Tolerance

[BandB]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

On the bright side of opposing opinions my Dad took me aside when I was a young boy and upset that I couldn't get agreement and told me.." Listen Robert, no one learns anything from someone that agrees with us"

I seriously doubt however that your father encouraged you to retaliate against those with different opinions with name calling and attacks. We're not talking here about respectful and polite disagreement. We're talking about disagreements characterized by personal attacks and ugliness.

[robert sailor]

Surely your not suggesting that I lower myself to name calling and attacks when someone disagrees with me............are you?

[s/v Beth]

Wow, this has been a thread. Perfect for insomnia. Everyone has an opinion, and tolerance is not disagreeing, it is disagreeing with respect and dignity toward the other person.
Of course we should stick up for what is right. But whether the earth is cooling or warming does not classify as right in my book. Gee guys, go sailing and not worry about my CQR.

[John Casey]

Now we have to tolerate your definition of tolerance.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by Travelnik

Oh, a cat person . . .

Well, my 2 dogs outnumber your cat, and since they don't like cats, the cat must go.
You need to conform to dogism if you are to be accepted.

This tolerance bit can only go so far!

You are obviously not familiar with the axiom …

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get use to the idea."

[hpeer]

Research, and casual observation, show that folks are a lot less restrained when making anonymous comments as on a forum. The good news is we hear what people REALLY think, the bad news is we hear what people REALLY think.

There is very little consequence to behaving badly here, we can afford tip be intolerant and inconsiderate. Because we can, we do.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Research, and casual observation, show that folks are a lot less restrained when making anonymous comments as on a forum. The good news is we hear what people REALLY think, the bad news is we hear what people REALLY think.

There is very little consequence to behaving badly here, we can afford tip be intolerant and inconsiderate. Because we can, we do.

Exactly . It's been well studied by social scientist and even behavioural economists. The reason people behave poorly in anonymous situations is b/c the the social costs of bad behaviour are low. It's why masks are so powerful. It's also why most drivers in small towns don't lean on their horn and start giving the finger to someone when they get off in traffic.

Now, whether these lowered social restrains produces more honest and open discussion is an interesting point. I've not seen any research on that subject. I'll have to go look.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Actually I concur with that, CO2 is tied to average temps. But CO2 concentration follows temperature rise not actually the other way around as some climate scientists believe.

New research in Antarctica shows CO2 follows temperature “by a few hundred years at most” | Watts Up With That?

That the earth is right near the peak maximum temperature of the 100k year ice age cycle I believe has some sway on it. I also believe that if man stopped all CO2 production (which will never happen) that it would make minimal difference in global warming. Oddly supported by many really smart folks with lots of equations backing it up too. Though not the scientists that are paid by the UN

Total man made greenhouse gas production accounts for only 0.28% of the annual greenhouse gases each year. Man made CO2 accounts for 2.8% of global Co2 output. But it is not the major source of greenhouse gas. So at most any impact in CO2 reduction, would be extremely minimal.

Of course mine and some really smart folks understanding that C02 increase follows temperature rise may be flawed, and fly's in the face of what is generally preached to the masses. I would not be surprised if there was geo-political influences involved with the whole greenhouse gas thingy. Oh look I just interjected politics into the discussion. Gee maybe anchors cause global warming.

Its the natural greenhouse gas production that makes the earth habitable. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be an ice ball. Burrr...

I'm actually happy there are disagreements. What a boring world this would be if everyone agreed with everybody else.. Luckily, that's never been one of my strong points, agreeing with others or being average.

BTW Despite my radical climate viewpoints, or maybe because of it, I have been a hippy chic and been conserving resources all my life. I commuted via bicycle long before it became fashionable. Had solar hot water back in the 80's, etc.. Now a days I live in 150 SF sailboat and my power is 100% via solar. So however it goes, I've reduced my carbon footprint about as far as I can.

I think if you check, this is the first time that CO2 is raising BEFORE temperatures.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[BandB]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Surely your not suggesting that I lower myself to name calling and attacks when someone disagrees with me............are you?

