I know, I know, this thread has been dead for several days, nay, weeks.
But I felt I needed to say some stuff.
Basically, most of this is stuff I've learned through classes and during my life. Maybe it will help stop the angry postings.
'I' vs. 'You' language; (aka Inflammatory/Accusatory language)Sometimes people use accusatory language without meaning to. The psychology class I took referred to it as "I" and "you" language. The statement "You are wrong" is accusatory, and will put the person hearing/reading it on the defensive immediately. However, saying "I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying" is nonconfrontational and nonaccusatory. It takes equal blame for the situation, not blaming the other person. No offense, but bobtheskull I think you may be particularly susceptible to this kind of language, as Iago has stated. And Lightsabre does use a lot of what could be construed as accusatory language, although I'm sure that's not what is meant. My hubby can be quite susceptible to accusatory language, often thinking a perfectly harmless statement is meant as a personal attack. We're working on that.
Concede mistakesThis is a personal problem of mine. When you're proven wrong, stop and say "oh, I was wrong. Thank you for pointing out my error." Lightsabre did this very well a couple of times in the thread that spawned this thread. However, many people don't, and most don't do it enough. The reason this is a personal thing for me is because I was on the "Lazy writers/FBI" thread, and I proved that an unequivocal statement made by a poster was 100% wrong, and even looked up the FBI website and cited it as my source. I spent a good twenty minutes or more to make my point. Did the angry poster acknowledge my post? Admit they were wrong? No, they just attacked the next person's post that didn't have a source cited. That's when I realized that this person is not here to be convinced, this person is here because they wish to moan, groan and complain. I was going to post a little joke about an episode of Monk that I saw, where the FBI had technology ooozing out their pores and had a god-complex like no other, but figured it would be a waste. The fact that the FBI in both Monk and Hair of the Dog were
devices used by the writers to illustrate corrupt law (hair of the dog) or advancing technology (Monk) meant nothing to this person.
Sheesh, now I'm all off topic! Sorry!
The biggest difference, to me, between discussion and debate is a debate is timed and structured. I know a guy who won scholarships because of his excellent debate skills, and I think he's so good at it because
he doesn't take it personally! No matter what is flung at him, he doesn't get angry with the person on the other end. I don't know how he does it!
But most of us are not immune when we think our views and our beliefs are under attack, and we react with emotion. And that's when we lose, and while there really isn't a winner in such an instance, the other person is not affected at all.
Take a step back, as Iago said, is a great idea. Make sure the person means what you think they mean, and maybe we won't be subjected to such long, angry postings!
Have a wonderful day.
PS yes, my friend is a master debater! Nyah!
PPS Bobtheskull, what the heck is a LART?!?
