Ideas and resources for people practicing and promoting better online behavior?

[Spirit of Light]

Some of what I’ve been doing in these forums is practicing and promoting ideas for helping Internet discussions do less harm and more good. I know that I’m not the only one doing that, and I think that some other people have been doing it all along, better than I ever have. I thought that discussions about it between us might help us all do even better.

A few times I’ve seen people saying openly that they are intentionally cruel to people or that they intentionally use personal attacks, sometimes even saying that it’s part of the fun for them here. Personal attacks across faction lines often get “like”s and “winner”s. I see people denying that it’s a problem, making excuses for it, and stigmatizing people who object to it, and no one but me objecting to any of that. I don’t see any sign that anyone besides me sees as much evil in that as I do.

Trying to discuss with people what we can do for Internet discussions to do less harm and more good continually brings me face to face with what look to me like some evil forces at work in the discussions, too dark and dangerous for me to face alone.

How would a perfect discussion be if you could always deside how people discussed? would you be able to describe it, because i am not sure what you seek is obtainable in a internet forum. In real life face to face yes maybe, but not sure it can work in internet.

 

[Jim]

I’ve seen other people starting threads about harmful behavior in Internet discussions, but they all look to me like they are only excuses for vilifying people across faction lines, and not at all aimed at helping to reduce and counteract harmful behavior. Even so, people using that excuse might be a sign that there really is some concern about harmful behavior, maybe even enough for people to put some time and effort sometimes into trying to help reduce it and counteract its effects. Here’s an idea for anyone who wants to do that:

Part of what needs to happen might be for people to see it more as a moral and social issue for themselves personally; to decide for themselves, according to their own personal standards, that nothing can make it right to use cruelty or personal attacks or to vilify or disparage any person or any group or category of people for any reason or purpose; and to see it as part of their own moral and social responsibility, not to do anything to reward, encourage or support those behaviors, or people denying that it’s a problem or making excuses for it.

 

[Jim]

I think that as long as discussions about harmful behavior are flooded with posts promoting and defending it, for example denying that it happens, denying that it’s a problem and stigmatizing people who object to it, saying that it’s unavoidable and part of the fun, people pointing fingers across faction lines, and people saying that they don’t take it personally, it will continue, in spite of anything that modetors can do.

 

[Jim]

I think that I should try to explain more of my thinking about this. First I’ll review what I’ve been saying, then I’ll respond to some possible questions about it. What I’m proposing is for people who see harmful behavior in Internet discussions as a moral and social issue according to their own personal views, and feel a moral or social responsibility to try to help reduce it and counteract its effects.. For what I’m proposing, there doesn’t need to be any agreement on what kinds of behavior are harmful, or on a moral standard, or on what makes it a moral and social issue, and it doesn’t matter what a person’s intentions are.

What I’m proposing is very simple: Before you respond to any post, especially if you like it or you want to argue or protest against it, ask yourself if it’s harmful behavior or not, according to your own personal views. If you are sure, without any doubt or questions, that it is not harmful, respond to it any way you want to. Otherwise don’t respond to it at all, specifically. Don’t rate it. Don’t reply to it. Don’t even mention it, or call attention to it in any way, not even to denounce it. That’s all.

If it’s spreading misinformation, post somewhere else about the misinformation that’s being spread, and respond to it, without pointing at who is spreading it. If it’s vilifying or disparaging someone in the forums, post friendly messages to that person. If it’s misrepresenting, vilifying or disparaging someone else, or some group or category of people, post somewhere else about what’s being said and respond to it, without pointing at who is saying it.

 

[Jim]

I’m thinking of this in two parts now.

- One part is an idea for anyone who feels a moral or social responsibility, according to their own personal views, to try to help reduce and counteract harmful behavior in Internet disasters discussions. The idea is not to respond to a post at all in any way if you think that it might be some kind of behavior that you think is harmful.

- The other part is some examples of what kinds of behavior a person might think are harmful, and examples of what might nake it a moral or social issue for a person.

 

[Jim]

If you are continually making efforts to help reduce the popularity of insults and personal attacks, on all sides of all divides, or to help reduce and counteract its harmful effects on people and on the discussions, please see Ideas for helping to reduce and counteract the ravages of human nature.

 

[Jim]

Also, I need to know if there is anyone in these forums who is continually making efforts to help make the forums more friendly, fun, fruitful and beneficial for everyone, on all sides of all divides. I know that moderators might be doing that sometimes, but I need to know if anyone else is doing that.

 

[Sirona]

II’ve learned that one way to change my behavior is to change my self image. A lot of my behavior that I want to improve on comes from a way of picturing myself, that comes out in my posts in arrogant, insulting, intimidating and incriminating ways. The way I’m trying to learn to picture myself now is hard to describe. Relentlessly friendly and helpful, with nothing to prove. With genuinely friendly interest in everyone around me, and only wanting to be friends and to be helpful. At the same time fearless and immune to intimidation and incrimination. Maybe like Casper the Friendly Ghost, or Dorothy of Oz. Also, exemplifying the Scout Law: Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, reverent. If I picture myself in those ways, it helps make my attitude and behavior more like I want them to be.

