Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-03-2018, 04:37 AM
 
Location: Earth
1,529 posts, read 1,728,048 times
Reputation: 1877

Advertisements

I hate to admit it, but I have a weakness online.

I honestly and truly like to have online discussions with interesting people (I like to do it in person as well). As we all know (and you can see from the politics forum), the internet is full of trolls who either intentionally stir things up or they're just such sanctimonious *******s, that they stir things up anyways.

I try really hard to let things go most of the time, but when someone acts me personally, especially in a chat where my name is known (facebook), I feel this urge to defend myself. I find that I usually don't return the insults, but either ask them questions trying to get them to clarify their condescending comments or I mock them.

I know I should just let it go, but I have an ego. I'm working on it and I've reduced the amount of political conversations I have online cuz I know how they're all going to go. But sometimes I'm really looking for an interesting political debate with people I agree or disagree with, but it always goes sideways because of one person.

My questions:

1. Why do people think it's okay to be so cruel to each other online (even in non-anonymous social media like facebook)?

2. How do you control your ego when someone attacks you personally?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2018, 04:44 AM
 
Location: Ft Myers, FL
2,771 posts, read 2,305,742 times
Reputation: 5139
1. Why do people think it's okay to be so cruel to each other online?

They have the mistaken belief that their ID will remain anonymous for the rest of their lives and those of their descendents. Online quotes are like tattoos.

2. How do you control your ego when someone attacks you personally?

I take three deep breaths - and then move on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 06:24 AM
 
4,927 posts, read 2,910,626 times
Reputation: 5058
Nice post/good topic. This just happened to me in the Retirement forum; out of the blue on a funny, pleasant thread another poster accused me of playing the victim. After one initial response, and a nasty response back, I decided to stop the dialogue on my side.

#1: People are cruel because they enjoy inflicting pain, don't care, and something you wrote pushed their buttons. It's frequently not even about you--it's about them, entirely. Thus, the inadvisability of responding in kind; it does no good, serves no purpose, and you can't win.

#2: Control can come from self-monitoring your internal monologue and a refusal to be manipulated. I guess you want to just be aware of feeling threatened but not act on it.

The very best, rational arguments will not affect an irrational person bent on destruction. Better to ignore them and spend your time more effectively.

Last edited by KaraZetterberg153; 03-03-2018 at 06:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Brentwood, Tennessee
49,927 posts, read 59,975,596 times
Reputation: 98359
Quote:
Originally Posted by bolehboleh View Post
My questions:

1. Why do people think it's okay to be so cruel to each other online (even in non-anonymous social media like facebook)?

2. How do you control your ego when someone attacks you personally?
1) There is less accountability behind a keyboard. FTR I would block someone who insulted me non-anonymously on FB. That's ridiculous.

2) Responding to them gives them control over you. You are proving that they got to you. Ignoring them is the best way to "get back" at them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 07:48 AM
 
4,927 posts, read 2,910,626 times
Reputation: 5058
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirdieBelle View Post
1) There is less accountability behind a keyboard. FTR I would block someone who insulted me non-anonymously on FB. That's ridiculous.

2) Responding to them gives them control over you. You are proving that they got to you. Ignoring them is the best way to "get back" at them.
Yeah, I block the rude ones on FB, too, and it's nice because once you do that they're totally gone. And I can literally feel my blood pressure go down. On CD you can still see their names, unfortunately.

FTR?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 07:52 AM
Status: "I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out." (set 11 days ago)
 
35,637 posts, read 17,989,189 times
Reputation: 50679
I think you have to define trolls here.

I no longer respond to first time posters who post a very well-written but controversial topic. I check their profile and if they haven't returned since the moment they wrote the post, I click back out and that's that. Trolls.

But I will post to someone who just has a very controversial opinion and might be a little rough in stating it.

And no one ever - ever - posts anything at all unflattering on my facebook page and vice versa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Middle America
37,409 posts, read 53,599,905 times
Reputation: 53074
A few observations:

Someone who disagrees with you in an online discussion is not necessarily a troll.
Someone who disagrees with you in an online discussion is not necessarily bullying you.

I don't think the OP is claiming this, but it bears noting, nonetheless.

As far as engaging with obvious trolls, it is very context-dependent, for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 09:00 AM
 
2,695 posts, read 3,774,008 times
Reputation: 3085
I avoid replying to posts that appear trollish or uninformed. I find complete avoidance is the best policy personally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 09:23 AM
 
8,085 posts, read 5,253,841 times
Reputation: 22685
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa View Post
A few observations:

Someone who disagrees with you in an online discussion is not necessarily a troll.
Someone who disagrees with you in an online discussion is not necessarily bullying you.


I don't think the OP is claiming this, but it bears noting, nonetheless.

As far as engaging with obvious trolls, it is very context-dependent, for me.
This! All day this! I don't think people understand what a true "troll" is...

I see it all the time here from adults..."I'm being bullied". No. They disagree with you. That's not bullying. This isn't grade school.

Some people need to look within if they are constantly being "bullied" or "trolled".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 02:06 PM
 
251 posts, read 204,234 times
Reputation: 416
Unfortunately some definition of trolling is subjective.

However, my ultimate definition is a refusal to acknowledge certain widely observed consistencies or "facts".

When someone begins to write a narrative online that 90% of people both ON and OFFLINE do not experience that is when I deem that person a troll. It is not even worth playing devil's advocate with them for the sake of entertainment, because they are unhinged and PURO LOCO.

For example, people who believe REAL unemployment is low and ignore the U-6 rate. I'll tolerate those who don't believe it's actually higher than U-6. (U-6 says 8.2%, I think closer to 10% or a bit higher) But if you refuse to acknowledge a self-admitted stat by the government (not asking you to believe in the preciseness but rather consider it directionally) then how can we have even a basic conversation.

In order to have a constructive interesting conversation we need to have some kind of mutual understanding of where things are at. An ancient Phoenician had to be able to at least agree with a Turk that the sky was blue. There has to be some kind of starting point based on a mutually agreed upon fact. If there is none, then conversing will be pointless. Because we will always be comparing apples to oranges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:57 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top