Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yes, that has been the case, unfortunately, on occasion.

What I find depressing is a tendency to insult a poster with whom you may find yourself disagreeing, rather than taking issue with there arguments.

Um isn't that what the whole country is doing? Main reason I got so turned off to the editorial TV programs like Madow, O'reilly, Hannity, Anderson Cooper, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
Um isn't that what the whole country is doing? Main reason I got so turned off to the editorial TV programs like Madow, O'reilly, Hannity, Anderson Cooper, etc.

It is entirely possible to have a political debate without recourse to insult. This happens where one attacks (or discusses, or contends with, or disagrees with) the argument, policy, platform of those who hold differing views or political positions, rather than attacking them personally.

And the argument (or fact) that "the whole country is doing it" is not a justification, or reason to copy their conduct or imitate them.

They are TV pundits.

Thanks for the clarification.
 
[MOD NOTE]
Thread closed for review
Many posts were removed as a surprise to no one. The posts that contained rules violations and posts that replied were removed.

Questioning or asking for clarification is obviously permitted and encouraged, attacking the staff and members, is over the line.

If any member feels that a moderator is not acting in good faith or is pushing an agenda or not acting in good faith, please reach out to the administrators via the contact link - https://forums.macrumors.com/misc/contact/ with the details of the problem.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
Every so often this question gets asked. And the same arguments get trotted out time and time again.

Obviously, there's only one thing for it. Run a pilot for six months to a year. Lock that forum and police political and religious content across the entire site, mainly relying on the community to self-report the running feuds and battles.

Who cares if your brand and community-based content and engagement strategy becomes degraded to the point of driving audiences away? Who cares if your all-volunteer team spend their waking hours picking through, editing and cleaning up 20-page front page threads because someone mentioned climate change or the working conditions of third-party Chinese suppliers? Who cares if your valued and possibly-unique specialist forums get derailed by a side-remark about guns?

Happy to be proven wrong, but just thinking about it makes me laugh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nnoble
Obviously, there's only one thing for it. Run a pilot for six months to a year. Lock that forum and police political and religious content across the entire site, mainly relying on the community to self-report the running feuds and battles.

Yes. If, as argued, politics is integral to the core of Macrumors, then why create a segregated playpen for contributors to behave badly. Bring the on-topic comments into the mainstream and allow the civilising effect of peer pressure to lighten the burden of moderators.
 
Yes. If, as argued, politics is integral to the core of Macrumors, then why create a segregated playpen for contributors to behave badly. Bring the on-topic comments into the mainstream and allow the civilising effect of peer pressure to lighten the burden of moderators.
People like discussing politics. As much as people get offended they still want to discuss it. Many topics just can't be discussed in person because people will get physically violent. The forums give people a relatively safe place to discuss notwithstanding some psycho tracking down your IP or something like that. As to moderation it's a pain I'm sure. In the end only the site owners can determine if the extra traffic to the site is worth the extra labor involved in controlling it. Obviously they think it is or they would just simply remove the topic.
 
I'm curious why forum owners included a politics section at MacRumors. My experience is that politics tends to divide. There are endless places to participate in political discussion, why must it be also present on a computer forum?
I agree. PRSI makes MacRumors much less hospitable for those of us that want a refuge from the onslaught of the daily real-world news. I have places I go to learn about current events, and I specifically don't have Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or other social media accounts. MacRumors used to be where I would come to escape the madness-- but now the madness just follows me here.

Maybe it's some other macro trend, but it also seems the non-PRSI forums have become less civil as PRSI gains prominence. It's like someone opened a skinhead bar and a hippie retreat on either side of the Apple store and they all share one lobby.
You can also hide replies in ignored forums from showing up in the "Latest Replies" sidebar.
Can this be made part of the standard forum code? I'm not very keen on adding custom code to my browser, but every time I go into the Forums page, I find myself clenching my jaw...

We've needed this for a long time.
 
