|
Recently I made a (particular) forum post (not on this forum). Someone responded to this post disagreeing with me. My initial reaction was of self-righteous indignation. I'm always right how dare someone disagree with me. The fact I even managed to make my post makes me superior to all other humans. But after cooling down and actually engaging with the offensive post I realized that this person was just pointing out the negative ramifications of my post. Ramifications that I understand and agree with. So why did I get so irrationally indignant over someone disagreeing with me? I'm starting to believe that the format of social media forum posting is invoking and amplifying irrational rage. It's easy for oneself to believe they're right about something when you have so many people sharing your belief. This in turn makes it incredibly easy to invoke irrational rage when someone even disagrees with you. I'm always right, so you must be evil if you disagree with me, and the cycle amplifies itself and goes on. Now I have great respect for C-SPAM posters who are much more smarter and well-informed than I am, so this is probably all very obvious to you all. But if you could expand on this a bit that would be great.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 03:23 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 23:18 |
|
Phobos Anomaly posted:Recently I made a (particular) forum post (not on this forum). Someone responded to this post disagreeing with me. My initial reaction was of self-righteous indignation. I'm always right how dare someone disagree with me. The fact I even managed to make my post makes me superior to all other humans.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 03:24 |
|
I like posting in PHIZ. Everyone there only cares about important things and nobody has irrational opinions on something silly like largely irrelevant pop culture. Try it, OP.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 03:27 |
|
Salt Fish posted:You're wrong. gently caress you
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 03:39 |
|
That's a natural reaction to smash any form of dissent with the nearby rock or stick, maybe you should embrace it
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 03:39 |
|
I turn off all the lights in my apartment and meditate for a minimum of 10 minutes before I hit that post button
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 03:45 |
I think it's important to remember we're all just people trying to get by and for the most part I don't think anyone engaging in a sincere dialogue is looking to hurt anybody But they could also just be some stupid/mean fuckers in need of a face rearrangement You never can tell for sure
|
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 03:45 |
|
on the other hand, this is cspam. you're welcome to be a caring and considerate poster while also having "slap a motherfucker" days with full reason
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 03:47 |
|
embrace the posting ways to reach wisdom. peace and namaste
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 03:49 |
|
Smythe posted:gently caress you dead gay comedy forums posted:embrace the posting ways to reach wisdom. peace and namaste
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 04:04 |
|
edit, wrong thread
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 04:08 |
McNugget Buddy posted:edit, wrong thread Yeah it is for you Keep walking, buddy
|
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 04:13 |
|
I want to fight every single one of you shitheads right now.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 04:16 |
|
its ok to be mad as long as you dont write a follow-up post explaining that your mad because late capitalism/covid/fyad etc. has made you into the joker and you have no choice but to make bad posts. most cspam posters fail at this
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 04:21 |
|
If I had access to The Database I’d love to see how phoneposters and web posters differ in things like word choice, post length, etc. I think the dopamine feedback loop of phone posting amplifies this kind of thing. The app is really good though.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 04:35 |
|
OP you're right and the toxicity of online posting is getting to be so well-known that even academics are talking about it.quote:Though prior studies have analyzed the textual characteristics of online comments about politics, less is known about how selection into commenting behavior and exposure to other people’s comments changes the tone and content of political discourse. This article makes three contributions. First, we show that frequent commenters on Facebook are more likely to be interested in politics, to have more polarized opinions, and to use toxic language in comments in an elicitation task. Second, we find that people who comment on articles in the real world use more toxic language on average than the public as a whole; levels of toxicity in comments scraped from media outlet Facebook pages greatly exceed what is observed in comments we elicit on the same articles from a nationally representative sample. Finally, we demonstrate experimentally that exposure to toxic language in comments increases the toxicity of subsequent comments. Seems like in a lot of environments the more you post the worse you feel, and the worse you feel the more you want to take it out on others. It's a toxicity feedback loop that makes everyone involved unhappy.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 04:44 |
|
if your posts dont provoke irrational rage are you even posting
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 04:50 |
|
vyelkin posted:OP you're right and the toxicity of online posting is getting to be so well-known that even academics are talking about it. not me
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 04:51 |
|
vyelkin posted:OP you're right and the toxicity of online posting is getting to be so well-known that even academics are talking about it. what sort of loving gently caress BULLSHIT POST is this on CEE-SPAM by a purported MODERATOR}!?!?!?!?!?! FUKC YUO ALTIDORE IS A poo poo STRIKER
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 07:01 |
|
paul_soccer12 posted:not me *Puts you in a headlock* How about now
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 07:02 |
Anger at the world, never anger at others
|
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 10:48 |
|
Anyone who disagrees with me is posting in bad faith because I am unquestionably correct and immune to propaganda. I have several news stories from prominent mass media outlets that back me up on this point. If you continue to disagree with the inherent correctness of everything I say I will be forced to call the mods to have you removed immediately from this sacred posting space
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 11:34 |
|
"phobos anomaly" sounds like a really cool text adventure game anyway i didn't read any of this poo poo. hope nobody said anything important
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 11:39 |
|