Not suggesting you do. Just suggesting that what your dad taught you, which was good, was not applicable to the discussion of those who do that.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by BandB

I have seen cases where a person's opinion was discredited and they were called names such as arm chair sailor, sitting behind their desk, or wanna be cruisers when in fact the accusations were far from true but a person found it easier to make such personal attacks than to discuss the subject being talked about.

I was a businessman, my wife was a public school teacher. We make no apologies for either as we're very proud of things we've done in our lives. Neither of those however makes us more or less capable of being a cruiser. Cruisers come from all walks of life. They learn many different ways. They cruise on many different kinds of boats.

I'm glad you started this thread, and agree with you, especially this post.

This type of intolerant behavior is common on many forums, and as so many people have pointed out, the anonymity of not being face to face makes a lot of meek little people bold. Being separated by distance is what makes us anonymous, I disagree with Mike Reilly about using real names. While to him his name means something (honor, integrity, other things perhaps) other posters don't associate any of that to his name until they've read his posts and see that indeed, he does know what he's talking about, he does keep his word, etc. However, he could have joined up as Donald Duck and (at least till the Disney attorneys climb up his exhaust pipe) posted exactly the same info, and I would associate the same honor, integrity, etc to the poster named Donald Duck. Another way to say it is: people are either here to learn, give advice or share a common lifestyle and the name they choose has no bearing on whether or not they post valuable info, or if they're rude, etc. Using an alias may give people the impression that they are anonymous and can get away with rude, intolerant behavior but in reality they're just being rude and intolerant because they want to and think they're getting away with it. After a while, they notice people (like myself) just ignore them and ask for advice from others who give good advice and a lot less static.

An extreme case was a guy on a different forum who was supposedly selling some expensive parts. He got the money, but never shipped the parts from another state. The buyer appealed to the mods ,who provided his IP address. From there, the forum members dug up his home address, his ISP, his real name, wife and kids' names, phone number, cell carrier, list of all assets he owned. The buyer really wanted the parts, so a few members who lived near the fraudster showed up at his door demanding the parts, and he about crapped his pants! He provided the parts ASAP. I did something similar with a guy from IL who owed me $1100. 10 minutes on the net, and I had all of the above information plus his company name, work address, job title, siblings' names and parents' names. All I had to start with was a first name, he was from IL and a cell phone #.

So the internet doesn't really give you anonymity, it actually disseminates a great deal of personal info about most people, especially if they have a lot of info on Facebook. It makes it much easier to track people, even stalk them, unfortunately.

Back to how that relates to forum behavior - it's like alcohol. People use it as an excuse for their behavior. 3 shots of tequila and suddenly he's telling you what a total jerkwad his boss is, and she's telling all of the women he's a 30 second man. They say things they were itching to say, but polite society doesn't condone that sort of trash talk - unless you're drunk or on the net. I know a guy who's mantra is, "People suck. All of them, always." I gotta laugh, because I've experienced a LOT of "no good deed goes unpunished."

But I'm not quite that cynical or jaded. "Mean people suck" is more how I look at it. So there will always be a percentage of the membership who will always (or usually) reply with respect (as long as it's still warranted) and a larger percentage of the population who will constantly bend the rules, push the limits of disrespect that the mods will allow. I'm on a wide variety of forums, and one of them doesn't even tolerate spelling errors, the members are free to mock a newbie who is less than literate right off the forum, never to return. Another forum will allow any level of abuse or foul language, even cyber bullying, as long as it's not directed at the staff. Any discussion of the staff in less than stellar terms will get you a "bacation" as they call it. I think I have the most "bacations" because while a couple of the mods wail and gnash their teeth over the savagery of the members, I have the audacity to suggest that they actually "moderate" the site, which then, surprisingly enough, gets me another bacation. LOL

To me, language isn't the issue, sometimes polite words just can't accurately cover it. It's more about being intolerant of opposing views, even if couching it in concern for a recently rescued family or claiming that the person is a journalist, so therefor MUST be trolling for a juicy, ugly little quote.