Last edited:
People like discussing politics. As much as people get offended they still want to discuss it. Many topics just can't be discussed in person because people will get physically violent. The forums give people a relatively safe place to discuss notwithstanding some psycho tracking down your IP or something like that.
I disagree. I think conversations become more abusive and polarizing when they’re anonymous and remote. The vast majority of people find it easier to empathize, consider other points of view and moderate their own when discussing a disagreement face to face. I don’t see much of that in PRSI, what I see more of is people reaffirming their existing beliefs by shouting them from the rooftop and a “like” system that gives emotional reward for team play.

What you’re describing is more of a Political Fight Club where people give in to their extremes as a form of stress relief. That’s fine, but the racket is drowning out conversation in the Computer Club next door, and every now and then one of their goons gets so amped up by the fight that they come through and start flipping our tables over.
the civilising effect of peer pressure
I wish everyone shared your peers...
 
I agree. PRSI makes MacRumors much less hospitable for those of us that want a refuge from the onslaught of the daily real-world news. I have places I go to learn about current events, and I specifically don't have Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or other social media accounts. MacRumors used to be where I would come to escape the madness-- but now the madness just follows me here.

I’m curious, because I’ve seen this posted before. If you go to other places for current events & such, and it doesn’t bother you. Don’t you have to go to PRSI in itself, to see the threads to bother you? I mean I know the titles one or two at a time show up in the feed on the side, but they can’t all be that offensive.

I always imagined that’s why they literally put the forum itself, at the bottom of listings, so you to intentionally scroll past everything to intentionally click on it.

Not trying to be difficult, but I’ve always been curious about the hate the PRSI forum generates from non frequenters.

As far as how contentious the non political threads can be, I would have to say they can be as brutal if not worse. I actually developed my thick skin for PRSI in those threads, because you have to ‘earn’ your way into PRSI. I will go as far as to say when threads about Apple, are dumped into PRSI, the behavior from non PRSI regulars is 10X more disturbing.

Then again, I am biased when it comes to PRSI, and those that frequent it. Whether I ever agree with them or not. ;)
 
I’m curious, because I’ve seen this posted before. If you go to other places for current events & such, and it doesn’t bother you.
I'm someone with strong and carefully considered (not to be confused with correct) political and social views. If you knew me IRL, you'd know I have no problem discussing and debating them and often enjoy doing so. What I don't like is multilateral arguments, flame baiting, and sparring for sport.

I track current events through news sources that report more than opine, and I discuss current events when I can look into someone's eyes.

If you take something seriously and have strong opinions about it, sometimes you want a place where you can leave it aside and remember there are other things in life.
Don’t you have to go to PRSI in itself, to see the threads to bother you?
No. I’ve been lobbying for this change for a while now, but if you spend time on the Forum page, the Latest Replies lists the PRSI threads— most of which are written to try and engage debate. Often, PRSI accounts for the majority of the replies there.

Hiding all reference to PRSI if you’ve chosen to ignore it would be a reasonable half measure between what I’d like and the desire of MR to keep pushing traffic through the site. The reason it stops short of what I'd like is because I think the presence of PRSI affects the tone of the overall site. There are people that I see almost exclusively in PRSI and never in the main forum threads which means they're not really here to talk about what the site was created to discuss and what I want to talk about.
Not trying to be difficult, but I’ve always been curious about the hate the PRSI forum generates from non frequenters.
It's not hate, it's just two communities that don't really fit together. A metal band sets up a practice space in an unused building at a Buddhist meditation center: I don't hate either group, but I can see why there's no synergy in having them colocated.
As far as how contentious the non political threads can be, I would have to say they can be as brutal if not worse. I actually developed my thick skin for PRSI in those threads, because you have to ‘earn’ your way into PRSI. I will go as far as to say when threads about Apple, are dumped into PRSI, the behavior from non PRSI regulars is 10X more disturbing.
I think this is just more reason why these two fora don't belong together, or should at least be better compartmentalized.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StralyanPithecus
I'm someone with strong and carefully considered (not to be confused with correct) political and social views. If you knew me IRL, you'd know I have no problem discussing and debating them and often enjoy doing so. What I don't like is multilateral arguments, flame baiting, and sparring for sport.

I track current events through news sources that report more than opine, and I discuss current events when I can look into someone's eyes.

