s/o Forum Discussion/Discourse How-to

[MercyA]

Honestly, I do not see people questioning sincerity as much as pointing out facts that contridict what a poster says. Especially when what a poster claims is almost word for word out of a fear mongering narrative that adds fuel to certain political leaning fires and is easily debunked. I know that is my biggest pet peeve.

 

Well, I'm never opposed to the sharing of facts, and hopefully that does happen more often than people questioning each other's sincerity.

 

Admittedly, my own sincerity has been questioned on occasion, and that's probably why it came to mind. I was also thinking of posters who were undeservedly labeled trolls--posters on both sides of the political / religious spectrum.

 

If you are referring to the Medicaid thread, I only read the first couple posts, so I can't speak to that.

[Χά�ων]

I see the biggest problem being a lack of humility. When someone posts something vastly different from my experience and my preconceived ideas, do I ask myself, "Hmmm...I wonder if there is another side to this issue that I've never considered" or do I justify personal attacks because I know everything about everyone.

 

I know what are the facts. I know who is to blame. I know who is lazy and who is morally bankrupt.

 

How can there ever be positive discourse and community when people are so closed minded?

 

When I've been attacked on the boards, I make it a point to ignore it and not respond. Sometimes it is not worth giving them the satisfaction of a response.

Is it so closed minded if I can look up on official websites and in under 10 minutes debunk the extremely exaggerated claims that someone makes? Right now I can look up the max gross income for children to be on medicaid in any state. I can look up income requirements to see who would suffer the penalty for being uninsured. It is not hard to verify sources and do math.

 

Maybe their experience was so negative BECAUSE they are lacking all the information they need. Am I doing them a disservice by not explaining the facts to them? Facts are facts. If someone comes on to rant and state things as truth when it is easy to verify they are lying they should not expect to be patted on the head and told how bad X is and that they are right.

 

Feelings =/= facts

[Χά�ων]

Well, I'm never opposed to the sharing of facts, and hopefully that does happen more often than people questioning each other's sincerity.

 

Admittedly, my own sincerity has been questioned on occasion, and that's probably why it came to mind. I was also thinking of posters who were undeservedly labeled trolls--posters on both sides of the political / religious spectrum.

 

If you are referring to the Medicaid thread, I only read the first couple posts, so I can't speak to that.

Ahh. I cannot speak to your situation and I will make this example more vavue since you stated you did not read the full thread. :) I am not calling the OP of the medicaid thread a troll. I have a lot to say on the troll issue, but will leave it aside.

 

My biggest complaint is when I can offer up facts to counter what someone is saying and they are defended because they are being sincere. I will acknowledge that they are probably sincere in what they are feeling, but, feelings do not make facts. And sometimes, having all the facts and information helps one feel differently about a situation.

 

I have and will call out people who cling strongly to feelings and refuse to even acknowledge facts while continuing to hoot and holler about their feelings being real so the facts are not real because "feelings". I can have strong feelings about not liking what I have to do while still acknowledging facts. I can even have strong feelings about facts, but the feelings will never mean the facts are not actually facts.

[Χά�ων]

On the topic of 'ignore', it's a very useful feature. And more people should use it!

 

i use it sparingly, and only with those people who get under my skin before they even say something. It's less about not hearing what they have to say, and more about restricting my opportunity to get cranky and respond crankily.

 

It's imperfect, as anyone who has clicked on 'view anyway' will know...but it does help moderate one's own level of annoyance.

I guess I do not care about individual posters, as much as countering misinformation. I do it knowing who will or will not listen, but it is not for them. It is for other people to glean a full picture of a situation. Half truths and lies benefit no one.

[Crimson Wife]

Part of the problem is that there can be HUGE geographical variations in experience. So where poster A is living, Medicaid-as-primary may be significantly worse than private insurance whereas where poster B is living, Medicaid-as-primary might be the same or even better. It is therefore not helpful when poster B claims poster A is lying and should be "grateful" for Medicaid rather than angry.

