Some comments on comments

Last week's "This week in the Slacktiverse" included a link to John Scalzi's article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is. In the days that followed the initial publication of that post Scalzi published an article, "Lowest Difficulty Setting" Follow-Up, about some of the comments made to the original article, some of which he deleted/moderated because they violated the commenting policy of his site. Finally, on May 21, Scalzi posted an article about the very nature of comments, "Lowest Difficulty Setting Follow-Up" Now on Kotaku + Comment on Comments.

In reading the comments to the original post, the follow-up post and the "comments on comments" post two different types of anger are visible: the first anger is aimed the content/argument of the original post; the second type of anger seems to reflect a particular form of commentator entitlement--the belief that it is always wrong/offensive for anyone to be asked to abide by a set of commenting rules even (or even particularly) by the person who owns/moderates the blog.

I admit that I don't "get" the way in which people deal with either form of anger. If one wants to be heard (in the sense of carrying any argumentative weight) in a blogspace then it behooves one to learn the community standards of that place and if one doesn't like the way a particular person runs their own blog then it seems best to me that one go somewhere else and start a blog of one's own.

What do you think?

--mmy

---

 

The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.

Comments

[cjmr]

You are assuming that all who comment WANT to be heard (in the sense of carrying any argumentative weight). Some people just like to argue, or just hate (group X), or whatever. They have no motivation to 'buy-in', behaviorally speaking.

[Beroli]

From what I've seen, a number of people online would get to, "If one wants to be heard (in the sense of carrying any argumentative weight) in a blogspace then it behooves one to learn the community standards of that place" and immediately think/say, "Why should I have to adjust my communication style to be heard? Who do you think you are? I'm a free person and I'll post however I like!" only, you know, probably even (a lot) ruder about it, with multiple all-caps FASCISTs.

[Beroli]

My kingdom for an edit button.

--And I don't think they think about "What will get me heard?" because their posting style is fundamentally self-centered. It's about them putting something on the Internet. If the only reaction it ever gets is "Jeez, why is this person being such a twit?" that's everyone else's problem, not theirs.

[Kit Whitfield]

I think there's something telling in Scalzi's original analogy which accounts for some of the miscreants in the thread:

Now, once you’ve selected the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, you still have to create a character, and how many points you get to start — and how they are apportioned — will make a difference. Initially the computer will tell you how many points you get and how they are divided up. If you start with 25 points, and your dump stat is wealth, well, then you may be kind of screwed. If you start with 250 points and your dump stat is charisma, well, then you’re probably fine.

Notice the bit about charisma?

My knowledge of roleplaying games is scanty, but I have the impression that charisma is a traditional 'dump stat' because in a game based on fighting, it makes very little difference to the outcome. In reality, on the other hand ... well, I'd dump almost any other attribute before charisma. Human beings are a social species, and generally we don't relate by fighting everyone we see and nicking their gold: we advance largely through collaboration, and to do that, we need other people to be willing to collaborate us. And for that, we need at least a degree of charisma - at least enough that we don't keep pissing everybody off.

But when you look at the people having tantrums in the thread, they're saying things like this guy (warning: horrible entitlement): "I’ll never have a family because men don’t deserve a choice." He's attributing to systemic prejudice a problem that is almost certainly caused by lack of charisma. If he's single, it's because nobody wants to go out with him, and while some perfectly nice and attractive people are single for reasons of bad luck, I think it's fair to guess based on this guy's post that he's single because he's not very appealing to anyone. I mean, three paragraphs of his opinions are enough to convince me that I wouldn't have children with him either. He has a charisma problem.

To get on in life, we need to be able to deal with other people. These guys, considering that they freak out at such a mild suggestion, demonstrably can't.

I'd suggest that, in Scalzi's terms, they've chosen charisma as their dump stat - and the fact that he himself doesn't quite seem to grasp what a disadvantage that is makes it a bit less surprising that so many of his readers don't get it either. The thing about charisma is that to appeal to people, you have to be able to deal with people; basic coping skills are the foundation with which you can't build charm. But these guys all think charisma is a dump stat and that they should succeed nevertheless, so they're baffled and frustrated that the game isn't going their way.

Basically they misread the rule book, and now they feel the game's unfair.

[Ross]

I'd suggest that, in Scalzi's terms, they've chosen charisma as their dump stat - and the fact that he himself doesn't quite seem to grasp what a disadvantage that is makes it a bit less surprising that so many of his readers don't get it either. The thing about charisma is that to appeal to people, you have to be able to deal with people; basic coping skills are the foundation with which you can't build charm. But these guys all think charisma is a dump stat and that they should succeed nevertheless, so they're baffled and frustrated that the game isn't going their way.