If you take something seriously and have strong opinions about it, sometimes you want a place where you can leave it aside and remember there are other things in life.

No. I’ve been lobbying for this change for a while now, but if you spend time on the Forum page, the Latest Replies lists the PRSI threads— most of which are written to try and engage debate. Often, PRSI accounts for the majority of the replies there.

Hiding all reference to PRSI if you’ve chosen to ignore it would be a reasonable half measure between what I’d like and the desire of MR to keep pushing traffic through the site. The reason it stops short of what I'd like is because I think the presence of PRSI affects the tone of the overall site. There are people that I see almost exclusively in PRSI and never in the main forum threads which means they're not really here to talk about what the site was created to discuss and what I want to talk about.

It's not hate, it's just two communities that don't really fit together. A metal band sets up a practice space in an unused building at a Buddhist meditation center: I don't hate either group, but I can see why there's no synergy in having them colocated.

I think this is just more reason why these two fora don't belong together, or should at least be better compartmentalized.
I got all that, but that was still sidestepping my main point/question.

If you actively make an effort to seek out sites & places with content you prefer. PRSI is a site or place you have to seek out & enter. If you don’t care for it’s content, you can just NOT enter it. Why is it’s presence an issue, if you can make the decision NOT to enter it? If people do enjoy entering the area intentionally, how does removing it make the rest of MacRumors more acceptable to you?

As long as there is an entrance that one has to intentionally choose to pass thru of their own choice, why can’t PRSI comfortably exist along all the other areas of Macrumors?
 
I got all that, but that was still sidestepping my main point/question.

If you actively make an effort to seek out sites & places with content you prefer. PRSI is a site or place you have to seek out & enter. If you don’t care for it’s content, you can just NOT enter it. Why is it’s presence an issue, if you can make the decision NOT to enter it? If people do enjoy entering the area intentionally, how does removing it make the rest of MacRumors more acceptable to you?

As long as there is an entrance that one has to intentionally choose to pass thru of their own choice, why can’t PRSI comfortably exist along all the other areas of Macrumors?
I don't think I sidestepped your questions at all, but perhaps I gave more detail that you were willing to read through. I'll try to summarize here:

Why is it’s presence an issue, if you can make the decision NOT to enter it?
on the Forum page, the Latest Replies lists the PRSI threads


how does removing it make the rest of MacRumors more acceptable to you?
The reason it stops short of what I'd like is because I think the presence of PRSI affects the tone of the overall site.
sometimes you want a place where you can leave it aside and remember there are other things in life.


why can’t PRSI comfortably exist along all the other areas of Macrumors?
it's just two communities that don't really fit together.

Hopefully this at least convinces you I'm not intentionally avoiding your questions. If my opinion isn't clear between this and my several more detailed posts above, I'm happy to discuss it further. This is the most basic of opinions, however, not something that can be proven by any hard data, so if what we have is a simple difference of opinion I don't imagine that the socratic method is going to get me over your point of view.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I sidestepped your questions at all, but perhaps I gave more detail that you were willing to read through. I'll try to summarize here:










Hopefully this at least convinces you I'm not intentionally avoiding your questions. If my opinion isn't clear between this and my several more detailed posts above, I'm happy to discuss it further. This is the most basic of opinions, however, not something that can be proven by any hard data, so if what we have is a simple difference of opinion I don't imagine that the socratic method is going to get me over your point of view.
No the repetition isn’t of much help, But I realize it must be a failure on my part to grasp where you and others that don’t care for the PRSI forum are coming from. So perhaps it’s myself that should reiterate.

Analog Kid said:
on the Forum page, the Latest Replies lists the PRSI threads

How exactly do 5 words in a small section on the side of the main Forum page, affect your enjoyment of the rest of the page? I confess I personally don’t even pay attention to that area, unless I am looking for a way to skip to a particular section without scrolling thru the page. I can’t see how five words with a person’s name underneath so dramatically alter the content of the main page. Once again though, that’s me & my failure to grasp how that is so important.

