[WikiEN-l] Harassment sites

[George Herbert]

On 10/17/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 17/10/2007, Will Beback <will.beback.1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >>> Not all, but certainly those whose skin is so very sensitive that they
> >>> insist that removing michaelmoore.com from [[Michael Moore]] as an
> >>> "attack site" is a necessary move.
> >>> You keep trying to reduce this to binary choices. Doing so has already
> >>> led to blithering idiocy (e.g. on your part with removing the Making
> >>> Light links). Perhaps you need to stop trying to reduce it to binary
> >>> choices.
> >
> >> Let's not engage in uncivil language with each other while we're
> >> discussing harassment.
> >
> on 10/17/07 1:20 PM, David Gerard at dgerard at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > It's hardly "uncivil language" to note that you come to this
> > discussion with unclean hands.
> >
> David, you seem to have a fondness for using the word "idiot" or its
> variations when responding or referring to another person. This language is
> uncivil, and, once again, sets a poor example.
>
> Marc Riddell

Let me spin this a bit differently, even...

That sort of language puts people on the defensive (or offensive).

If the objective was to convince Will that he made a mistake, putting
him on the defensive by offending at him doesn't accomplish the goal.
Defensive people hunker down (or, go offensive back), as a general
rule.

It's counterproductive in discussions to use language like that,
because it solidifies disagreeing opinions rather than opens people up
to introspective self-criticism and behavior changes.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com