Why do you think some people automatically jump into rudeness during disagreement?

There's a rather alarming trend that has surfaced recently on the forum and especially in some of the natural sciences forums. I tend to try and make very informative, helpful, and easily understood posts to people in those forums who I can tell don't know a great deal about the subject. I do this for a couple reasons. (1) I like to talk about these subjects and (2) I like to be helpful to people who want to learn. Here's an example of that.

However, often, and without any provocation whatsoever, certain people jump into the thread thinking they know better and immediately start acting rudely by insinuating that others are not making sense or are missing details. Usually, this is done under the guise of making a correction to something I said -- except that almost every time, their correction is wrong or simply a competing idea of their own.

Here's a very recent example of what I am describing. In this example, "Name Withheld" is the person acting inexplicably rude. And remember, this is their first post in the thread in response to my first post in the thread as well. I edited some excess statements out so you can see the overall picture, but nothing was taken out of context.

At this point I provided proof positive that my definition has a great deal of support behind it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That <Name Withheld> prefers a less recognized definition (which may or may not be as legitimate) seems immaterial to the fact that I wasn't posting "nonsense" (not to mention that I was 100% right). That comes from a medical dictionary right there. So why the rude labeling of "nonsense?" What makes people think it's okay to be so rude to complete strangers on the forum? What do they get out of it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find people seem to be more defensive/sure about their opinions on forums than in person. In a real life discussion people seem more open to others ideas etc.

Or maybe its just that theres so much crap written on sciforums, that when a person disagrees they automatically lump him/her into the nutcase category.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with your observation, pinwheel. But it's shameful that some people use a simple point of disagreement as reason to be needlessly rude to others who are trying to help people... especially if the person helping is 100% right in what they post.

What a world.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's just insecurity on their position. Usually when people feel their position is threatened, they feel insecure. Close minded and ignorant people automatically turn up the defenses and resort to rudeness in hope that they can make the other person look stupid instead of making their argument look wrong.

edit:

It's largely the reason that I almost never post on this board anymore.

 

Its called the cowardice of anonymity.

 

Rudeness: From Youth (The absence of Corporal Punishment?)
It has been a long time in the making. Observations are that 50+ years ago, the world was more use to a stringent PC place. Certain words couldn't be broadcast on the television and/or radio and an element of etiquette was taught in schools. There was also a great deal of Corporal punishment to maintain some sort of semblance of order.

The problem occurred that over the years people were manipulated by those that felt it was being abused and initially they were right, however this has bred generations of people to be less likely to use corporal punishment to deal with problem's and more likely to let events unfold apathetically, unable to do anything to deal with the problem.

This means the current generation is technically more unruly than the last, which was unrulier than the one before that and this is why we have so many kids out there now thinking "Anarchy is cool" and wanting to burn down entire systems. They think the current systems are an evil regime, yet they've never had that system raise a cane or slipper to them. (In fact some of the people that had corporal punishment used on them will agree that it was necessary and will actually understand the essence of Respect)

The main problem with corporal punishment however was that there was no standardised method so if a kid was hit by one tutor or parent he might be hit harder than another kid and this is where the damage could occur.

Perhaps they should legislate to allow tazering of problem children, at least then the particular charge used and it's duration can be legislated to not be misused. In fact the way it could be done in a school is that the evidence of whatever action they had done could be collected, their parents could be asked to come in with the child, the parents are then asked at their digression based upon the evidence to tazer the kid themselves. This way they make sure no tutor has abused their position or abused the tazer by extending it's usage period or upping the voltage.

Obviously you'll have people disagree with this method or any other corporal punishment method and suggest that "Nurturing them can stop their behaviour"...

Now this is true only of a family where the parents actually attempt to teach values to the child, but to face facts we have a number of "single parent" families that pop up from "teenage pregnancies" and some of the girls that have the kids, themselves didn't have proper parenting so they had no one to learn how to be a decent parent from, (they also might well have only had the kid for state benefits, so they end up spending the money they were meant to use on the kid to party all night, get high and others act a lower mental age)

Rudeness: from the Old (Longerterm absence of Punishment?)
They've seen the world, they've watched it blossom and they see it decay. They tend to look at all the youngsters as being problems (like my definition above) and they see the kids being rude. Now there is where the great divide occurs, those of a young age and those of an older age, rarely mix properly because of the divisions on how they see the world, how the world was and how it will be in the future.