Analog Kid said:
The reason it stops short of what I’d like is because I think the presence of PRSI affects the tone of the overall site.

Analog Kid said:
I think this is just more reason why these two fora don't belong together, or should at least be better compartmentalized.

One of the things that a lot of people who don’t frequent PRSI realize about PRSI is that it has a set of rules that posters are expected to follow, so it doesn’t turn into the swampland that many want to imagine it is. One of those things is that we are expected to provide proof or sourcing. We aren’t allowed to run with “I think”, because it allows for using opinion over fact. While you may feel or think the two forums or there is some kind of one sided bleeding off of forums onto one another. Only there isn’t any kind of definitive proof. The regular forums were already contentious with Apple fan boys, PC elitists, bougie aspirations, & wannabe genius’. While when Apple threads that have been placed in PRSI have posters that haven’t been seen in PRSI, post things that no active member of PRSI knows they would be allowed to post. Removing PRSI, isn’t suddenly going to make the rest of Macrumors some harmonious pasture of rainbows, unicorns, and unity.

My question that I didn’t feel was answered enough for me to understand, was why exactly/specifically can’t the two co exist? As long as one has to work & intentionally scroll to the near very bottom of the main forum page, specifically enter the forum, then click on specific threads that one chooses to specifically enter, then intentionally commit to reading thru specific posts, I am going to continue to not understand why PRSI seems to upset others. I know on the flip side it drives me nuts that I have to scroll to the bottom of the forum’s main page to get into PRSI, which is why I’ve ever paid attention to the ‘latest replies’ area, in hopes of quickly skipping to PRSI. But, it’s a ‘price’ I pay to enter the PRSI section.

One of the strengths of PRSI I’ve always felt, is the variety of voices in it, and what one can learn accidentally from them. There are plenty of posters in PRSI that test my patience daily, but that doesn’t mean I completely dismiss them. One needs to be able to at least try to hear & see different voices, whether they are badly misinformed or genuine in their conviction, it’s good to know they are out there and what’s being said. I know I personally ( as you’ve probably figured out already ) have triggered my share of fellow posters, but it’s usually done not out of malice, but in attempting to express a genuine viewpoint that they seemingly don’t want to hear. No one ever thinks they go to sites or places for information that isn’t correct or factual, especially if it shares information they care for. That’s been shown not to always be the truth, and we often turn to sources that will tell us what we want to hear. PRSI’s strength is that we will hear what we want to hear, and what we don’t want to hear. One hones their view by backing up one’s view in discussion with those who disagree. It’s that challenge that makes PRSI the addictive attraction for some of us.

I believe it’s also that challenge that seems to upset just as many about PRSI.
 
I understand that you enjoy PRSI, and that you feel you'd lose something if it were shut down. I don't dispute that and I'm not passing moral judgement on you for enjoying it. I'm not debating the value of free and open discussion of social issues. I'm also not trying to present what is or isn't valuable to you, I'm presenting what I find valuable and what I find deleterious to my experience of the MacRumors site.
How exactly do 5 words in a small section on the side of the main Forum page, affect your enjoyment of the rest of the page?
I've tried to explain it:
sometimes you want a place where you can leave [politics] aside
I'm not sure there's a more exact answer than I'm giving you, and I'm even less sure it's relevant.

What is relevant is that having to sift through "Trump tweets", "Crooked Hillary", and "Is racism ok?" threads to get to what I want to see negatively impacts my enjoyment of this site. I come here less often because of it, and I'm less happy while I'm here. Being less happy almost certainly impacts the interactions I have in the conversations I do participate in. It affects my tone, and how I perceive other peoples'.

You and I don't have to understand why it negatively impacts my experience anymore than we need to understand why I don't like shellfish. I'm not looking for a psychoanalysis, I'm giving feedback to the community, and site owners, about how its members experience the site.