A fault confessed is half redressed.

Understanding and changing one’s character is maybe one of the hardest tasks that exist in the world.

 

[Sirona]

Part of what I think helps perpetuate harmful behavior is people denying that it’s a problem, or making excuses for it. For example:
- An unavoidable consequence of debating.
- Just part of the game.

You cannot neatly divide all kinds of comments into "factual" or "emotional". Abuse must be punished, but things like irony, sarcasm and the like are part of the human way of discussing, and in fact, they make learning fun. Liking or agreeing with a controversial statements mostly just means that people like the idea expressed in the statement, and not that they are monsters. According to your descriptions, you make this place look like hell, and IMHO you're the only one continuously making this statement. If you can't stand the heat, it would be probably best not to stand so close to the fire.
A friend of mine once took me to a meeting where everybody agreed with each other and everybody smiled all the time. It was a meeting of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I think I would leave this forum if it became like this, but maybe some people like the communication culture in closed groups. But since you admitted having hateful feelings against members of your own (former ?) religious group, maybe you wouldn't succeed more in forums where everybody shares the same religious opinions.

 

[Jim]

I’m curious now to know if there’s anyone who strictly avoids logical fallacies when they’re debating in these forums.

 

[Jim]

A few times I’ve seen threads objecting to some harmful or distracting behavior in the forums, but I’ve never found any interests in common with anyone in those discussions, in trying to do anything about it. If a person is associating some harmful behavior or its targets with some group or category of people, then their interests are actually opposed to mine.

 

[Jim]

In discussions about harmful and distracting behavior, sometimes people persistently misrepresent the topic as people being exposed to views opposed to theirs, saying or insinuating that insults, personal attacks and stereotyping never really happen, or sometimes even defending snd promoting them, and stigmatizing people who object to them or whose feelings and lives are adversely affected by them. I see that persistent misrepresentation of the topic as harmful and distracting behavior in itself. If I followed my own advice, I would never respond to it at all in any way, except sometimes to say no, that is not what I’m discussing. I might also try to give some friendly attention to some people who might be adversely affected by that behavior. For example, maybe people who have been targets of insults, personal attacks and stereotyping.

 

[Jim]

I might post hypothetical examples here sometimes of misrepresenting the issue of harmful behavior in Internet discussions, diverting attention from it, and stigmatizing people who are adversely affected by it or who object to it.
- “My directness is often misunderstood by the more sensitive individuals here as rudeness.....though I am perplexed that those with sensitivities would post on an internet forum in the first place.”

 

[Jim]

In discussions about harmful online behavior, sometimes there are posts misrepresenting the issue as being about innocent, harmless posts being wrongly interpreted as hostile or malicious; and stigmatizing people who are adversely affected by other people’s behavior or who object to some of it.

I agree that sometimes, maybe even most times, when people feel hurt or angry about what other people say, there actually was no malice or hostility behind it. I agree that people need to learn not to be confused, distracted, demoralized or damaged by other people’s behavior even when there really is malice or hostility behind it. I don’t agree with people trying to learn to never feel hurt, offended ot angry about what other people say. I think that it’s very unhealthy, and harmful to other people, to try to stop having those feelings, or not to have them. Unhealthy in ways that are similar to how unhealthy it would be to never feel physical pain.

 

[Jim]

Sometimes people telling themselves that they aren’t affected by other people’s words might be using that as an excuse not to care how their words affect others.

 

[Jim]

I’m thinking that I’ve been overdramatizing what happens in the forums. I actually don’t see much harm in the insults and personal attacks. I think that there might possibly be some long term damage to a few people from some behavior here, but i don’t see most of the insults and personal attacks as being part of that. I haven’t lost my sense of urgency about responding to what’s happening in the world, or my alarm about the popularity of some attitudes and ways of thinking that I’ve seen here. I have lost my sense of urgency about anything that I might want to do online.

 

[osgart]

I find it interesting that some people call those who believe that life is a result of intelligence liars, and that they want everybody to join in the lie. This is a huge lack of understanding about such people.
Once more they talk past the belief, or call it anecdotal, when in fact it is an honest obvious conclusion of the believer.

So you come across two ways of thinking that are completely alien to each other. So the argument goes in a vicious never-ending circle. Each side claiming obviousness while calling the other dishonest.

I admit sometimes I think naturalists have an agenda to wipe out any conviction that lends to religious ideas. It, at times, feels dishonest, or something of a blind hate.

 

[Jim]

Now I’m rethinking what I want to do in these forums with my ideas about improving online behavior. Maybe what I’ve been doing, but without all the urgency that I was feeling.

 

[Jim]

Update on what I’m practicing and promoting now:
- Wait to post until I can do it with genuinely friendly feelings.
- If someone misrepresents what I’m saying, just say simply that I’m not doing that, and nothing more
- After a series of distracting posts, post an update on the topic and what’s been said about it.
- Otherwise, don’t respond at all in any way to harmful or distracting posts, not even to argue or protest against them. No rating, no comment, no mention of them.
- Give some friendly attention to people when they might be adversely affected by other people’s behavior.