DUers who consistently post threads with controversial articles/subjects

[jpgray]

Note--for the purposes of this poll controversial topics should not be understood as including those with an unabashedly "conservative"--in the GOP sense--viewpoint since we are ostensibly a meeting place for Democrats, progressives, liberals and leftists. Let's also remove the more tinfoil-esque controversies from consideration for this poll. Further, assume said DUers do not break the rules as far as personal attacks, but may come close to breaking them in terms of posting something "inflammatory," since by their nature all controversial topics have the potential to be inflammatory. The DUers in question should be assumed to have a personal opinion on the issue, and are known for expressing it freely and often. Let's also say for the purposes of this poll that the discussions caused by these threads don't give the victory to either side of the debate, but always generate a large volume of posts and strong feelings.

The question is, what do these DUers and their raising of controversial issues provide more of: a valuable contribution to DU's discourse, or a disruptive influence?

[Deja Q]

1. Depends on how it's worded, but I say it's a combo...

It depends on your perspective...

[jpgray]

6. If you had to draw the line from your perspective, where would it be?

[crispini]

2. Kind of annoying, but I wouldn't call it disruptive.

Some folks obviously have "pet topics" which they want to start dialog about, and I can appreciate that. I'm thinking here of Karmadillo's PETA threads, which are sort of an ongoing soap opera IMO. :D And are always started with a sort of casual leaning. But some people simply have axes to grind, and start controversial topics over and over and over again simply for the sake of beating the same damn dead horse. THAT gets old.

[jpgray]

5. Could you give an example of something that's crossed that line?

PETA? Nader's role in the 2000 election? Those sorts of topics?

[crispini]

8. Well, it's not really specific topics...

it's the way specific posters get a bee in their bonnet about specific topics. I guess it's not really a big deal, if it were really annoying I'd put them on ignore. I guess my point is that there really is a noticable difference between someone continuing to post on a certain topic because they are interested and want dialog, vs. someone continuing to post on a certain topic because they have a big ol' axe to grind and are gonna make sure everyone knows it. You just want to tell them, "relax, already, dude, it's not worth it." :D

But that's the kind of thing that really only becomes apparent if you spend a fair amount of time reading here. Multiple posts, different threads, but a similar pattern....

[jpgray]

11. Okay, so it's more what seems the likely motive than it is the controversy

Am I reading you right? Two different posters with different approaches could post the same article and debate the same side of the issue in the thread and create two completely different threads in terms of tone. Or did you mean something else?

[crispini]

13. Yes, exactly.

Some people are able to convey a willingness to engage in dialog and all some people seem to want to do is make smart ass remarks.

[Kenroy]

3. I voted "valuable"

Just because a topic causes a lot of heat, it shouldn't be considered disruptive to discuss it. To me, that's the whole POINT of a political discussion board - to discuss things. And a good knock-down drag-out can be fun, too.

I think as long as the poster is clearly not a conservative troll, and not breaking the DU rules, all topics should be fair game.

[jpgray]

4. That's more or less my take as well

It's better to have the conflict, in my view, as tedious and go-nowhere as it can be, than to have isolated little enclaves of different-minded DUers who have a forced limit on interaction with one another for fear of two hostile opinions colliding. You're entitled to a refuge from conservatives here, I believe, and from personal attacks, but there's not much else I think you should be forcibly shielded from in terms of politely stated differing opinion.

[Larissa238]

7. Besides, if its *constructive* conflict

things can be learned on both sides. I have been in debates where I learn things from both sides. So sometimes the contreversy is beneficial, sometimes its not if the person is not being constructive.

Some people, I think, take things too personally. But everyone has their pet peeve topic, and its to be expected. Its just when the discussion goes nowhere when it is not needed.

[jpgray]

12. I probably have a pretty generous concept of constructive conflict

:)

I think as long as each side is forced to think about the other perspective, the debate is worth having. That's probably a minority view.

[Larissa238]

42. I think so, too

But also my hope is to have people learn something from the other side, or see one of their points. Not necissarily all, or concede everything, but a couple of things learned is always good.

[jpgray]

44. I think that does happen, whether the other side admits it or not

Once in a while one side will "pose" the other with an argument for which no pre-formulated defense exists, and then at least some thought takes place even if it's only to try and shut down the opposing argument in any way possible. :P

[Larissa238]

50. I meant learing as seeing at least a bit why that person thinks the way

that they do... its always a good thing...