The bottom line is, some people are always going to be testing the limits of what is acceptable behavior on any forum they are on. It's up to the mods to enforce the rules all of the time, equally for all. Few websites are more tolerant than this site, many of them have members who are far less tolerant.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

One comment about using real name on forums. Myself I don't use my real name. That makes it far to easy to find out who I am and more importantly where I live. Last thing I need is a stalker.

But I use the same screen name on all forums I'm on. Plus quite a few here have found me on social sites and know exactly who I is. Which is pretty amaizing as I'm not at all easy to find.

So from a personal safety standpoint, I'm hiding behind an alias.

Unfortunately, due to databases on the net, if someone really wanted to, they could find out virtually everything about you and any relatives in a matter of 10 minutes or so. Right now, data mining companies are selling and reselling every little bit of information they've gathered about you, including highly personal medical info, products you've searched for and/or bought and shopping habits.

We're all in these huge databases, and the amount of info gathered is staggering. There's no use wiping your browser history, it's all being collected at the other end as well.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

I'm glad you started this thread, and agree with you, especially this post.

This type of intolerant behavior is common on many forums, and as so many people have pointed out, the anonymity of not being face to face makes a lot of meek little people bold. Being separated by distance is what makes us anonymous, I disagree with Mike Reilly about using real names. While to him his name means something (honor, integrity, other things perhaps) other posters don't associate any of that to his name until they've read his posts and see that indeed, he does know what he's talking about, he does keep his word, etc. However, he could have joined up as Donald Duck and (at least till the Disney attorneys climb up his exhaust pipe) posted exactly the same info, and I would associate the same honor, integrity, etc to the poster named Donald Duck. Another way to say it is: people are either here to learn, give advice or share a common lifestyle and the name they choose has no bearing on whether or not they post valuable info, or if they're rude, etc. Using an alias may give people the impression that they are anonymous and can get away with rude, intolerant behavior but in reality they're just being rude and intolerant because they want to and think they're getting away with it. After a while, they notice people (like myself) just ignore them and ask for advice from others who give good advice and a lot less static.

An extreme case was a guy on a different forum who was supposedly selling some expensive parts. He got the money, but never shipped the parts from another state. The buyer appealed to the mods ,who provided his IP address. From there, the forum members dug up his home address, his ISP, his real name, wife and kids' names, phone number, cell carrier, list of all assets he owned. The buyer really wanted the parts, so a few members who lived near the fraudster showed up at his door demanding the parts, and he about crapped his pants! He provided the parts ASAP. I did something similar with a guy from IL who owed me $1100. 10 minutes on the net, and I had all of the above information plus his company name, work address, job title, siblings' names and parents' names. All I had to start with was a first name, he was from IL and a cell phone #.

So the internet doesn't really give you anonymity, it actually disseminates a great deal of personal info about most people, especially if they have a lot of info on Facebook. It makes it much easier to track people, even stalk them, unfortunately.

Back to how that relates to forum behavior - it's like alcohol. People use it as an excuse for their behavior. 3 shots of tequila and suddenly he's telling you what a total jerkwad his boss is, and she's telling all of the women he's a 30 second man. They say things they were itching to say, but polite society doesn't condone that sort of trash talk - unless you're drunk or on the net. I know a guy who's mantra is, "People suck. All of them, always." I gotta laugh, because I've experienced a LOT of "no good deed goes unpunished."

But I'm not quite that cynical or jaded. "Mean people suck" is more how I look at it. So there will always be a percentage of the membership who will always (or usually) reply with respect (as long as it's still warranted) and a larger percentage of the population who will constantly bend the rules, push the limits of disrespect that the mods will allow. I'm on a wide variety of forums, and one of them doesn't even tolerate spelling errors, the members are free to mock a newbie who is less than literate right off the forum, never to return. Another forum will allow any level of abuse or foul language, even cyber bullying, as long as it's not directed at the staff. Any discussion of the staff in less than stellar terms will get you a "bacation" as they call it. I think I have the most "bacations" because while a couple of the mods wail and gnash their teeth over the savagery of the members, I have the audacity to suggest that they actually "moderate" the site, which then, surprisingly enough, gets me another bacation. LOL



To me, language isn't the issue, sometimes polite words just can't accurately cover it. It's more about being intolerant of opposing views, even if couching it in concern for a recently rescued family or claiming that the person is a journalist, so therefor MUST be trolling for a juicy, ugly little quote.