Your asking the same question over and over, and the fact that you're not accepting my answer suggests that you aren't really asking a question, but rather you are suggesting my answer should be different.
One of the things that a lot of people who don’t frequent PRSI realize about PRSI is that it has a set of rules that posters are expected to follow, so it doesn’t turn into the swampland that many want to imagine it is. One of those things is that we are expected to provide proof or sourcing. We aren’t allowed to run with “I think”, because it allows for using opinion over fact. While you may feel or think the two forums or there is some kind of one sided bleeding off of forums onto one another. Only there isn’t any kind of definitive proof. The regular forums were already contentious with Apple fan boys, PC elitists, bougie aspirations, & wannabe genius’. While when Apple threads that have been placed in PRSI have posters that haven’t been seen in PRSI, post things that no active member of PRSI knows they would be allowed to post. Removing PRSI, isn’t suddenly going to make the rest of Macrumors some harmonious pasture of rainbows, unicorns, and unity.
The entire site operates under the "cite your references" rule. You misinterpret its purpose though, and overrate its effectiveness. It's purpose isn't to prevent using opinion over fact, it's to prevent using opinion as fact, and having a source doesn't make something true.

By saying "I think" I'm being clear that I don't have definitive proof (just as you don't have definitive proof to the contrary).

To satisfy the citation requirement that two communities are something else than the sum of their parts, or that exposure to one set of ideas gives subliminal context to another, I present links herein.
My question that I didn’t feel was answered enough for me to understand, was why exactly/specifically can’t the two co exist?
They can coexist, obviously, because they do.

That's not where this started from though. The question that this all stems from, that I was commenting on and that you quoted my response to is "why is it here?" This isn't TrumpRumors.com, it's MacRumors.com. It seems a strange place to host such a vibrant political and social discussion.

My view is that it has become vibrant enough to be a distraction to the main purpose of the site, and I wish it wasn't.

So the phrasing I'd suggest is more relevant to this thread is "why must they coexist?". I understand intuitively why MacRumors.com must have forums dedicated to discussion of Macs. Why must it have forums dedicated to whether God exists?

As long as one has to work & intentionally scroll to the near very bottom of the main forum page, specifically enter the forum, then click on specific threads that one chooses to specifically enter, then intentionally commit to reading thru specific posts, I am going to continue to not understand why PRSI seems to upset others.
As long as you selectively reframe others' statements into your own framework, they will be hard to understand.
I know on the flip side it drives me nuts that I have to scroll to the bottom of the forum’s main page to get into PRSI
If having to scroll through all the Apple stuff on MacRumors to get to PRSI is tiresome, it sounds like we might agree that MacRumors isn't the right place for it.
 
Last edited:
I understand that you enjoy PRSI, and that you feel you'd lose something if it were shut down. I don't dispute that and I'm not passing moral judgement on you for enjoying it. I'm not debating the value of free and open debate of social issues. I'm also not trying to present what is or isn't valuable to you, I'm presenting what I find valuable and what I find deleterious to my experience of the MacRumors site.

I've tried to explain it:

I'm not sure there's a more exact answer than I'm giving you, and I'm even less sure it's relevant.

What is relevant is that having to sift through "Trump tweets", "Crooked Hillary", and "Is racism ok?" threads to get to what I want to see negatively impacts my enjoyment of this site. I come here less often because of it, and I'm less happy while I'm here. Being less happy almost certainly impacts the interactions I have in the conversations I do participate in. It affects my tone, and how I perceive other peoples'.

You and I don't have to understand why it negatively impacts my experience anymore than we need to understand why I don't like shellfish. I'm not looking for a psychoanalysis, I'm giving feedback to the community, and site owners, about how its members experience the site.

Your asking the same question over and over, and the fact that you're not accepting my answer suggests that you aren't really asking a question, but rather you are suggesting my answer should be different.

The entire site operates under the "cite your references" rule. You misinterpret its purpose though, and overrate its effectiveness. It's purpose isn't to prevent using opinion over fact, it's to prevent using opinion as fact, and having a source doesn't make something true.

By saying "I think" I'm being clear that I don't have definitive evidence (just as you don't have definitive evidence to the contrary).

To satisfy the citation requirement that two communities are something else than the sum of their parts, or that exposure to one set of ideas gives subliminal context to another, I present links herein.

They can coexist, obviously, because they do.