Older people have likely seen it all and heard it all, it's not because they are big headed or pedantic, it's just because they've been here a little longer. They might have even been like the younger people when they were their age.

The problem is however if a person is use to Decades (Generations) of rude people, they themselves will likely deal with people rudely or abruptly. I mean why be polite to people that don't understand what polite is?

Rudeness: the Mentality
Some people are rude due to their mental state. Like mentioned above they might of spent decades dealing with rude people or being rude themselves (for the lack of correction)

It can actually be a tell tale sign of a particular mental health trait, for instance a Bipolar Disorder, Tourettes syndrome or Manic Depression. It can also be down to Post-Traumatic stress, after all if you happen to find yourself abused because of your skin colour, religion, a speech impediment or being ginger haired, your likely going to find yourself always being defensive with people. There is also the aspect that if you happen to be a hate filled individual that doesn't happen to like a particular group or person, then you are going to openly vent rudely and abruptly towards them.

Obviously the problem is however if you allow that anger, rage and overall rudeness to build up, then you are letting it control you and condition your overall psychology which could well be the first stages of a break (A psychotic episode) where you might put yourself, family, friends or complete strangers at risk.

Rudeness: On the forum
Just remember some people will make decisions about who they like or dislike by reading their posts, this means they will automatically set their mind as to whether to be openly hostile or open to discussion prior to responding.

You could suggest that depending on what you right will decide on what response you will receive. If you are purposely attempting to be abrasive, then you will end up with abrasive responses. (You just have to look at the threads where I'm discussing "Cannabis having a potential for causing Psychotic Episodes" and automatically because of my "Devils Advocate" stance of looking at it from that angle, I've caused abrasion with members. You will find they will likely respond rudely and I might even retort similarly, all based upon how I formed my posts.)

You will find that the hardliners that have their perspective are rude because they will not adhere to a differing perspective, their mind is set and to have a different perspective thrust on them makes them angry and rude.

They tend to neglect that the basis of Science is Philosophy, and that Philosophy requires you to not just look from one perspective, but to attempt to understand all perspectives before drawing a conclusion. Philosophy in essence is a broader method of "trialling" a particular subject to gain an in-depth knowledge on the subject, The Science.

This means playing Devils Advocate even to positions you don't agree with in regards to Science.

To bring this post to an end, obviously I've analysed what I blame for rudeness, but it's no something so easily forced into a simple equations, there are many other avenues that I've probably not even touched on.
So I'll leave it to you lot to find what gems I've missed, or where I'm "wrong" in this or that respect, have fun.

 

This is mainly about forum rudeness. How do you apply your theory to the example in my OP?

 

I don't this is an example of rudeness, its difference of opinion. Academics tend to be more pedantic than clinicians

 

That may be true, SAM. However, labeling legit opinions as "nonsense" for no reason except that they differ from yours is not usually interpreted as polite. It is usually interpreted as rude.

 

Update: The poster referred to my OP has become even more malicious than before and is resorting to namecalling. In response to my last post:

Does this sort of rudeness seem provoked in any way whatsoever? What brings it out of people? Does it benefit sciforums..?

 

No that really wasn't rude, it was just ignorant brashness; intelligent readers would have noticed this straight away and your post would not have lost any credibility because of it.

Normally, there are three ways you can deal with rude posters, 1, you reply intelligently and calmly and don't mention their perceived rudeness. 2, ignore them completely 3, reply with sharp and scathing wit to put the poster in their place. The trouble with 3 is that A, you have to be pretty clever, articulate and have wit to be able to do it successfully and B, there's a high chance that your reply will result in a slanging match with the rude poster, then others will join in and before long the thread will go entirely off topic thereby ruining it. Personally, as I don't like fighting anyway, I choose options 1 and 2.

 

Case proven.

 

Ah, but here's the thing you miss in the midst of your whining. It's not a "less recognized definition". It's the definition recognized by cancer researchers worldwide. I'm speaking from professional experience; I was one of them. I quoted a textbook to that effect.

The know-it-all arrogance and lecturing you frequently display (often on the basis of broadly understood factoids lifted from textbooks rather than detailed knowledge) is your own personal example of rudeness. I know I'm not alone in thinking this.

