what the purpose of the thread was, but it's hard to tell unless I know what prompted the statement.

[schocker]

I do not participate in discussions which go personal. It is a new rule. So if you want to attack one's intelligence or views as being ignorant I will just not respond to you. No hard feelings or anything like that. Life is just to short to waste one's time.

[Rolan A Doobie]

I do not participate in discussions which go personal. It is a new rule. So if you want to attack one's intelligence or views as being ignorant I will just not respond to you. No hard feelings or anything like that. Life is just to short to waste one's time.

Can you provide any examples of these "personal" comments that you are referring to? Because otherwise, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Antigonos]

I do not participate in discussions which go personal. It is a new rule. So if you want to attack one's intelligence or views as being ignorant I will just not respond to you. No hard feelings or anything like that. Life is just to short to waste one's time.

I agree that it is unproductive to attack someone's intelligence. But there is a valid place for pointing out that an argument or viewpoint is illogical, uninformed or contradicted by evidence so long as the one who does this gives the basis for such an assertion. One should also try not to place someone in a "dismissed"category when that ignores the specific details of the individual's remarks and apparent thought processes.

[schocker]

I do not participate in discussions which go personal. It is a new rule. So if you want to attack one's intelligence or views as being ignorant I will just not respond to you. No hard feelings or anything like that. Life is just to short to waste one's time.

I agree that it is unproductive to attack someone's intelligence. But there is a valid place for pointing out that an argument or viewpoint is illogical, uninformed or contradicted by evidence so long as the one who does this gives the basis for such an assertionThis is not rude. This is debate.. One should also try not to place someone in a "dismissed"category when that ignores the specific details of the individual's remarks and apparent thought processesThis depends on whether the conversation is civil. The poster certainly can determine whether they wish to continue or dismiss..

It never needs to be personal. Because a personal has a view you do not agree with that does not give you or anybody the right to bring on the personal attack. Whether on this site or others it is just rude.

[Crunkus]

It never needs to be personal. Because a personal has a view you do not agree with that does not give you or anybody the right to bring on the personal attack. Whether on this site or others it is just rude.

The purpose of this thread is to resolve instances where someone has perceive domineering or bullying behaviour directed toward them or others. The personal attacks you speak of are consistent with this. If you would be good enough to quote or link to the specific posts that you are perceiving as personal attacks, we can all have a civil discussion as to whether they are, in fact, personal attacks. It is incredibly easy in this medium, and in a debate forum, to perceive insult or a personal criticism where none was intended or really even present in the language. For instance, the forum guidelines for the debate forum here actually try to remind people to remember the difference between having your position, ideas, actions, beliefs, or arguments criticized and a personal criticism. You may take such criticism of your ideas personally...but that's a choice personal to you.

This is a debate forum, and ideas presented here are subject to criticism without the inference of an intent to personal injure the person who expressed the idea that is being criticized. It's hard for some people to get used to, but that's one the primary purposes of this thread.

That process starts by being specific as to what it is that disturbs you and quoting the specific instances you are talking about. Generalized complaining and accusations of misconduct cannot be properly answered or civilly discussed. They are, in their own way, a very unfair personal comment about someone.

It isn't always fun having someone point out that easily accessible information tends to contradict an assertion you've made. But part of civil discussion is also being prepared to recognize that and not simply label it a personal attack (it isn't, it's criticism of the adequacy or uninformed nature of a point of view you expressed) and make a personal comment about how the person isn't worth your time or has unstated views that cannot change or be argued with. In such a case it is that response about the person that skips the civil discussion and goes to personal comments.

I personally do not wish to be misunderstood repeatedly, no matter how many times I try to make you understand the separation between my comments on your views and any personal attack you might perceive. So until there's been some resolution there, I plan on staying clear. But I'd hope that if civil adults are involved, that misunderstanding could be resolved. It starts by both sides giving the other the benefit of the doubt. This thread is an excellent place for such a resolution, as is private messaging. If you're not interested in that, your posts here are probably inappropriately placed.

To simplistically blame such reactions on Islam would be blind at best and mendacious at worst.

A good argument (not that I agree, but you have some good points) and then the "If you believe something different from me you are blind (or stupid)" ending. Why not just leave it as a educated discussion?

The second quote for instance references the first. Your categorization of the first quoted sentence as "If you believe something different from me you are blind (or stupid)" is unfair. "To simplistically blame such reactions..." Is specifically calling the action of blaming simplistic in nature. Unless you want to argue that only stupid or blind people are capable of behaving or saying something that is simplistic, which I doubt you would, then it's just not the case that the quoted material calls anyone stupid or blind. I, like most people, have been known to say ridiculous things. If you say I have just said something ridiculous, it does not also imply that I am personally, by nature ridiculous. These are two completely different meanings. If I insist that it DOES and MUST mean that, I am the one being unfair and acting in a manner contrary to civil discussion.

It's sometimes hard to realize that when it's your actions or thoughts being criticized...but you cannot have educated, reasoned, and civil discussions without differentiating between a person's ideas and that person. If any criticism of your views is a criticism of you by your reckoning, you have to accept some responsibility for the break down. The forum guidelines here specifically talk about this, and it is wise to heed those words.

This is not said as a means to assign blame, but as a reaching out to again, resolve situations involving perceived personal attacks.