That's not where this started from though. The question that this all stems from, that I was commenting on and that you quoted my response to is "why is it here?" This isn't TrumpRumors.com, it's MacRumors.com. It seems a strange place to host such a vibrant political and social discussion.

My view is that it has become vibrant enough to be a distraction to the main purpose of the site, and I wish it wasn't.

So the phrasing I'd suggest is more relevant to this thread is "why must they coexist?". I understand intuitively why MacRumors.com must have forums dedicated to discussion of Macs. Why must it have forums dedicated to whether God exists?


As long as you selectively reframe others' statements into your own framework, they will be hard to understand.

If having to scroll through all the Apple stuff on MacRumors to get to PRSI is tiresome, it sounds like we might agree that MacRumors isn't the right place for it.
Going from the bottom to the top.

No, not at all. I understand the logic of why the PRSI section is placed there, it’s because others share the same sentiments as yourself, and have been very vocal about it. For a Mac user, with a Political forum that is as modded as PRSI is, I find it a very enjoyable place for it. When I get tired of PRSI, I can remain in the same site, peruse Apple related stuff, as well as discuss other things like entertainment, life issues, and more with people that I may or may not have a common interest with. That’s what makes Macrumors perfect for me, it covers a a wide swath of my interests and more. So, no I wouldn’t agree.

I didn’t selectively reframe anything. Even you support my assertions. If I have ‘to scroll through all the Apple stuff on Macrumors to get to PRSI’, than I must be correct in my statement that it does take effort to get to PRSI. Evidently though for some, all that effort isn’t enough to keep them from being upset by PRSI’s existence.

Now your reframing or rephrasing I can follow. “Why must they co exist?” Because they can?

Evidently the owners of the site feel the forum can exist along with the other varieties of forums that people have no issue with. But seeing as you spotlight ‘Trumprumors’.com, I would be led to guess that’s what actually triggers.

Ultimately my answer would be, that the owners have decided that PRSI can co exist.

Also, I do apologize, but I am still not getting why 5 words in a small side bar, can ‘negatively affect’ your enjoyment of the site. Perhaps my sensitivity isn’t strong enough, or PRSI has hardened me. I am NOT suggesting what answer I want from you. It’s a true sincere inability to understand why those 5 words are so upsetting, why a forum one has to intentionally go thru a hoops to enter can trigger some, or why a single forum that the owners decided to add to their site that some enjoy has to be so contentious for others.
 
Going from the bottom to the top.

No, not at all. I understand the logic of why the PRSI section is placed there, it’s because others share the same sentiments as yourself, and have been very vocal about it. For a Mac user, with a Political forum that is as modded as PRSI is, I find it a very enjoyable place for it. When I get tired of PRSI, I can remain in the same site, peruse Apple related stuff, as well as discuss other things like entertainment, life issues, and more with people that I may or may not have a common interest with. That’s what makes Macrumors perfect for me, it covers a a wide swath of my interests and more. So, no I wouldn’t agree.

I didn’t selectively reframe anything. Even you support my assertions. If I have ‘to scroll through all the Apple stuff on Macrumors to get to PRSI’, than I must be correct in my statement that it does take effort to get to PRSI. Evidently though for some, all that effort isn’t enough to keep them from being upset by PRSI’s existence.

Now your reframing or rephrasing I can follow. “Why must they co exist?” Because they can?

Evidently the owners of the site feel the forum can exist along with the other varieties of forums that people have no issue with. But seeing as you spotlight ‘Trumprumors’.com, I would be led to guess that’s what actually triggers.

Ultimately my answer would be, that the owners have decided that PRSI can co exist.

