does honesty need to be harsh? (page 4)

SixofNine

I think you can't play good cop bad cop w/o someone to be the bad cop.

Ravyn

hey TJ! no offense hun, I just thot I should explain myself because the point of my thread was HONESTY, in any aspect, not just online.

Ravyn

**** But in the case of a real troll, who rarely has a message but is there mainly to provoke, what would you suggest be done? Ignore them? Or demonstrate why they're a troll and hope that naive lurkers will get the message? If the latter, isn't that a form of "attacking the messenger"? Is that still wrong in your eyes?****

Even known fellow poster's rarely concede to a peer's corrective arguments. Although I must admit seeing TJ's very sincere appology to you, tempers this observation. Takes a big man (heart) to do so.

So why in the world would you even consider that a real 'troll' would even want to acknowledge the message?

So my answer is yes, ignore them. Giving anything more to an assured real troll is baiting in and of itself. The use of ad homenums or belittling remarks, only serves to further the trolls agenda.

If its hard for us to maintain our dignity and civility with those we have associated with for years, how easy can it be to unload on the real or suspected troll? Way to easy imo.

Give some credit to the thinking ability of lurker's, I seem to think that they (former lurker myself) can discern who's presenting the real stuff, without the obvious public labels of stupid, moronic, liar, jackass, idiot, so often resorted to.

Danny

hillary_step

Danny,

There is something just wrong with this idea that one can entertain two different personas, cyberlife vs real life.

I could not agree more. I am not saying that it is right, what I am saying is that like it or not it is the nature of the beast. We either stay and adjust our personal philosophy to suit this *fact* or we move on to pastures new. The reality is that the way discussions progress ( or regress ) on discussion Boards, especially XJW discussion Boards is here to stay. It may not be ideal, but it is all you have.

TJ,

Ravyn's question isn't whether or not a person's perceived online character is the one that's genuine. One might very well have one real-life persona and a different one online -- though personally I've never understood such a need. Turning the pc off and doing other things – allowing one's "true" personality to again resurface – makes Ravyn's issue moot when it comes to online posting. But even in real life the question at hand intrudes: can you get at the truth (or help people) without being harsh. I know without a doubt that it's possible.

The essence of my own views was clearly stated in the opening sentence of my original post, which perhaps you did not read. Not only do I believe it to be possible to be honest with out being harsh, I believe it to be preferable. Ravyn posed this question with regards to online behavior in her post and that it what I went on to discuss.

There is a vast difference as to how honesty is presented in the real-world and online. That is why I think many of the illustrations made are not actually fitting. We all know how we would like to be *told* we are about to died of cancer, but how would we like a person to *write* this information - this is what we are dealing with in this question.

The rest of my post was designed to show that ‘harshness’ in the way that our *own* perception of honesty is presented will always be part of online discussions where face-to-face contact is missing. AlanF illustrated this well in his anology of a person being warned about a fire. The issue of how one differentiates what is a raging fire or just a lit match goes very much to heart of Ravyn's post. Internet discussions, with its mix of nationality, character and motives will always blur the line between matches and infernos.

I also went on to note that we must learn to accept that this is going to happen, people will present their views brutally, some more than others, some more gently than others. It is not necessarily a reflection of that persons true personality or *intent*, but a methodology that they chose to use. I used AlanF as an example, as I am aware of both his on-line and off-line personna. You may disagree with the methodology, but it would be dangerous for a person to try and judge a persons intent by the manner in which they choose to display an honest viewpoint on discussion Boards. A person can write harsh, without being harsh.

What I have reiterated above is surely what Ravyn's post is intended to discuss? Perhaps I missed the point, it happens every so often...lol

Best regards - HS

Ravyn

Hey HS! since I asked the question online of this forum...it first is intended to be a Q about online honesty. But I dont separate my online life from my offline life---so it did not occur to me when I asked that someone might think I had two standards. I am talking about honesty in all aspects of life, not just online. Online is just what I share with you guys....

Ravyn

DannyBear

Six,

The only time good cop, bad cop, should be acted out is in fact in the interrogation process. Having spent years in the field of investigations and taken many written confessions from wrongdoers, I know it is a ploy best left to real police/security matters.

If you come back with the idea that cult fighter's are like cops.....my response is that we (db board posters) have and never will conduct such real life one on one deprogram sessions.

Danny

DannyBear

Hs,

**** We either stay and adjust our personal philosophy to suit this *fact* or we move on to pastures new****

Yes that is so true.

But should it be just accepted and endured? Should we just roll over, or decide to move on, because we can't change things?

So many have indicated that they would love to say such and such, but refrain from doing so, because they know the resulting firestorm of reproach or abuse they will have to endure.

That is truly sad, pathetic really, shame on us for allowing a few to dictate this senario.

I don't want to hear someone's adjusted philosophy, I want to hear the real deal!!!!!!

We just keep moving on, looking for some other board, censorship free, private group, another religion, music, hobbies, politics, trying to satisfy our inate desire to express ourselves, yet we keep getting shot down........sad is not the word for it.

I think we are getting alot of this stuff in the open, enough now for people to see who is stifiling real communication. Its a good thing not bad.

We need to wipe the playing field clean, and let the words tumble out, without the referee's having to blow the whistle on obvious fouls so often.

Then we all can participate without the need to bend our personal philosphies out of fear and trepidation.

Danny

onacruse

DannyBear, you are saying what I feel way better than I can say it.

HS:

A person can write harsh, without being harsh.

I'm no expert in psychology, so I have to admit the possibility that maybe someone can achieve such a complete disconnect between their writing style and their underlying personality/motives. However, I'm reminded of that scripture "Have you ever known a spring give sweet and bitter water simultaneously? Have you ever seen a fig tree with a crop of olives, or seen figs growing on a vine? It is just as impossible for a spring to give fresh and salt water at the same time."

For example, let's take:

Problem is, [Craig], like certain other posters, you have an inferiority complex based on the demonstrated fact that you have virtually no debating skills. Knowledge of that lack causes you to lash out at other posters you know or think have some skills.

I would dearly like to know how a comment like that could be taken as anything other than derogatory, spiteful and demeaning. Would you really suggest that I could somehow attribute "good motive" to the person who said that to me? Or that I should discount it as "Ah, well, that poster is just playing a game, and doesn't mean what he said?"

Respects,

Craig

SixofNine

Danny, don't make me go Rodney King on yo ass.

DannyBear

Six,

Which Rodney King, the one who said 'Can't we all just get along' or the other one?

does honesty need to be harsh?

Share this