The bottom line is, some people are always going to be testing the limits of what is acceptable behavior on any forum they are on. It's up to the mods to enforce the rules all of the time, equally for all. Few websites are more tolerant than this site, many of them have members who are far less tolerant.

thank you for your very eloquent and well thought out post.

and yes i did treat the one post member horrendously,but only because he was a media hack,aimed at fabricating a malicious story to discredit another member,who is currently in the focus of the worlds media.

and i will do the same thing again,any time i see unfair attention against a member who cannot defend themselves.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Geeze Mark, you're making me feel all warm and tingly in my dark places . I do agree (and you're right -- this may be a first for us ).

The argument against demanding real names and real identities is always that we can't really know, so why bother. This is absolutely true; 100% certainty is not possible. But research shown that most people, when faced with a demand for their identity, do comply. There will be some who don't, but most will. And again, actual evidence shows (as MarkJ says) that this improves the general civility of online forums.

I don't like the word tolerance. I don't give a rat's bum whether someone tolerates my views. What I do want and expect is basic civility when disagreement occurs. This is much easier to do when you actually know someone. Face-to-face is best, b/c of all the non-verbal communication that can happen, but just treating people as people goes a long way to promoting more civil discourse. This is easier when you know something about the person: like their real name.

I'm going to have to completely disagree with your premise.

Using one's real name has no correlation to civility for most people. Let's imagine you do have a website and everyone has to use their real names. Some of the people will always be civil because - that's how they were raised. Some of them will be civil because they're using their real name. Lastly, a small group will still be rude and intolerant because that's who they are. Just like their real name, they don't try to hide their rudeness or hostility towards others who don't share their views.

Honestly, if you were disrespectful and intolerant to me in response to this post, what good does it do if I know your real name? Am I going to call your parents and speak to them about your behavior? Of course not. The mods are the parents (or cops) of this website. Rude and intolerant behavior should be reported to them, they have the power to admonish a member, not your parents or mine. The mods don't need to know anyone's real name to delete their post or suspend them.

I'm on another website, and we regularly meet each other and camp together in the desert during the winter. I've met well over 1,000 of them in person, most of them camped with for a weekend or longer. The funny thing is, we can't remember each other's real names that well, so we answer to our forum names! People yell "Socal!" and I turn around. Comegetsome is really Billy, but you have to yell "CGS!" and then he will turn around. His wife is CGS lady. QueenGlamis is QG, her hubby is KG, etc, etc.

We talk to each other (and always rescue each other) as friends because we've conversed online and met in person. The name means nothing, what you do, what you post defines who you are to me. If this website suddenly passed a rule that everyone had to use their real name, I'd still share my opinions, ask questions or share facts exactly as I have in the past.

I've always read my posts at least twice before hitting send. First time is for spelling and punctuation. 2nd and 3rd time are for clarity and ensure no ambiguity or unintended slight, or if typed in anger, to ensure I'm not blasting someone. All of my angry posts get deleted and never posted, and I catch a lot of my own mistakes even though some still slip through if it's really late.

[socaldmax]

Posted by hpeer
Research, and casual observation, show that folks are a lot less restrained when making anonymous comments as on a forum. The good news is we hear what people REALLY think, the bad news is we hear what people REALLY think.

There is very little consequence to behaving badly here, we can afford tip be intolerant and inconsiderate. Because we can, we do.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. Perhaps some less evolved people think they're anonymous and so they push the bounds in their posts, but in reality they're telling the world that <insert board name> is rude and intolerant. My attitude toward that person is based on their post content, not their board name. I submit that some people are rude or less than civil out of frustration (I've done it in the past, but only after carefully explaining my point 3 or 4 times before) or just don't feel a need to be civil.