[Kenneth ken]

32. I voted "combination..."

but thought I'd post here.

The problem I see in these type threads is the lack of "politely stated differing opinion."

Apart from that, the few I've participated in have had some posts on either side that may offer useful information. It's tedious slogging through all the thinly-veiled hate to find those nuggets of information. Regrettably, I presume DUers who are truly open to considering both sides of such an issue are often put off by the slogging through process.

RKBA is an issue I've never come to a firm opinion one side or the other. I will occasionally wander into the gungeon, but I don't stay too long because of the vitriol.

[jpgray]

45. Do you suppose people silently wander through and gain something?

Or do most people who want to learn information avoid those sorts of threads?

[Kenneth ken]

48. I always suppose people here are sort of like me

whether that's a valid supposition or not.

I mostly avoid these sorts of threads. But I will wander through maybe one in twenty of them and see if there is anything useful I might learn.

[jpgray]

51. So from that perspective

Do you think these sorts of conflicts should be regulated beyond avoiding personal attacks, &c.? Or are they just part of being a discussion forum?

[Kenneth ken]

52. I think they're just part of being a discussion forum.

I would point out there are at least three topics that are segregated due to their tendency to become inflamed; so on DU there is some regulating beyond avoiding personal attacks.

I think having the various forums and groups also can also be helpful for people wanting information on a topic without all the divisiveness. But new arrivals at DU may not be as aware of those forums and groups.

I think DU would suffer if it were over-regulated in the sense of pushing most topics into separate forums so as to avoid conflict; even if that might make for a better information resource. As is, the various forums and groups allow for more sedate discussion of certain topics, but just because there is a forum or group doesn't necessarily prohibit discussion of same in GD (except I/P as far as I can tell.) Every once in a while a gun-related topic survives in GD or GDP.

I just lament the rampant incivility that comes with anonymity and large numbers of posters.

[Az]

9. If its a front for a post on a positive subject

Then it is effective. But if its just a rant about how evil the bush cabal is or something else we all already know then I am tired of it.

[alarcojon]

10. Some of these discussions go nowhere productive, time after time

I'm thinking specifically of PETA discussions, but there are others. Both sides bring out their arguments, which I could tell you practically word for word before reading any of the posts. Then the personal insinuations if not outright attacks come out. Usually, there is a lock involved, and as far as I can tell no minds are changed. I'm tempted to just go:

[jpgray]

15. What's the answer, in those cases?

This is often the case, for example, in the gun forums as well, where each side is well-versed in the talking points and rhetorical tricks of their opposite numbers and while there's no hope of victory there's no chance of defeat either. But I agree with crispini that these topics can be discussed once in a while without that impenetrably tenacious attitude toward the issue that brooks no deviations from a certain line of thinking. So if that's true, should certain posters not be allowed to discuss the topic based on an observed history of such tenacious behavior? I'm not fond of that option myself. If only one side responds with this disruptive behavior, does that effectively preclude their opponents from having a chance to put forth an opinion on the topic, since disruptive behavior will therefore result no matter how well or peaceably the discussion is initiated?

I know I found our discussion of that probability problem enlightening--it's possible I would have eventually caught my ignorance concerning who would answer the door, for example, but I certainly wouldn't have done it as quickly as I did with the benefit of people disagreeing with me.

[alarcojon]

18. I'm not at all advocating not letting someone post something

Just commenting that I, at least, get little to nothing out of some of these discussions. So I move on.

What I am referring to is not run-of-the-mill disagreement, which is absolutely essential to any vibrant discussion board. I am referring to situations where both sides are firmly entrenched in their positions and little of value ever comes out.

[jpgray]

20. Of course, but I'm just wondering if there's a way to moderate this

Or if it just has to be played out without restrictions so long as no personal attacks go on, etc. Ideally the community would self-moderate tiresome and pointless discussions--most Nader threads these days, for example, that would have netted 300+ posts in 2003 are mostly filled with "not this shit again" type replies. Can that be counted on, or are there steps mods/admin can take that aren't overly retrictive?

[alarcojon]

23. I think it just has to play itself out

Otherwise the mods would be in a position of deciding who gets to post what - which I think we both find distasteful.

The Nader thing, of course, faded out as he faded into irrelevance, but other hot topics seem to be timeless here on DU.

Both sides have to stop feeding the foolishness. People who regularly post on some topic, get 100's of predictable responses, then get locked should consider what the point is of their continuing to post on this topic. And people who jump in to those posts to challenge their views (and often to call them on why they are posting) just feed the flames with little to be gained.

