-------------- Original message --------------
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
I think it's important to note that baiting users into making personal attacks is even worse than the personal attacks that ensue, however.
-Snowspinner
Abusers often blame the victim. Sadly, sometimes the victims believe them.
-- Silverback
Sorry, I'm a little dense today. Please spell out the point you are trying to make.
The idea of name callers blaming the victim for "baiting" them is analogous to spousal abusers who claim the spouse "egged them on", "was asking for it" or committed some other stupid oversight or offense. The spousal abuse victim, often will defend the abuser claiming it was their fault, they weren't perfect in some way.
Of course, namecallers think their victims deserved it, egged them on, baited them, or was being unreasonable, or refused to acknowledge that the namecaller was right.
Somehow, just as a lot of people manage to avoid abusing their spouses, a lot of people refrain from namecalling. The difference is more in the abuser or namecaller than in the victim or provocature. -- Silverback -- Silverback
I think you're misrepresenting how this goes. Let's take, say, Adam Carr and Skyring. Or Slrubenstein and Xed. Here is generally how it goes.
User 1: Forcefully stated idea User 2: Polite disagreement User 1: Hostility at disagreement User 2: Continued efforts at disagreement User 1: Increasing hostility. Some abuse. User 2: Bewildered suggestion of a compromise User 1: Rejection of compromise. Hostility. Claim to being willing to compromise. (We're about a month into the cycle now) User 3: Protection of article.
Next month, on a new article... User 1: Forcefully stated idea User 2: Wincing, disagreement. User 1: Accusation that User 2 is biased and shouldn't edit this article. Other abuse. User 2: Stubbornness, some reluctance to discuss this again. User 1: Repeated statement to be willing to compromise, coupled with complete lack of compromise offered and streams of abuse. User 2: Requests for page to be protected. User 3: Protects page.
Next month, on yet another article User 1: Forcefully stated idea User 2: Pointing out that to date, nobody has agreed with User 1. User 1: Accusation of a cabal. User 2: Mild personal attack. User 1: Arbcoms User 2.
User 1 should be run out of Wikipedia. User 2 should be slapped on the wrist and solemnly told "Don't do that again." Then privately thanked for opposing the stupid.
-Snowspinner
On Mar 10, 2005, at 5:03 AM, actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
I think it's important to note that baiting users into making personal attacks is even worse than the personal attacks that ensue, however.
-Snowspinner
Abusers often blame the victim. Sadly, sometimes the victims believe them.
-- Silverback
Sorry, I'm a little dense today. Please spell out the point you are trying to make.
The idea of name callers blaming the victim for "baiting" them is analogous to spousal abusers who claim the spouse "egged them on", "was asking for it" or committed some other stupid oversight or offense. The spousal abuse victim, often will defend the abuser claiming it was their fault, they weren't perfect in some way.
Of course, namecallers think their victims deserved it, egged them on, baited them, or was being unreasonable, or refused to acknowledge that the namecaller was right.
Somehow, just as a lot of people manage to avoid abusing their spouses, a lot of people refrain from namecalling. The difference is more in the abuser or namecaller than in the victim or provocature. -- Silverback -- Silverback _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 06:32:38 -0600, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I think you're misrepresenting how this goes. Let's take, say, Adam Carr and Skyring. Or Slrubenstein and Xed. Here is generally how it goes.
User 1: Forcefully stated idea User 2: Polite disagreement User 1: Hostility at disagreement User 2: Continued efforts at disagreement User 1: Increasing hostility. Some abuse. User 2: Bewildered suggestion of a compromise User 1: Rejection of compromise. Hostility. Claim to being willing to compromise. (We're about a month into the cycle now) User 3: Protection of article.
Next month, on a new article... User 1: Forcefully stated idea User 2: Wincing, disagreement. User 1: Accusation that User 2 is biased and shouldn't edit this article. Other abuse. User 2: Stubbornness, some reluctance to discuss this again. User 1: Repeated statement to be willing to compromise, coupled with complete lack of compromise offered and streams of abuse. User 2: Requests for page to be protected. User 3: Protects page.
Next month, on yet another article User 1: Forcefully stated idea User 2: Pointing out that to date, nobody has agreed with User 1. User 1: Accusation of a cabal. User 2: Mild personal attack. User 1: Arbcoms User 2.
User 1 should be run out of Wikipedia. User 2 should be slapped on the wrist and solemnly told "Don't do that again." Then privately thanked for opposing the stupid.
That's silly. How are we to correct errors if we follow your reasoning?