Basically they misread the rule book, and now they feel the game's unfair.

I have argued many times that this is pretty much the core of Nice Guy-ism: The belief that life can be played like an RPG, will hand out apropriate rewards for proper exploitation of the rules, and that it is ever a good idea to rules-lawyer the DM.

[Amaryllis]

A timely post.

Warning: horrible entitlement.

"I should be able to say whatever I want, however I want, without being excluded from anything. Words never hurt anybody, it's just my opinion. All opinions ought to be welcome everywhere; anything less is intolerance; it's only actions that cause problems. It should be considered as wrong to refuse a private association because of words, as it's wrong to publicly discriminate because of race. I'm being oppressed just as much!"

...and so on, verbatim to the best of my recollection, heard recently from a Straight White Man. To be fair, there was beer involved, but, in vino veritas?

( in cervisia veritas? Latin scholars?)

And, per Kit, this is the same man who I've heard bemoan the fact that nothing he gets involved in seems to work out right. Sigh.

[MercuryBlue]

Words never hurt anybody

*dies laughing*

[Sixwing]

It is not generally a good idea to rules-lawyer the DM, and I've never seen it work outside an online RPG anyway. Even tabletop RPGs generally have safeguards such as "if you can do it, so can the monsters," which is generally enough to make people think twice about any given exploit, particularly the more lethal ones.*

I'm inclined to speculate that had a different demographic been poked, the response may have been different. Someone who has no societal expectations or experience of being excluded from a given space is probably going to yell a lot louder when they perceive themselves excluded than someone who has had long practice of being excluded, especially topped with the idea that the exclusion is natural and OK.

I do think exclusive spaces are necessary in some cases, for what it's worth; if someone is harassing other people, it's entirely reasonable for the people harassed to exclude the person being obnoxious. The whole statement of "all opinions ought to be welcome anywhere" seems to me like a variation of "I should be able to say and do whatever I want without consequences," which is fantastically unrealistic as well as a statement of incredible privilege. Without the shield of "oh, his intentions were good, oh he'd never hurt a fly" - (pronoun intentional)- there'd be a lot more pushback against rhetoric that harms people, simply by loss of the enforcement of presumption of good faith for the highly privileged.

After all, we have to assume the very privileged are working in good faith. Otherwise they lose that status in a big hurry.

*I've had a couple of cases where "if you can do it, so can everyone else" was an acceptable bargain and the loophole in question actually turned out to enhance a campaign, as the PCs improvised a new technique and everyone who saw them do it tried to figure out how to replicate that feat, so that they had to scramble to find a counter for the thing they themselves had pioneered... but that's entirely irrelevant to entitled commenters on blogs.

[Kit Whitfield]

To be fair, there was beer involved, but, in vino veritas?

Doesn't sound like an excuse to me; every time I've said something indiscreet under the influence, it's been something I genuinely thought.

So this guy basically thinks that he should be able to say whatever he wants, and that this should never create negative consequences for him? Is he capable of functioning at all? Does he have any friends? Can he hold down a job? (I ask this last in particular, because it's distastefully common for someone to 'believe' this kind of thing when it comes to offending women/gay people/social acquaintances, but to act on an entirely different set of principles when talking to their bosses, who actually have the power to inflict serious consequences on them. 'There shouldn't be consequences' often isn't applied up the food chain.)

I'm generally tempted to respond to such people by saying to them everything I think most likely to hurt their feelings - hey, they say it's okay, right? - but it's probably not the best idea.

--

omeone who has no societal expectations or experience of being excluded from a given space is probably going to yell a lot louder when they perceive themselves excluded than someone who has had long practice of being excluded

If that's regarding the Scalzi posts, I don't think he was excluding. Or at least, he banned people who were excessively rude, but by definition that meant people who had gone off the deep end already.

[Sixwing]

I think I forgot to show my work.

Scalzi wasn't actually excluding anyone, I definitely agree with you there. I went from "people who have and enforce a commenting policy" as the OP was discussing to "people who have and enforce policies in which certain statements are not allowed," and I didn't show the intervening step.

I was also thinking of a relationship from 'there shouldn't be consequences' to 'if I can't say whatever I want in this space, I am totally unwelcome in this space,' which generally isn't true.

Sorry, was writing before caffeine.

[Froborr]

I have argued many times that this is pretty much the core of Nice Guy-ism: The belief that life can be played like an RPG, will hand out apropriate rewards for proper exploitation of the rules, and that it is ever a good idea to rules-lawyer the DM.