But certainly neither the mods nor "the DU community" - whatever that is - can/should decide when a particular topic is pointless to discuss. Referring back to the PETA threads, I'm quite certain some of the posters get something out of those discussions. Just because I can't tell what that is doesn't mean I want to begrudge them their entertainment.

[jpgray]

25. That's essentially my take on what the proper response is

I suppose if I were a forum admin or moderator I might look at things different.

[alarcojon]

27. Have the mods been complaining about this type of thing?

[jpgray]

28. From my perspective, it's been a tough issue for mods and admin alike

It's been my assumption that some of the impetus behind the "groups" was to separate some of these diehards from each other. I know fraternization between the Skeptics/Alternative Medicine, or Christianity/Atheism groups for some members has been discouraged.

[alarcojon]

29. Hmmmm, you have a point

obviously it doesn't solve the problem entirely, though.

[jpgray]

31. No--ironically separation at first spawned planned attacks and disruptions

Each group would observe some controversial thread from "base camp" and plan how to stick it to their foes. Doubtless that's -not- exactly the way thigns were supposed to work. I think no matter what measures are taken on a moderator/administrator level, these opposing sides will find ways to poke each other with a stick. The superficial form of the attack has changed, but the meaning is just as easily read.

[enigmatic]

38. I've seen that

And it's resulted in some of the mist ridiculous posts in the history of this board; absolute 3rd grade stuff.

The whole point of getting these groups was to facilitate conversations within the "safety" of these groups; some of them just pretty much became bitchfests about other parts of DU and threads were constantly linked to grease along the wailing.

From what I've seen, that's (for the most part) died out on in the groups I've observed, so the mods and admins should be commended for putting those fires out.

[jpgray]

39. I agree the mods/admin have worked hard on this thankless task

And one area where I am sorely lacking perspective is the admin/mod point of view. I can only see this issue from my position as a poster--I have no idea of what really is going on except for my small window of observation, whereas the volume of alerts, PMs, &c the mods/admins must receive probably provide a much larger-scale perspective.

[sundog]

14. they are witches

[jpgray]

26. This is a serious thread for serious people

:eyes:

:P

(yes, I posted a defusing smiley--what of it? :cry:)

[shugah]

16. combination + attention getting

i often click on the "controversial" threads but tend to skim the OP and pay more attention to the responses. if i already know the OP has a carved in stone opinion, i won't gain much from re-reading it. however, there have been many controversial threads with thoughtful (and patient) responses that i find intelligent, enlightening, sincere, and helpful.

the DUers who consistently post controversial topics seem to fall into 2 categories - a) really want to talk about it or b) i'm right, if you don't agree you're wrong. (trolls not included, as your OP indicated).

[jpgray]

17. Hmmm. What is the right way to respond to group b?

And if you impose some restrictions on their behavior, what do you do when the group that simply "really wants to talk about it" is constantly ambushed by the group that holds the "I'm right; if you don't agree you're wrong" viewpoint? How do you tell one from the other in that case?

[Kenroy]

19. That's the crux of it...

in all these battles, there isn't ONE side that is convinced it's right, to the exclusion of all others. There has to be at least two sides who believe that, or else these topics wouldn't generate such heat.

[shugah]

21. generally, i don't respond to group b

or group a either, truth be told ;-)

i do not advocate restrictions on anyone who posts on DU. if i think a post violates the rules, i alert. if i don't like the trend of a thread i don't read it, if i tend to disagree with a poster consistently, i don't click.

the a group doesn't mind an ambush from the b group - they want to talk about it. the b group does tend to whine if a group seems to be ambushing them, but the a group is only trying to talk about it.

"how do you tell one from the other?" hm... i just can :shrug: ;-)

[jpgray]

24. Those who whine about encountering a differing view get on my last nerve

I guess if I had to pick sides between those who chase one topic down wherever it appears on DU in order to discuss it, and those who bitch constantly about that behavior, I would have to side with the former. If you're complaining about someone coming into your hermetic world of like-minded folks and disagreeing with you, I have to ask why you're on this discussion board to begin with. Beyond ensuring the community holds a few basic principles in common as Democrats, leftists, progressives, &c., I don't see why differing views on any other level should be discouraged on this board, no matter how many people whine about it. Part of being in a community of whatever size and whatever diversity is learning to deal with the opinions of those who disagree with you, in my view.

