Aggressive language on python-list

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:10:17 -0700, rurpy wrote:

> On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and
>> > dicks:
> 
> No, I wrote about trolls.  "dicks" is a highly emotive and almost
> totally subjective word 

As opposed to "troll", which is unemotional and objective? Not.


> that I would not use in a rational discussion. 

I would. If someone is acting like a dick, why not call them by the word 
that most accurately describes their behaviour?

I see nothing troll like in Dwight "call me David, but I can't be 
bothered changing my signature" Hutto's behaviour. He doesn't seem to be 
trolling, in either sense: he doesn't appear to be making provocative 
statements for the purpose of making people think, nor does he seem to be 
making inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people. He seems to 
genuinely want to help people, in a clumsy, aggressive, and I believe 
often intoxicated way.

So it seems to me that you are wrongly applying the term "troll" as a 
meaningless pejorative to anyone who behaves badly.


> Perhaps you were trying to be amusing?

Certainly not.


>>> >> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do
>>> >> the same.
[...]
>> > How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for
>> > acting like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because
>> > nobody has anything to add"?
> 
> Because you sent them private email telling them that? 

My, what a ... unique ... concept of "ignore such posts" you have.

So far, this has been the best advice you have given so far. My opinion 
is that there is a graduated response to dickish behaviour:

* send a message telling the person they are acting unacceptably,
  preferably privately on a first offence to avoid public shaming
  (when possible -- lots of people aren't privately contactable 
  for many reasons other than that they are trolls);

* if the behaviour continues, make a public comment condemning 
  that behaviour generally without engaging directly in a debate
  or "tit-for-tat" argument with the person.


And for those who value their own peace and quiet over the community 
benefit:

* block or killfile posts from that person so they don't
  have to be seen, preferably publicly.

When I killfile someone, I tend to make it expire after a month or three, 
just in case they mend their ways. Call me Mr Softy if you like.


[...]
>> > If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing
>> > great harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will
>> > you know to change your behaviour?
> 
> If that was how you thought, then you would be someone I hope would
> follow my advice.  Because you would clearly seem to be unable to
> distinguish between difference of opinion on a subject relevant to the
> newsgroup, and inflammatory trolling. Further you see the situation in
> extreme terms ("*great harm*") and one in which only a single point of
> view (your's) is acceptable.

As opposed to only your opinion being acceptable? Why on earth should I 
follow your advice if I think it is bad advice?

We can't both be right[1]. We can't simultaneously confront bad 
behaviour, and ignore bad behaviour. I think your advice is bad, and has 
the potential to kill this community. You think my advice is bad, and has 
the potential to kill this community. Except that you've made a 180-
degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently 
didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition 
"ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with your own advice.


> You would be bordering on delusional by
> thinking your post would somehow change my "behavior".

It's not necessarily about changing your behaviour. (Well, in this case, 
it's less about you than about Dwight Hutto specifically and badly-
behaved posters in general.) It's about sending a message that the 
behaviour is unacceptable.

The primary purpose of that message is to discourage *others* from 
following in the same behaviour. Nothing will kill a forum faster than 
trolls and dicks feeding off each other, until there is nothing left but 
trolls and dicks. A single troll doesn't do much harm -- few of them have 
the energy to spam a news group for long periods, drowning out useful 
posts.


> But even if you had a more rational response 

*raises eyebrow*

> and saved that reaction for
> actual trolling and not someone who simply disagreed with you, I ask
> again, what makes you think your response will change that troll's
> behavior, when in actuality, your kind of response is exactly what most
> trolls hope to elicit?  Did it help in the case I mentioned?

As I said, I do not believe that Dwight Hutto is a troll. I believe he is 
merely badly behaved. And yes, I do believe that confronting him has 
changed his behaviour, at least for now.

Not immediately, of course. His immediate response was to retaliate and 
defend himself. Naturally -- very few people are self-honest enough to 
admit, even to themselves, when they are behaving badly.

But in the intervening weeks, we, this community, has done anything but 
ignore him. We're still talking about him *right now*. We're just not 
necessarily talking *to* him. And the few times that people do respond 
directly to Dwight, they make it very clear that their response is 
guarded and on sufferance.

And there have been no further outbursts from Dwight, at least not so 
far. So, yes, I think we've gotten the message across.


>> > How will others know that I do not agree with your advice?
> 
> Why is it so important to you that I and others know what you think? 
> Since you are (usually) a reasonable person I don't need to read your
> explicit pronouncement to assume that you disagree with some repugnant
> post.

You are assuming we all agree on what is repugnant. That pretty much 
demonstrates that you have missed my point. Without drawing explicit 
boundaries, how do people know what we consider beyond the boundary of 
acceptable behaviour?

The people in this forum come from all over the world. We're not all 
white, middle-class[2], Australian, educated, progressive/liberals like 
me. We're black, Chinese, German, conservative, Muslim, Christian, 
atheist, socialist, anarchist, fascist, etc. We come from all sorts of 
cultures, where families are run like democracies, or where they are run 
like dictatorships where the father is the head of the household even of 
his adult children; cultures that consider euthanasia beyond the pale and 
those that believe that there are fates worse than death; cultures where 
smacking children is an abomination and cultures where it is simply 
common sense; cultures that condone honour-killings and those that don't; 
cultures where blowing yourself up to kill the enemy is thought to be an 
act of bravery, and cultures where pushing a button to kill strangers a 
thousand miles away is thought to be an honourable act of military 
service.

What on earth makes you think we would possibly agree on what posts are 
repugnant without talking about it?

I'm sure that there are some people here -- and you might be one of them 
-- that consider my use of the word "dick" unacceptable. And others who 
consider dick a mild word and far less offensive than the euphemisms 
others might prefer.

Your opinion that we should all, somehow, agree on acceptable behaviour 
is culturally self-centred and rather naive. I'm far more offended by 
Dwight's habit of posting incoherently while pissed[3] than I am by his 
possibly-or-possibly-not racist punning. But I don't expect everyone to 
agree with me.




[1] However, we can both be wrong. There's no reason to think that there 
is *any* strategy to respond to bad behaviour that will work all the 
time, against all people.

[2] Nearly everybody thinks they're middle-class, except the filthy rich 
and the filthy poor.

[3] I don't give a damn what mind-altering chemicals Dwight wishes to 
indulge in, so long as he does it in private.


-- 
Steven