This accords pretty closely to my own experience of having been a Nice Guy--desperately seeking the rule exploit or cheat code that would allow me to "win," and bitterly convinced everyone had a copy of the instruction manual and hint book except me. (Turns out there is a cheat code: Treat people like people instead of NPCs and stop being such an entitled little douchehat. Sadly, I did not figure this out until my mid-twenties.)

I'm generally tempted to respond to such people by saying to them everything I think most likely to hurt their feelings - hey, they say it's okay, right? - but it's probably not the best idea.

This is my instinctive response, too.

Also, the thing about hierarchy. I think it's because they (clearly) don't believe in respect (that is, treating people like people), but frequently do believe in deference (that is, giving someone power and then cowering before it).

There is a side of me that is a little sympathetic to these guys (gendered term intentional) because they remind me of my younger self. It is largely overruled by the side of me that wants them to suffer torments both Dantean and Lovecraftian, because they remind me of my younger self.

[truth is life]

I'd suggest that, in Scalzi's terms, they've chosen charisma as their dump stat - and the fact that he himself doesn't quite seem to grasp what a disadvantage that is makes it a bit less surprising that so many of his readers don't get it either. The thing about charisma is that to appeal to people, you have to be able to deal with people; basic coping skills are the foundation with which you can't build charm. But these guys all think charisma is a dump stat and that they should succeed nevertheless, so they're baffled and frustrated that the game isn't going their way.

I think the idea is a little different from that. I assume that "250 points" means you start off rather privileged in several ways, either physically, mentally, or socially (for example, by starting off wealthy). Therefore, even if you aren't really good with people, you have money, physical attractiveness, intelligence, and/or so on and so forth to make up for it. It's not like there aren't plenty of examples of people who are in some way basically unpleasant to be around or physically unattractive or whatever who nevertheless are highly successful because their other advantages more than make up for it.

@Sixwing: It's okay, skipping steps that seem clear happens to everyone.

[Kirala]

I think the idea is a little different from that. I assume that "250 points" means you start off rather privileged in several ways, either physically, mentally, or socially (for example, by starting off wealthy). Therefore, even if you aren't really good with people, you have money, physical attractiveness, intelligence, and/or so on and so forth to make up for it. It's not like there aren't plenty of examples of people who are in some way basically unpleasant to be around or physically unattractive or whatever who nevertheless are highly successful because their other advantages more than make up for it.

Building on that, I think Scalzi is saying that if you start with 250 points, you can afford to have even charisma as a dump stat. Whereas if you have nothing, charisma is likely to be the most important stat to cultivate.

I totally get the anger at the main post. It's very, very easy to see a story calling one privileged and have this train of thought: "This person is saying I have an unfair advantage." -> "This person is saying I cheat." -> "This person is insulting me." Alternatively, the train of thought may go, "This person is saying I have an unfair advantage." -> "My life sucks! That can't be true." -> "This person is asking me to make my life even worse so someone else can have it cushier." Of course, these two trains of thought may intertwine and create all kinds of mutant offspring.

I do like Oscar Wilde on this point. In An Ideal Husband, Privileged Robert is in a quandary because of some Shady History and is complaining to his Equally Privileged friend, "Is it fair, Arthur?" The friend replies, "Robert, life is never fair. Perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not." I think Scalzi is trying to play the friend while Angry Commenters are failing to learn Robert's lesson. Also, what Sixwing said.

[Kirala]

I admit that I don't "get" the way in which people deal with either form of anger. If one wants to be heard (in the sense of carrying any argumentative weight) in a blogspace then it behooves one to learn the community standards of that place and if one doesn't like the way a particular person runs their own blog then it seems best to me that one go somewhere else and start a blog of one's own.

That certainly is the best way to be heard by people who agree with you. Not sure how effective it is at changing the minds of people who deliberately exclude themselves from the company of dissenters. Is it better to state one's views directly in the absence of opposition, or indirectly by opposing one's opposition? As much as I try to avoid confrontations where I am unwelcome, I can understand the opposite approach.

[Mmy]

@Kirala: That certainly is the best way to be heard by people who agree with you. Not sure how effective it is at changing the minds of people who deliberately exclude themselves from the company of dissenters.

I would disagree -- when I write of community standards I mean things such as learning and using Trigger/Content warnings and not using language/imagery that is considered offensive. Someone is (almost) always allowed to state their case (their political/ideological stance) as long as the very stating of it does not involve racist/sexism/classism.