[Finder]

47. Good post. n/t

[DanCa]

22. It really depends on the article and on the person.

Besides if it gets too bad I can always hide the thread. I mean I am sure not everyone likes the stem cell articles that I post from time to time. So I simply cannot tell another person what to do or post.
On the plus side DU has toughened me up to a lot of criticisim and got me to think about things that other people find taboo. So you got your good and your bad.

[porphyrian]

30. I'm not aware of any inflammatory posts on DU. - n/t

[Marr]

33. They are Thought Criminals and should be taken to room 101.

No, seriously- I don't mind any point of view that is based on fact and logic, whether it's Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative, or anything else. If you can make an argument you should make it.

However, I ignore right-wing propaganda, because lies are not arguments.

[Susang]

34. My take on the matter

If the original posts are not written in a rule-breaking manner, then the disruptive influence comes from the people who come to post to the thread with their own agenda to disrupt any reasonable discussion; or to shut down any debate on any subject they have already decided (usually in black and white).

I have an interest in what many subjects that many here would probably term "inflammatory". Some of these subjects are topics that I spend a great deal of time and effort studying. If discussing things that I am interested in and am knowledgeable about more often than is comfortable for some is considered "disruptive" or "inflammatory", then what the hell am I doing on this discussion board?

[jpgray]

35. Nicely said (nt)

[Susang]

41. Thank you

Though it might be helpful if DU added a Syntax check along with Spell check, especially after a couple glasses of wine. ;-)

Seriously, I think this is an extremely important issue you've raised and I hope it gets more discussion than just a cursory glance. I believe that DU suffers when the alert button is used as a bullying tool. Differing viewpoints end up being silenced out of fear of being seen as flame-bait or inflammatory.

To me, any discussion or debate that is silenced, especially out of fear of offending a small group of vocal individuals, is criminal. It doesn't matter to me who starts the thread, what matters is the discussion that follows. If it follows the DU rules, there should be no reason to shut it down just because of the posting history of the OP.

[shugah]

53. alerting on a differing viewpoint doesn't lead to a deleted message

if i understand moderating DU correctly. i suppose a person can alert on anything, but i don't know how effective that would be for bullying, as the mods ultimately decide if a post has broken the rules or if a thread has deteriorated beyond redemption. i don't think an individual poster ever knows if a post was alerted on, unless the message is removed - even then, i don't know if the poster is contacted? (i'm so good, i never get into trouble ;-) )

OT - :hi: susang! i'm thinking about another trip to your wonderful city. you have an ikea there, don't you?

[Kenroy]

46. Very well said

You captured it perfectly. Some people can organize and disrupt any thread they disagree with, and it's often the original poster who gets accused of being disruptive, NOT the actual perpetrators.

[wookie294]

36. Dumb question

Please. If there was no controversy in media, we would have a nation that looks like ... well ... TODAY'S Bush-America. Celebrate controversy. Don't worry about it.

[jpgray]

37. Still, I think it's worth asking

How to deal with controversial topics wherein two factions intrench and achieve very little in terms of a real dialogue is a problem with a lot of message boards, and I was curious as to what GD people think of this behavior.

[sepia_steel]

40. The only threads I can't stand are

the ones that complain about other threads. For some reason these people aren't able to ignore those threads, and they start another thread about the same topic just to bitch about it.

[jpgray]

43. That's always amusing--especially during the Reagasm or the Pope's death

You have a dozen posters putting up threads on the subject which aren't very different from one another, a dozen more to complain about that dozen in threads of their own, and then a half-dozen who start threads to complain about how nuts the previous two dozen are. :crazy:

[merh]

49. I voted the combination.

And FYI - folks are looking for you! :hi:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4209513

[AZBlue]

54. Combination - discussing the issues good, closed-minded bashing bad

Debate and discussion and great...and a cornerstone of democracy. Anyone should be able to express their feelings openly - unless they are hurting someone else. And, if they post something, inflammatory or not, and someone disagrees, then I think the responses should be substantive and not personal. Hard to police and a fine line to cross, I realize. But, you asked, so I answered! :hi:

[jpgray]

55. Can it be policed, do you think?

Or is it better to just let these unyielding groups have it out and only clamp down on actual personal attacks?

[IndyJones]

56. I'd just let them go at it, personal attacks and all.

I mean, if they're going to get their panties in a wad over a message board, let them go at it. Most of us would click out of it and ignore the banter.

[Freedomfried]

57. Whack their pee-pee's!