[Χά�ων]

Part of the problem is that there can be HUGE geographical variations in experience. So where poster A is living, Medicaid-as-primary may be significantly worse than private insurance whereas where poster B is living, Medicaid-as-primary might be the same or even better. It is therefore not helpful when poster B claims poster A is lying and should be "grateful" for Medicaid rather than angry.

Don't forget poster A did not take time to familiarize herself with the program that she had then complaining when her kid was sick and her lack of knowledge came back to bite her and then she refused to acknowledge that maybe the drama of the day could have been avoided had she taken the time to educate herself.

 

All while blaming the ACA and holding on to false beliefs that are easy to debunk.

[Audrey]

I think the first rule of forum discussions starts with no bullshit.  Not even a little bit.  I have been around these boards since 2002, almost the beginning, and most of the time when a thread gets removed or locked it comes down to someone in the thread being less than factual.  Embellishments, inconsistencies, "alternative facts," and plain old pot-stirring fabrications WILL be called out on any forum with any intelligent, critically thinking members.  And, unlike some moderators, I happen to think that calling out dishonesty is not only to be expected, it should be a required part of any intelligent discourse. 

[Scarlett]

Part of the problem is that there can be HUGE geographical variations in experience. So where poster A is living, Medicaid-as-primary may be significantly worse than private insurance whereas where poster B is living, Medicaid-as-primary might be the same or even better. It is therefore not helpful when poster B claims poster A is lying and should be "grateful" for Medicaid rather than angry.

It is true that experiences differ in different parts of the country. However,she did say she was able to take her child to the ER for medical care. And yes I think I would be grateful for that.

[MercyA]

My biggest complaint is when I can offer up facts to counter what someone is saying and they are defended because they are being sincere. I will acknowledge that they are probably sincere in what they are feeling, but, feelings do not make facts. And sometimes, having all the facts and information helps one feel differently about a situation.

 

I agree. Someone can certainly be 100% sincere and 100% objectively wrong at the same time. I have no problem with that being called out.

 

Maybe I should have used a different term. I've been accused a few times of "putting on an act" or being passive-aggressive, when I was not, to the best of my knowledge. It's a bit frustrating to be accused of being less than truthful or insincere when you know you ARE being frank and honest. It's impossible to prove your innocence to some stranger on the internet, you know? That is what I had in mind.

Edited March 5, 2017 by MercyA

[Χά�ων]

I think the first rule of forum discussions starts with no bullshit. Not even a little bit. I have been around these boards since 2002, almost the beginning, and most of the time when a thread gets removed or locked it comes down to someone in the thread being less than factual. Embellishments, inconsistencies, "alternative facts," and plain old pot-stirring fabrications WILL be called out on any forum with any intelligent, critically thinking members. And, unlike some moderators, I happen to think that calling out dishonesty is not only to be expected, it should be a required part of any intelligent discourse.

I agree with you and I find it frustrating when threads are deleted or locked and those who are posting with factual informatition are accused of dog piling and not respecting the "feelings" of a poster. Facts > feelings. Always

 

I hate that threads are deleted. If a poster has a history of posting altfacts, lies, and general fear mongering, deleting the entire thread, along with the posts that counter the lies makes it difficult to establish a history and allows them to continue unchecked.

[Χά�ων]

I agree. Someone can certainly be 100% sincere and 100% objectively wrong at the same time. I have no problem with that being called out.

 

Maybe I should have used a different term. I've been accused a few times of "putting on an act" or being passive-aggressive, when I was not, to the best of my knowledge. It's a bit frustrating to be accused of being less than truthful or insincere when you know you ARE being frank and honest. It's impossible to prove your innocence to some stranger on the internet, you know? That is what I had in mind.

Makes sense, though I am talking about verifiable information. If someone keeps posting about an issue and sticking to claims that are easy to debunk, then it is not a matter of if they are innocent or a personal attack, it is a matter of what is a fack and what is a lie.

 

An example, if I state Canada is part of the USA and people rightly jumped to say it is not. It does not matter how I much I insist I am being honest and sincere, I would still be wrong.

 

Now, if I were to claim that I watched the sunset last night, there is no way to prove or disprove that on an internet forums. People claiming I am wrong or lying is absurd and cannot be sustained.

