Battle Between The Oldies & The Newbies

[tinybear]

There seems to be a battle between certain old members of this forum and some relatively new members. Is it my imagination? Or is this going on? If so, wouldn't it be much better if it ceased?

[ZNFYRH]

It seems like the newer members are saying:

"Hey, it kinda sucks that people are being jerks."

I think it's "heated" enough to simply say someone's argument is "dead wrong" or "fallacious," and that's as heated as it ever needs to get. From the rules (which are, FYI, as old as the site):

This site's main objective is to promote intelligent debate between people with contrasting ideologies. This is a not a forum for insults, spam, etc.

See that? "Promote intelligent debate" means to debate on factual terms, not try to break someone's argument down by calling them an idiot, saying they're one of our site's worst debaters, or any other inflammatory nonsense. Ironically, Pat's biggest pet peeve was TROLLING--those threads were nothing BUT giant troll machines.

And the owner is saying:

That's as heated as it needs to get.

I don't know why the oldies are pissed.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think the argument is between the emotional, and the logical, and a some of the more active newbies are more of the emotional flavor, relying on less logic, factual or provable information in their debates, which frustrates and angers many of the long time contributors.

We all have an ability for emotion, and logic, the key is the balance between them, and the overall focus on objective reality, as opposed to perceived subjective realities.

[Praxius]

*shrugs* I dunno.... everybody get's my wrath equally.

[rez]

I think it is more of the newbies vs newbies personally...

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn

I agree that the distinction is between emotion and logic.

But I think the problem is when the older people, who have gotten away with this, attack not the argument but the person and hope the response will be emotionally tainted and be less logical.

The newer people are blowing the whistle on that.

It's not about having thin-skin or being emotional, it's about people needing to stick to the argument and not try to goad the other person.

[Autolykos]

I think people need to realize that when we criticize their arguments, we are not criticizing them as people. Some people, however, seem to take such critcism personally. Often they feel compelled to respond in kind (from their point of view). Things can escalate rather easily afterwards.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said:
I agree that the distinction is between emotion and logic.

But I think the problem is when the older people, who have gotten away with this, attack not the argument but the person and hope the response will be emotionally tainted and be less logical.

I think there are cases when individuals presenting the argument deny logic due to personal subjective beliefs, and in that case, I attack the source, which is the peronally held beliefs that deny objective reality. Some people take offense at their beliefs being challenged, or as they may perceive "insulted", but most of the arguments over insults that I have seen have been due to thin-skin and denial, or outright lack of will to admit the stem of the subjective reality that is intruding into the objective debate. In other words, intellectual dishonesty is usually the stem of most of these contentions, in my opinion.

ZNYFRH said:
The newer people are blowing the whistle on that.

It's not about having thin-skin or being emotional, it's about people needing to stick to the argument and not try to goad the other person.

Well, you certainly have a right to your perception, I just disagree with that perception as you described it.

There are times when people with strong beliefs refuse to admit the intellectual objective flaws, or hypocrisy in their own arguments, and that is when questioning and skeptism are viewed as "insulting" or "berating" to some people.

I have often used personal arguments to reveal these hypocrisies, quite successfully, so I see validity in their use since they achieve the goal I was intent on achieving in the debate.

Do you know what I mean here?

[Chaossaber314]

I think people need to realize that when we criticize their arguments, we are not criticizing them as people. Some people, however, seem to take such critcism personally. Often they feel compelled to respond in kind (from their point of view). Things can escalate rather easily afterwards.

- Rob

While this isn't directed at you since I've always seen you to be reasonable and calm, there's a distinction that needs to be made between condescension and blatant ad hominems. Something a good deal of the oldies seem to believe wins them arguments these days.

[ZNFYRH]

Do you know what I mean here?

Absolutely.

The problem, though, is in the use of terms like "intellectual dishonesty." The person could have very carefully intellectualized their opinion. I don't think it's so much disagreeing with their opinion that bothers them, it's when the disagreement is marginalized with a two-word quip that mis characterizes their stance.

The other problem, and I think the one that is really behind the "newbie" perspective, is something like this:

"I have this opinion or stance and I support it thus."

"LOL!!1! Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about."

I'm not personally offended by the LOL response, but where does it leave things? It is unnecessary and, if the former person has any kind of temper, it runs them out of the thread.

They are run out because they cannot respond to the latter statement. Going on about how much they understand would be useless and drive the thread off-topic. And the type of person who makes the latter reply clearly is not the type that can respond to rational content without being condescending.

All in all, I think the problem is a lack of respect. You can completely disagree with someone, even dislike how they argue, but still completely respect the person.

Think back to any people where you didn't like them personally, only to realize with time that maybe you just didn't like how they chose to present their arguments until you took the time to think through it.

The, "LOL that's stupid"... "F**k you, you're stupid"... "bait bait flame provoke"... "infraction response push back GRRR" happened too often.

As a newbie, I just don't want to play that way. All it takes is one of those derogatory responses and people stop viewing the thread so that they don't have to view the ensuing flame war.

[GHook93]

There seems to be a battle between certain old members of this forum and some relatively new members. Is it my imagination? Or is this going on? If so, wouldn't it be much better if it ceased?

How do you characterize a newbie?

The date they became members? Or the post count? In either case what is the cut off?

[Praxius]

Osborn

I agree that the distinction is between emotion and logic.

But I think the problem is when the older people, who have gotten away with this, attack not the argument but the person and hope the response will be emotionally tainted and be less logical.

The newer people are blowing the whistle on that.

It's not about having thin-skin or being emotional, it's about people needing to stick to the argument and not try to goad the other person.

Indeed... on a side not to that, you also have to realize that there are many other ways to approach a topic and point of view besides what the regulars have become acustomed to.

Everytime someone new comes in to any forum.... they are always thrown into the wringers.... mainly because the regulars don't know their background, their general beliefs..... what are their core reasons for thinking the way they do......

Without actually being able to be familiar with the new person's personality and background.... it's easy to jump to the conclusion that they maybe ignorant of certain facts and therefore you feel their opinions are uneducated..... perhaps they are... it happens...

But let's take me for example.... I come waltzing in here, shooting my handfull of pennies around the place and expressing my opinions on things as I believe make sense (Not what I "Know" as being the "Facts" ~ There is no such thing as facts..... just believable illusions.)

But when I go and express or coment on something that I figure must be common knowlege.... I'm still asked for references, proof, facts.... and that I don't know what I'm talking about.... mainly because sometimes I throw in short-straight to the point comments, which to some here may feel are narrow-sighted, not well informed, or prejiduce..... when I usually won't open my mouth on something I haven't researched or learned over the years (as you may notice on various threads I don't bother to post in) I usually won't supply links to something I figure should be common knowlege, or I feel is a waste of time, considdering those who ask me to show sources of what I am saying, can google the information just as easily as the next person.

If there is something I don't know, I say so and I may throw in my best educated guess.

I think this battle you speak of is all about credibility. If you're known not to just grab things off the top of your head, and you start to appear you know what you're talking about, the razzing tones down....