Just realized that my reply to this has been sitting in a tab for days. ARGH.
Oddly, I had to explain my own internal self-test for these things to someone just this past week, so it's fresh in my mind. It goes a little something like this:
Here's my internal self-test for excluding annoying people:
- What's the quality of their discussion like? Even if I disagree with it, is it well-supported or factual?
- When I'm frustrated or angry with this person, am I also learning? If so, am I learning NEW and USEFUL things, or am I revisiting the same 101 level "wrong on the Internet" kind of crap?
- Is this person obstructing progress? If so, are those obstructions the kinds of things I'd be willing to consider if this person didn't annoy me so much? When I stop and examine this person's argument, is there merit and skill in it?
- Is this person damaging the group dynamic? Driving people off? Making it hard to do things? Why and how? Does the group need a challenge? Is the group becoming a finer thing for it, or coming apart?
In response to your specific examples, I know that I'd be hard pressed not to label the "Men's Rights" person a troll out of the gate, or at least someone who's maybe not going to be easily swayed by nuance. It's also possible that I'm sick to death of people who think that's a novel or useful thing to say. The other two are lesser sins, perhaps -- both are more rude than anything else, but those actions are less overtly about ideology.
It's tactlessness and immature, but it's not quite on the same level as the first, if that makes sense. I can roll my eyes at it more easily.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-10 09:46 pm (UTC)Oddly, I had to explain my own internal self-test for these things to someone just this past week, so it's fresh in my mind. It goes a little something like this:
Here's my internal self-test for excluding annoying people:
- What's the quality of their discussion like? Even if I disagree with it, is it well-supported or factual?
- When I'm frustrated or angry with this person, am I also learning? If so, am I learning NEW and USEFUL things, or am I revisiting the same 101 level "wrong on the Internet" kind of crap?
- Is this person obstructing progress? If so, are those obstructions the kinds of things I'd be willing to consider if this person didn't annoy me so much? When I stop and examine this person's argument, is there merit and skill in it?
- Is this person damaging the group dynamic? Driving people off? Making it hard to do things? Why and how? Does the group need a challenge? Is the group becoming a finer thing for it, or coming apart?
In response to your specific examples, I know that I'd be hard pressed not to label the "Men's Rights" person a troll out of the gate, or at least someone who's maybe not going to be easily swayed by nuance. It's also possible that I'm sick to death of people who think that's a novel or useful thing to say. The other two are lesser sins, perhaps -- both are more rude than anything else, but those actions are less overtly about ideology.
It's tactlessness and immature, but it's not quite on the same level as the first, if that makes sense. I can roll my eyes at it more easily.