[OneStepAtATime]

This thread is, as I understand it, about how individual posters can post on a thread in such a way that the thread does not get derailed/locked/deleted even if the topic is somewhat controversial or triggering or brings up issues that others may feel differently about.  With regards to a poster (any poster) who continually references what might be considered bad data, here are my thoughts, FWIW:

 

1. If I feel that an OP is referencing inaccurate/factually incorrect information, I post informative facts to help the OP.  Not in a negative "you don't know what you are talking about" or "here we go again you are so blind" tone but simply neutrally presented facts trying to help the OP (or someone else on a thread that is posting incorrect info) with better data.  I link reliable sources to back up my data when available.  When I take this approach frequently the other person is willing to listen to what I have to say, and even if they end up not agreeing, at least I feel that they were given solid information, they just weren't willing to change their conclusion.

 

2.  If the poster responds with additional questions, hey, great I follow up.  If not, I have made my statement, the information is there, it is now up to the other person to listen or not, as they choose.

 

3.  If they continue to strongly post based on bad data, so be it.  I did my part to try and help them understand something and they followed a different path.  I find it rather useless to continue to pound information into the ground that is not being well-received and if my posts end up contributing to getting the thread locked/deleted then my posts containing better data are now gone and have helped no one.

 

4.  I am not the internet police, nor am I the internet vigilante Super Hero who must to take out posters who cling to bad data with my awe inspiring completely accurate and wholly supported by facts thread posts.  I don't see that as my job.  Obviously others may feel differently.

 

The theme of this thread is (again as far as I understand it) how to keep a dialogue going (especially on the chat forum where things can get more stressful) without it getting locked/deleted.  I think there have been many useful suggestions on how individual posters can do that.  Thank you, OP, for starting this thread.  I think it has some helpful information.

 

Best wishes.

Edited March 5, 2017 by OneStepAtATime

[MercyA]

Makes sense, though I am talking about verifiable information. If someone keeps posting about an issue and sticking to claims that are easy to debunk, then it is not a matter of if they are innocent or a personal attack, it is a matter of what is a fact and what is a lie.

 

An example, if I state Canada is part of the USA and people rightly jumped to say it is not. It does not matter how I much I insist I am being honest and sincere, I would still be wrong.

 

Now, if I were to claim that I watched the sunset last night, there is no way to prove or disprove that on an internet forums. People claiming I am wrong or lying is absurd and cannot be sustained.

 

Well said. I agree completely.

[Catwoman]

I hate that threads are deleted. If a poster has a history of posting altfacts, lies, and general fear mongering, deleting the entire thread, along with the posts that counter the lies makes it difficult to establish a history and allows them to continue unchecked.

:iagree:

[MomatHWTK]

Last-word-itis. If you've posted an opposing point of view, then leave it at that. If someone wants to counter, it is not necessary to continue insisting--more stridently each time-- that that person is wrong.

 

I can't always avoid last-word-itis, but I try. As I'm sure everyone who reads my passioned posts knows, on some issues, I just can't help myself.

 

I agree with previous posters that the ignore feature is a beautiful thing. There are some posters who cannot or choose not to distinguish between fact and opinion. Often, these same posters insist that their own opinions are indisputable facts. There is simply no value to me in trying to convince them otherwise and the illogic of the position frustrates me. So, I ignore.

 

(Of course, we all have our "facts" that we find so true that anyone disagreeing with them is incomprehensible. I have noticed that some posters' list of such incontrovertible facts is longer than others.)

 

Finally, I've noticed that people tend to assume everyone they are communicating with possesses the same level of reasoning or critical thinking skills. But we know that individuals each see things from their own perspective and are limited by their own abilities. You can try to enhance someone's thinking skills but you can't argue them into being able to perform beyond their personal limits. Some individuals are always going to see things from a more emotional perspective, others may not be able to understand multi-faceted concepts. For goodness sake, don't try to reason with me using mathematical models! And my EQ is not exactly the greatest, either.

 

It serves no purpose to continue to communicate with someone using your language and knowledge strengths when they don't share those same strengths. 