Also, I do apologize, but I am still not getting why 5 words in a small side bar, can ‘negatively affect’ your enjoyment of the site. Perhaps my sensitivity isn’t strong enough, or PRSI has hardened me. I am NOT suggesting what answer I want from you. It’s a true sincere inability to understand why those 5 words are so upsetting, why a forum one has to intentionally go thru a hoops to enter can trigger some, or why a single forum that the owners decided to add to their site that some enjoy has to be so contentious for others.
This whole conversation has just reinforced my belief that PRSI affects the tone of the entire site... I'm willing to make an effort to clarify my positions, but Sisyphus, I ain't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ixxx69
I disagree. I think conversations become more abusive and polarizing when they’re anonymous and remote. The vast majority of people find it easier to empathize, consider other points of view and moderate their own when discussing a disagreement face to face. I don’t see much of that in PRSI, what I see more of is people reaffirming their existing beliefs by shouting them from the rooftop and a “like” system that gives emotional reward for team play.

What you’re describing is more of a Political Fight Club where people give in to their extremes as a form of stress relief. That’s fine, but the racket is drowning out conversation in the Computer Club next door, and every now and then one of their goons gets so amped up by the fight that they come through and start flipping our tables over.

I wish everyone shared your peers...

"I think conversations become more abusive and polarizing when they’re anonymous and remote." Abusive to feelings maybe but no one has suffered a broken jaw from an online reply. People are more likely to say what they think online because they're not scared to be physically assaulted. Can this cause a discussion to become more verbally abusive? Sure it can because they're not scared to reply. If you come to me in person and say I love ____ religion, political viewpoint, etc, I'm likely to just say oh that's cool and not even discuss it. If I know you a little bit I might say "Well have you thought about ____" but once you say something like "F that's just stupid" I'll probably just change the subject. If you're a good friend or family I probably know what your viewpoint is on ____ topic so in order not to damage the relationship I just wouldn't discuss or debate the topic.

A political discussion or debate can just turn into a verbal argument where no one gets their point across. This can happen regardless if it's online or in person. As to it "drowning out conversation in the Computer Club next door" that shouldn't happen in the forums because mods can just ban you if you bring politics in a non political thread.
 
"I think conversations become more abusive and polarizing when they’re anonymous and remote." Abusive to feelings maybe but no one has suffered a broken jaw from an online reply. People are more likely to say what they think online because they're not scared to be physically assaulted. Can this cause a discussion to become more verbally abusive? Sure it can because they're not scared to reply. If you come to me in person and say I love ____ religion, political viewpoint, etc, I'm likely to just say oh that's cool and not even discuss it. If I know you a little bit I might say "Well have you thought about ____" but once you say something like "F that's just stupid" I'll probably just change the subject. If you're a good friend or family I probably know what your viewpoint is on ____ topic so in order not to damage the relationship I just wouldn't discuss or debate the topic.

A political discussion or debate can just turn into a verbal argument where no one gets their point across. This can happen regardless if it's online or in person. As to it "drowning out conversation in the Computer Club next door" that shouldn't happen in the forums because mods can just ban you if you bring politics in a non political thread.
I guess it comes down the goal of the conversation. If the goal is to teach and learn, then the instinct to hold relationships together is the path to do that-- it encourages you to empathize enough to understand their point of view (learn) and provide ideas that might gently shift their point of view (teach).

The relationship can be long lasting (such as family), but also be just for a brief conversation among people who connect-- body language tells you a lot about people's intentions and when you're getting through and not. For example, I'm not entirely sure why the conversation I just had above went the way it did. Did they assume I'm more angry than I am? Did they misinterpret my speech patterns? Did I misinterpret theirs? Were they not catching everything I said? Could I have seen from the first interactions the questions I was being asked were more about trying to change my mind than learning from me? Were the unnecessary apologies and desire to understand more sincere than I eventually interpreted them to be? Those kinds of things are easier to clear up when you can see people's demeanor and hear their tone of voice.

I'd suggest that if a conversation gets to the point that someone wants to break the other persons jaw, whether they're able to or not, then there's not a lot of communication happening anyway. If the goal is to reaffirm your own beliefs, or to rally support from a community, or to provoke, then yes, it's safer to do that behind a computer screen, but in those cases I'd say the other person isn't really serving a purpose in those interactions, except maybe as a foil.

That's not to say anonymity isn't of value, particularly when a person feels isolated and is seeking a community that they can't find locally in the physical world. Those cases are more about finding people with commonality though, and avoiding the thugs rather than confronting the thugs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: russell_314
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.