I have, in the past, been able to change someone's mind (or at least moderate their belief) through reasoned conversation. One almost never wins someone over to one's side by pouring invective on them. So I am left to presume that the invective writers are doing so for the joy of hurling epithets and insults rather than from the hope of actually convincing someone else.

[Froborr]

I do like Oscar Wilde on this point. In An Ideal Husband, Privileged Robert is in a quandary because of some Shady History and is complaining to his Equally Privileged friend, "Is it fair, Arthur?" The friend replies, "Robert, life is never fair. Perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not."

It's tangentially related, and therefore it's once again time for My Favorite B5 Quote Ever:

Marcus: I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, "Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?" So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.

One almost never wins someone over to one's side by pouring invective on them. So I am left to presume that the invective writers are doing so for the joy of hurling epithets and insults rather than from the hope of actually convincing someone else.

While invective is almost never effective at persuading the target of the invective, I think it can be effective at demonstrating that the target's behavior is Not Okay, which can be valuable for a lot of reasons--reassuring bystanders who might otherwise have been victims of the target's behavior, warning off bystanders who might have engaged in similar behavior, or even just getting the offender to leave or stop acting that way, which usually is nearly as good and far more acheivable than changing their mind anyway.

[Mmy]

@Froborr: While invective is almost never effective at persuading the target of the invective, I think it can be effective at demonstrating that the target's behavior is Not Okay, which can be valuable for a lot of reasons--reassuring bystanders who might otherwise have been victims of the target's behavior, warning off bystanders who might have engaged in similar behavior

So, if someone comes into our community here and aims invective at other members of the community -- are you arguing that we (the rest of the community and the moderators) should respond with invective of their own?

Note -- this is a somewhat touchy subject for me since I have had to read all of the invective that was aimed at any member of this community. It somewhat sours one's view of the at least some commentators.

[Froborr]

No, I'm just disagreeing with your statement that invective never has any purpose other than the gratification of the person engaging in it. I am not saying that it is always (or even frequently) the best choice or that it should be the first resort. Where you are, who you're talking to, the histories of the people involved, the behavior in question, the kind of invective you use, your level of skill at employing different strategies, and a whole host of other considerations come into play in deciding whether a well-reasoned argument or a cutting remark is the best approach to dealing with poor behavior in a public or semi-public setting.

[Froborr]

Also, I am not saying that all or even most of the people who regularly employ invective are working toward any of the purposes I mentioned; most of them probably are doing it for the jollies. I just think there's a difference between, for instance, trolling and nuking a troll.

[hapax]

I just think there's a difference between, for instance, trolling and nuking a troll.

While I agree with you on the general point, I'm wondering if "nuking a troll" isn't exactly what the objectionable commenters have in mind.

I mean, I've read many a blog post where I can't imagine any possible comment beyond, "You, sir, are an ass!", which isn't really my style, so I don't say anything at all.

But I can -- if I put my biggest, floppiest Empathy Hat and squint sidewise through the veil -- sorta see that "demonstrating that the target's behavior is Not Okay" is what such commenters think they are doing.

Whether galloping to the protection of the Poor Beleagered Straight White Male or Sadly Under-Appreciated Joss Whedon or the Struggling Banking Industry (just tossing out examples of this behavior that I've seen recently) or whatever is *really* the best use of anybody's chivalrous instincts is certainly open for debate. But I think it's possible that -- at least in their conscious mind -- that's what is going on.

[Froborr]

@hapax: I think that is a distinct possibility. They are most likely defending *something*--it is just not something that needs or deserves defending.

[Mmy]

They are most likely defending *something*--it is just not something that needs or deserves defending.

QFT

[Acid]

Cheese and crackers what a blow-up at such an unassuming little article! I dare say, Scalzi handled the general backlash with admirable restraint and aplomb.
This firey reaction to such a simply analogy is interesting, because it seems to indicate that it's an emotional issue for many people. That people can become so outraged at the insinuation of unfairness, even though the issue here is that the unfairness benefits them, shows the inherent upset the idea causes for most people. Perhaps over time the message of the article will sink in, and the formerly outraged Straight White Males will extend a little of that anger towards the system that propagates it?

[Lonespark]

Some people feel entitled to everything, including being seen as the underdog, the presumption of good faith as mentioned earlier...

[Froborr]

Some people feel entitled to everything, including being seen as the underdog

Kwifty.

[inge]

As per Hanlon's Razor, my working hypothesis is that people angry about commenting rules and guidelines lack the ability to communicate in a way conforming to the guidelines, and because of that, feel excluded from communication.