 

Perhaps, by examining why we can manage conflict with some posters and not others can help us all as teachers. We can use what we've learned to help our children have higher EQs and better conflict resolution skills.  :blush5:

 

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by MomatHWTK

[MomatHWTK]

Just want to add, I think the idea that there is a right to hunt down and identify posters based on a belief that their posts are invalid or untrue is ill-founded. If there is a factual misstatement, correct it with appropriate data and a link. Anything beyond that, including hoping to preserve a record of past posts, appears to be just the type of personal persecution the board rules seek to avoid. (And yes, I've been called out for assigning intent to posts based on the past behavior of the poster.)

 

I really dislike when individuals make generalizations about groups with which they disagree. I don't think this is the venue for those types of comments. They invite push-back by members of the accused group.  Opinions are regularly stated as if they are fact: "Oh, X group wouldn't know that because they don't study Y;" "Everyone knows X group is against Z, so they'll say Y ever time."  Yet, they continue. 

 

Let the post stand, counter it with facts rather than personal assessments of the poster and trust that readers can for their own opinions. Odds are, there is a person on the other side of the debate who is unhappy that your "truth" is being allowed to stand. 

 

 

[EmseB]

Something I think is helpful is quoting a person's actual words and then responding to their ideas, breaking the quoted post up into chunks if possible. Oftentimes there are so many ideas in a single post that it's hard to differentiate what's being responded to. When I do this, I find I'm better able to respond to ideas rather than make things personal. I've also found it helps me find places to agree with people that I may be arguing, ahem, discussing with. Then again, I will say that I've found this particular forum doesn't have the most user-friendly editor for doing this so I've gotten out of the habit here.

 

And while it is true that facts don't care about feelings, people should care about other's feelings. And it's also possible to have different experiences which may lead to quite indifferent interpretations of facts or feelings about said facts, even if it doesn't change the facts themselves.

[Guest]

One thing that is not helpful is marginalizing a poster. Declaring their experience to be that of an outlier is a tactic commonly used, especially when their experience shows that the point asserted is false, or that the declarer is pushing an agenda. Yes, its tough when reality intrudes...aka ymmv.

 

Very helpful is reading forum guidelines and abiding by them.

[Riverland]

I do enjoy most threads I read, but some are very cringe worthy in the way posters treat each other.

 

Just because you have posted a link does not mean that others are required to read it. It does not mean that those who don’t read your links are uneducated on the topic. It does not mean that you are smarter than they are. The links you try to share, your sources, will have confirmation bias. The OP may recognize that and not be interested in your bias. This is not school. There is no required reading. That is okay. Really. Move on.

 

If you know that you are unable to have an amicable level of discord with the OP, then stay off the thread.

 

Facts. Experiences. Opinions. Emotions. Values. Morals. They are ALL important. They are ALL part of the equation.

 

I am glad that threads get deleted. Yes, some valuable information gets lost, but I do think it helps limit the poor behavior and inappropriate bashing of members.

[TravelingChris]

Also, I have found that sometimes the info given by a website is incomplete to the point of being inaccurate.  In terms of the locked thread, I decided to read my state's booklet on Medicaid benefits.  Neither I nor any of my family members have Medicaid and my state did not accept the expanded Medicaid.  I found an error in that booklet and it is one that is costing our state along with causing more difficulties for the Medicaid patient.  The booklet talks about doctor visits, hospital stays, ER visits, etc, but never mentions urgent care clinics.  Having been to one I thought did accept Medicaid in the past locally, I checked its website.  It does accept Medicaid patients. So I didn't know which state the OP lived in, but wanted to tell her that she should try looking up urgent care locally online or by calling them and seeing if they would accept it.  So at least I have one mission to accomplish-  getting my state Medicaid bureau rewrite their brochure and address the fact of urgent care.  Issues such as ear infections should always be in urgent care, if not the family doctor.  

 

 

I know I was only trying to be helpful and I think several other posters were trying as well but sometimes even that may be too much, I think.

[Guest]

s/o threads sometimes work to 're-rail'. 

 

But really, if people just stopped being wrong on the internet, so many of these problems could be averted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

joking! 

:)

OK--YOU START!   

 

********KIDDING*********