Phobos Anomaly posted:Recently I made a (particular) forum post (not on this forum). Someone responded to this post disagreeing with me. My initial reaction was of self-righteous indignation. I'm always right how dare someone disagree with me. The fact I even managed to make my post makes me superior to all other humans. what's driving the online anger cycle is not facebook or forums. those are just like microscopes or particle accelerators or whatever that lets us see the phenomenon better. you lash out angrily because you are angry. like, as a baseline. and you are angry because the world is hosed. and it is that way because of Capital, but it's very difficult to stay mad at Capital. it requires sustained effort, because we have all learned to perceive the world as individuals and the relations between them, instead of in terms of the material conditions that produce those individuals and relations to begin with. so we have to think hard to stay mad at Capital. and so, when we feel angry, we instead engage in angry behavior toward what we easily perceive: individuals. it happens irl, around dinner tables and at the office, just as much as on facebook. because it's the world. or material conditions, or whatever. and each time we learn nothing, because we are lying to ourselves about why we're mad or what to do with it. social media is not the problem. anger is not the problem. we're supposed to get mad when material conditions decline! we're supposed to get mad when the world is dying. the problem is being drawn into a recursive loop of getting mad about getting mad, or being mad for its own sake. that's when reflexively analyzing the world in terms of proximate individual causes instead of the ultimate systemic causes further adds to that baseline anger and confusion, and thus not only fails to do anything helpful, but also sets up the next instance. basically it's a form of bikeshedding op
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 12:10 |
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:what sort of loving gently caress BULLSHIT POST is this on CEE-SPAM by a purported MODERATOR}!?!?!?!?!?! FUKC YUO ALTIDORE IS A poo poo STRIKER he is indeed a poo poo striker
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 14:33 |
|
vyelkin posted:OP you're right and the toxicity of online posting is getting to be so well-known that even academics are talking about it. Lurker supremacy.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 17:07 |
|
You're not a leftist if you don't want to destroy your posting enemies.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 17:10 |
|
quote:As I have said, we too are concerned with combating the lack of principle, the inner emptiness, the spiritual deadness, the untruthfulness of the age; we are waging a war to the death against all these things, just as Carlyle is, and there is a much greater probability that we shall succeed than that he will, because we know what we want.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 17:23 |
|
didn't read
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 19:19 |
|
best not to get too worked up
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 19:21 |
|
Farm Frenzy posted:its ok to be mad as long as you dont write a follow-up post explaining that your mad because late capitalism/covid/fyad etc. has made you into the joker and you have no choice but to make bad posts. most cspam posters fail at this its incredible that goons do the cope meme at themselves without shame
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 20:01 |
|
who cares
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 20:08 |
|
OP there's actually some merit to the idea that the transmission method or medium of information is just as powerful, if not more powerful than, the message being transmitted via that medium. In the 1960's, Canadian Media Professor Marshall McLuhan proposed in his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man that the media itself, not the content itself is more influential on a society than any message it carries. He would also classify mediums as "hot" or "cold" mediums, based on whether some receiver engagement was expected or not. Other forums will laud the Shannon-Weaver model as an unassailable bastion of media analysis, but McLuhan saw that model as being tied to a necessary notion of efficient causality that was largely undone when the definition of efficient causality it is based upon was revealed to have been due to an early print-era mistranslation of Aristotle's idea of efficient causality. Rather than a causal model, McLuhan proposed a 'tetrad' shaped model, described on wikipedia as such: quote:
Given that there are so many formats to internet communication, we can't unfortunately apply the Tetrad to "The Internet", but rather it's more suited to avenues of communication within the internet. What does vlogging enhance? What does longform forums posting enhance? What do tweets and twitter threads enhance? What do they obsolete? What do they retrieve? For forumsposting, we could certainly argue a sense of nostalgia in the world of 240 characters or less! What are they when taken to the extreme? Well, the Media Analysis & Criticism Thread in that forum is probably a good example of a medium taken to an extreme.
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 20:29 |
|
I'll fight anyone in this thread, come at me
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 20:31 |
|
Foo Diddley posted:"phobos anomaly" sounds like a really cool text adventure game phobos anomaly is the final level of the first episode of the original doom. i don’t know if that has anything to do with what this poster said as my favorite hobby is to quote random posts w/o reading and reply with a doom fact, enjoy!
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 20:39 |
|
Cool thanks for the update op
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 20:41 |
|
Lib and let die posted:OP there's actually some merit to the idea that the transmission method or medium of information is just as powerful, if not more powerful than, the message being transmitted via that medium. In the 1960's, Canadian Media Professor Marshall McLuhan proposed in his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man that the media itself, not the content itself is more influential on a society than any message it carries. He would also classify mediums as "hot" or "cold" mediums, based on whether some receiver engagement was expected or not. Other forums will laud the Shannon-Weaver model as an unassailable bastion of media analysis, but McLuhan saw that model as being tied to a necessary notion of efficient causality that was largely undone when the definition of efficient causality it is based upon was revealed to have been due to an early print-era mistranslation of Aristotle's idea of efficient causality. thank u
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 20:42 |
|
I avoid this by only making good posts, op
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 20:43 |
|
expressin' my aggression through my schizophrenic verse words
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 20:43 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 23:18 |
|
Lib and let die posted:OP there's actually some merit to the idea that the transmission method or medium of information is just as powerful, if not more powerful than, the message being transmitted via that medium. In the 1960's, Canadian Media Professor Marshall McLuhan proposed in his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man that the media itself, not the content itself is more influential on a society than any message it carries. He would also classify mediums as "hot" or "cold" mediums, based on whether some receiver engagement was expected or not. Other forums will laud the Shannon-Weaver model as an unassailable bastion of media analysis, but McLuhan saw that model as being tied to a necessary notion of efficient causality that was largely undone when the definition of efficient causality it is based upon was revealed to have been due to an early print-era mistranslation of Aristotle's idea of efficient causality. You know nothing of my work! You mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing!
|
# ? Nov 30, 2021 20:44 |