Sad, really.

[Froborr]

I think GIFT trumps Hanlon's Razor, alas. GIFT is actually supported by peer-reviewed research, IIRC, though there was none when it was proposed.

[Sixwing]

Hee. Did they refer to it by name?

[Froborr]

Also, Hanlon's Razor breaks down at high malice/incompetence levels, because excessive malice is self-destructive and there are levels of incompetence that can only be attained through malice (or at least callous indifference and arrogance). The result: Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence, and vice versa.

[Steele]

"It's very, very easy to see a story calling one privileged and have this train of thought: "This person is saying I have an unfair advantage." -> "This person is saying I cheat." -> "This person is insulting me." Alternatively, the train of thought may go, "This person is saying I have an unfair advantage." -> "My life sucks! That can't be true." -> "This person is asking me to make my life even worse so someone else can have it cushier."

And I think that's it, really... I think we see a different argument than someone actually writes. A lot of the time. Because if we squint and look sideways, it COULD be the same argument. At least it SOUNDS like the same argument. And we tend to debate strawmen because we don't tend to actually READ someone's post.

We don't like to be wrong. Nobody does. And we also, even those of us who talk a lot about the shades of gray in the world, don't like to admit that someone else may have a point. Thus, we tend to create this image of the most totally wrong version of the other side's argument.

I was recently privy to a very loud and unpleasant argument where one person was yelling at the other for not truly understanding privilege. He had said that equality (I assume it was gender equality) was not his primary concern, and he didn't spend his time on blogs and donating to charities and all the other things. Thus, she was upset, and was yelling at him for not understanding, that he couldn't understand inequality because he was too privileged.

The thing is, he didn't not make it his primary concern, ad he didn't spend his time researching the issue, but not because he didn't believe sexism still exists. He didn't spend his time doing that because he worked two jobs in order to make rent and afford to go to community college. She was, ironically, showing her privilege by assuming that everyone has the time and money to volunteer, donate, and research.

But because the two arguments can sound similar, she jumped to the most wrong caricature.

Similarly, I think that people in Scalzi's thread were jumping to the most wrong caricature of his argument. His argument was that a straight white male has an advantage over anyone else (in our society,) all other things being equal. By taking out the 'all other things being equal' part, his argument becomes "You have it easier than anyone else, regardless of other factors." They can look at a successful non-SWM actor (like Will Smith, George Takei, or Gwyneth Paltrow) and say, "Well, I don't have it easier than them. This guy is all of the wrong!"

As for why people complain about being censored, I think that the internet has a very, very strong anti-authoritarian streak. I know that some of the sexist/racist jokes online are on account of people genuinely being that sexist/racist. I think, however, that some of them are on account of a desire to violate taboos. "This is the INTERNET! We are FREE! How dare you try to regulate our speech in any way, shape or form!" Basically, dead baby comedy. Except the people telling the jokes think that telling the jokes somehow makes them morally superior to people NOT telling the jokes.

They see any attempt to enforce any type of order as trying to crush them and their ideas, and more importantly, their freedom. They don't understand the concept that they're not really at home in the privacy of their bedroom (or alternately, that they're not really in a totally public place where they can use the 1st amendment.)

Funnily enough, I think this is back to the first point. Creating the strawman. Taking "I won't let you say that on my blog" and turning it into "You shouldn't be allowed to speak." And they reject that argument. Because they think that's what the argument actually IS.

[P J Evans]

updating: the last post on this at Whatever was on may 23:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/23/final-notes-for-lowest-difficulty-setting/

[Nick Kiddle]

//I think we see a different argument than someone actually writes. A lot of the time. Because if we squint and look sideways, it COULD be the same argument. At least it SOUNDS like the same argument. And we tend to debate strawmen because we don't tend to actually READ someone's post.//

Another issue is that emotional responses are more easily accessible than rational responses and depend on different cues. If someone hits a button that makes it feel like they're calling you a terrible bad person, it takes a LOT of discipline to step back and read their argument carefully to see whether that's really what they said. And if you're having a bad day or whatever, you're never going to have that discipline and things will just go downhill from there.

[Literata]

I apologize for the drive-by. I'm going to be incommunicado from 22 June to 28 June. If further discussion of comments and/or policies occurs during that time, could someone (maybe someone not TBAT?) please quote and/or refer to my idea from the NMMNG thread? If someone wants to take that on and wants to ask me any more questions about my thoughts in the meantime, you can email me at literatahurley at gmail.

Sorry for the imposition, again, but I really want to participate in this, even if by proxy.