And by the way Will, one of us has been banned multiple times for rudeness/flaming/trolling/abuse, one of us hasn't. You're not fooling anyone. (Okay, maybe you're fooling a few people.)

And finally, you've started this whole affair because I labelled something of yours as "nonsense". I subsequently escalated as you escalated. It was probably unwarranted to use the label of "nonsense", but in the grand scheme of Sciforums and the interweb, that's about as mildly rude as you can get, if it can be considered as such at all. So just grow a pair and stop whining.

 

I am quite sure that the definition you provided is used much less often than mine. As well, providing an alternate or competing definition does not disqualify all other definitions. Many words have multiple definitions.

For the record, I don't know what you are talking about. And since I haven't heard about it from whoever else you are referencing, that doesn't really matter.

The perception of past rudeness is not really just cause for future rudeness. I can also recall an incident where you had several posts deleted by a moderator in the world events forum and the moderator who did so told me that the only reason moderator action was not taken against you was something along the lines of it not being proper etiquette for mods to mod other mods. Being a moderator is a shield from other moderator actions. It does not mean you have not behaved badly.

However, this thread isn't about me. It seems like you wanted to respond to the poster instead of the actual post. It seems like that's what you wanted to do in the thread that this thread is referencing as well. That is not a positive quality.

I know.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However, I never escalated in nastiness one bit. That was only you.

 

Thats right...they often show up here!

 

to start a post with 'your wrong' invites an emotional response unrelated to topic..

this is the info part of your post.

defensive and accusatory (well written though), invites emotional response.

good..post sources of your knowledge..be aware those sources are susceptible to scrutiny also..

.
uncalled for..your trying to make the point that you did get it from another source, why distract from it by insulting?

very easy to misunderstand those types of terms..

good info

try reading all that without the small text...
Most (IMO 90%) of the time when we see something we don't like about another person, it is the same thing we don't like about ourselves..
also if it is good info, it should be able to stand by itself, It shouldn't need to be dependent on the qualification of the speaker.

 

Copy of my post in the relevant thread:

Country is irrelevant. What seems to be the problem here is that we seem to be comparing apples with oranges. You seem to be coming from the standpoint of clinical medicine whereas I am coming from the standpoint of medical research. We each have references to back our respective positions, and this indicates that there is no strict consensus of this issue. Or if there is, it exists only within the specific fields above.

For instance, here is another textbook that defines “cancer” in a lot less specific fashion than you (and your references) do.

Note that there is no reference to malignancy.

I don't need to re-read. Here again we seem to be arguing from different standpoints. In my medical research experience, malignancy goes hand-in-hand with tissue invasiveness and metastasis. From the same textbook source:

So, again, taking the definitions that I am familiar with, you can see that not all cancers are malignant.

I am not conceding the issue. Here, and in your SF Open Government thread, you have taken the arrogant position that you are 100% correct. Clearly this cannot be the case if there are textbooks that contradict your understanding. This would seem to be a topic with subjective definitions that depend on context, so there is no ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.

However, upon review and regardless of the nature of the dispute, I realize I have let some real-world stress intrude into my posting. I do agree that I have been inappropriately rude. For that, I genuinely apologise.

 

I just read somewhere that Tolstoi wanted to slap everyone in the face who disagreed with him.


And I am all giddy that Sciforums' "scientists" are having such social troubles, like "rudeness".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Mild "rudeness" or being whiney?
Hmmm, tricky choice there, Bob.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's the Internet. Rudeness comes with the territory. Get over it.

Seriously, that's one of the cornerstones of Internet wisdom. A person is not truly Internet savvy unless they have come to terms with it. Whether or not people should be so inexplicably rude so often is irrelevant. You can't change it. If you want to venture into the African jungle you have to accept the fact that there are a lot of nasties in there that could potentially kill you. Philosophizing about how unfortunate it is that that is the case isn't going to serve you. Instead you simply need to adapt. The internet is the same (and in some ways much worse).

And you know what? Developing an immunity to rudeness, personal insults and childish argumentative techniques gives you a distinct advantage. You are no longer easily rattled. Think of it as a sharpening of your debating skills. You've gained something.

tablariddim also makes an excellent point that is worth quoting: (my emphasis)