Personally, I try to be polite and civil because I'm here to learn, and I honestly think that if I'm rude to people, they in turn won't be inclined to answer my questions. I wouldn't blame them for that reaction.

There was a guy who started a thread demanding a route and schedule based on a very strict timetable. He was extremely rude and dismissive of the very good advice he did get. I don't think he ever did get the exact answer he asked for, which was perfectly fitting in my book.

Do you have a link to the research you mentioned? I'd like to see how it relates to forum behavior.

Mike OReilly
Exactly . It's been well studied by social scientist and even behavioural economists. The reason people behave poorly in anonymous situations is b/c the the social costs of bad behaviour are low. It's why masks are so powerful. It's also why most drivers in small towns don't lean on their horn and start giving the finger to someone when they get off in traffic.

Now, whether these lowered social restrains produces more honest and open discussion is an interesting point. I've not seen any research on that subject. I'll have to go look.

Those examples you gave govern behavior in settings where people are within arm's reach of each other, or know where others live.

I drive in some pretty bad traffic here in socal, and I don't get into road rage or honking situations, because you never know who is driving the other car. Could be a disgruntled laid off defense contractor, a gang banger, an off duty LAPD cop (Rampart is the worst!! LOL) and the next thing you know, the guy is pulling an Uzi out and ventilating your windshield!

Car insurance is bad enough around here, I don't need 30 bullet holes in my hood or windshield!

Seriously, it's very easy to escalate any situation, whether it's honking on the fwy or demeaning someone on the net. I'm here for the knowledge (and to share my opinion, apparently LOL ) but my opinion is usually based on either facts I can prove, or personal experience.

If what you say was true, then the only people on this forum who are posting in a civil manner are yourself and others who are also using their real names. Everyone else using a board name would be posting inflammatory remarks, speaking to each other rudely, dismissively, or worse yet, calling each other trolls.

I just don't see any evidence of that being the case around here, or any other website. The amount of hostility between members is based directly on the general tone of the website, which is controlled by the owner, via the mods. I haven't been there (yet) but I hear Sailing Anarchy could be characterized as a lot more rude and intolerant than other sailing websites, correct? Yet many of the same people post on here, SA, and a few other websites.

Why does JoetheSailingGod (nobody in particular) post nice, informative posts here, yet slashes and burns with the best of them over at SA, and posts nice and polite posts on other sailing websites? I honestly think it's because of the tone of the website. (Most) People will try to get away with whatever they can, or conform to the norm. Some will be intentionally rude, others will keep their replies short and terse, which can often be construed as rude.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

Why does JoetheSailingGod (nobody in particular) post nice, informative posts here, yet slashes and burns with the best of them over at SA, and posts nice and polite posts on other sailing websites? I honestly think it's because of the tone of the website. (Most) People will try to get away with whatever they can, or conform to the norm. Some will be intentionally rude, others will keep their replies short and terse, which can often be construed as rude.

I use to talk to businessmen about their corporate culture and they would say they didn't have one. I'd explain that they definitely had one, even if they hadn't defined it. Every group has a culture, an environment that has been created. It's also not just based on the rules posted on a rules page, but based on the actual behavior of the site and how the members and moderators control it.

It's a dilemma for forum operators. Their income is dependent on hits and clicks, on visitors to their pages, not directly on quality of posts. Now the quality of posts and behavior may influence the activity. If they are not diligent enough in controlling behavior they can lose members. However, if they're too diligent they can as well. But their income in the large part is not influenced by the "quality" of their members or even the demographics. A very active thread, even if it's deteriorated, can get clicks.

On a large international site there's even the fact that the various moderators may interpret things differently and respond in different ways. This isn't criticism, just a comment on how things naturally are. Then there are the cultures from which the members come, influenced by nationality, type of lifestyle, previous professions, and every other imaginable factor. But that can lead to different styles of posting and different feelings of what is opinion versus fact, what is discussion versus personal attack.