Why is there so much anger on Internet forums?

[USG'60]

Getting back to the idea of abolishing the politics section, I would suggest that instead of totally abolishing it that we restrict it to local and state issues and people and do away with the national stuff since that is where it gets nasty and often utterly irrelevant. I can't imagine not being able to discuss local political issues on a site that deals with local issues. Just my thoughts.

[flintysooner]

This is an interesting thread.

Some years back when I had my own brush with psychotherapy my counselor, after a few sessions, told me I only had 2 emotions I was willing to express: anger and joy and mostly it was the former. Initially I was not a very good patient.

But over time I came to learn that I actually did experience the full range of emotion and I learned there were better ways of dealing with them than expressing anger. In my case there was an awful lot of fear and self-doubt that I had to learn how to process.

Another thing I've noticed is the "win lose" mentality that seems to me to be so prevalent now. Regardless what it is there is this pervasive idea that there must be winners and losers. Covey calls it scarcity mentality and then goes on to advocate "Win Win" thinking. I've personally found great benefit in employing his abundance thinking.

[PennyQuilts]

Getting back to the idea of abolishing the politics section, I would suggest that instead of totally abolishing it that we restrict it to local and state issues and people and do away with the national stuff since that is where it gets nasty and often utterly irrelevant. I can't imagine not being able to discuss local political issues on a site that deals with local issues. Just my thoughts.

I wish that were true but I can't agree with you on the lack of nastiness on state and local issues. I can't even bring myself to read them most of the time due to the rage expressed against christian local politicians and the like. It is negative, even vicious. Some emotions are really raw when those topics come up.

[HewenttoJared]

Outrage expressed against Christian politicians?

This is why anger shows itself...

[TaoMaas]

I can't even bring myself to read them most of the time due to the rage expressed against christian local politicians and the like.

Really? Can you name one local politician discussed on these boards, other than Sally Kern, in which religious beliefs are an issue?

[BlackmoreRulz]

Anonymity is a part of why I believe we are having these issues.

To me, it is about a mental resolve to just act and speak in a way that you want to be remembered forever by.

If one has the second the first shouldn't matter.

I too have been on the internet for a very long time, I will tell a tale of two people that I have interacted with both in real life and in the cyber world. The first is a cousin of mine that I have known and like very much in real life but his online persona really, really sucks. He's brash and hateful bordering on obnoxious but in person he is nothing like that. The second was another father of a kid on one of my son's youth sports teams. I didn't like the guy at all and for all I cared his feelings towards me were mutual. However after finding out he was a poster on another board I frequent, I was amazed to find out how much our philosophies were alike.

[USG'60]

I wish that were true but I can't agree with you on the lack of nastiness on state and local issues. I can't even bring myself to read them most of the time due to the rage expressed against christian local politicians and the like. It is negative, even vicious. Some emotions are really raw when those topics come up.

Over all though, Penny, we spend a lot more time on national politics in that section and I think that most of it is nastier than the state and local stuff. And again, it seems silly to have a site to talk about OKC if we can't discuss the political issues that hit us close to home, even if it does get bitter at times. I sure would not mind closer monitoring of our behavior even though I know I have "gotten away with murder" at times and never been called for it. I used to hate seat belts until their use became manditory and now I would never go without them. I am changeable and would actually like to know that I and everyone else has to enter the discussion with a modicum of grace.

[venture]

Really? Can you name one local politician discussed on these boards, other than Sally Kern, in which religious beliefs are an issue?

Have to agree here. Even though things may get critical of mayor and other local politicians, Kern appears to be the only one who takes the brunt of any attack. That is mainly due to her aggressive nature of pushing her, what many would call, radical viewpoints on the public. When things are said that the majority of the population considers to be so out in left field (well I guess right field in this case), the reaction she is going to get is going to be just as aggressive. I would expect nothing less though and we see it all the time when politicians come out and make comments about race, gender, orientation, and so on that strike a nerve with the general population because they are, in today's world, radical.

I think we are drifting back off topic a bit, but we are pointing out a really strong issue. Politics and Religion are two things that are always asked to stay out of the work place because they are the key topics that can start fights and discord. A person's religion is private and sacred to them, so it should remain in their private lives and not in public. The same could be said about Politics, but the discussion of policies in a civil manner are fine. The problem is, not everyone plays by those rules and the extreme elements - which we have several here on this forum - will always take an aggressive stance to push their agenda. Whether it is by out right shouting and disrespect, or by mild baiting using key phrases or sarcasm to draw people into - aka getting under people's skin.

This board use to have a Faith section and it was eventually dropped. Though that had more to do with the low interest in such topics. The Politics section though is the 2nd most use section on the forum, but I wouldn't hesitate to say that it is only used by around 15 to 20 posters out of over 1100 active posters. So in the end getting rid of the section isn't that big of a deal. For one it will relieve a lot of the resources Pete is paying for by cutting down on the server load and it will likely disperse several of the routine trouble makers on the site. Not a bad trade off.

However, on a forum meant to discuss OKC and the surrounding area, by not having a section to discuss local politics when it comes to matters such as MAPS and what not - that could be a problem. We should have an outlet to discuss local elections and such, and without the threat of being censored when discussing various political heads in the community.

[Jim Kyle]

I also frequent an international forum area called dslreports.com which has solved the "politics" problem in what I think is a unique fashion: they created not one but two sections, called "Red Room" and "Blue Room" and both have a unique access-permission setting. After posting in either area, a member is banned from posting in the other for 30 days.

It's not censorship, since the member can continue to post in the first area, but each posting re-starts the 30-day clock. This makes it impossible for a troll to rile things up in both rooms at the same time, but tends to discourage zealots of either flavor from posting in the other area to defend their passion.

Dunno whether it might work here, but it's at least a different idea, and probably better than doing away with all political talk. If the section is dropped, those who feel strongly will simply hijack other sections, and the intense moderation which that would make necessary would probably destroy most interest in the entire forum...

[PennyQuilts]

Have to agree here. Even though things may get critical of mayor and other local politicians, Kern appears to be the only one who takes the brunt of any attack.

The hysteria over Kern is enough to keep me away from most of the state and local threads. We could be talking about the price of an X-Box in 2005 and someone would start up on Kern and how horrible, bigoted, blah, blah, blah Oklahoma is. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions but the ones who hate Kern just can't get off it long enough to have a rational discussion about anything she can be dragged into. There is absolutely no point in even trying to say anything because it just disolves into an hysterical hatefest. How many times can people say she is a horrible person who should burn in hell before they get it out of their system and let someone else talk? We haven't reached that point, yet.

[venture]

The hysteria over Kern is enough to keep me away from most of the state and local threads. We could be talking about the price of an X-Box in 2005 and someone would start up on Kern and how horrible, bigoted, blah, blah, blah Oklahoma is. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions but the ones who hate Kern just can't get off it long enough to have a rational discussion about anything she can be dragged into. There is absolutely no point in even trying to say anything because it just disolves into an hysterical hatefest. How many times can people say she is a horrible person who should burn in hell before they get it out of their system and let someone else talk? We haven't reached that point, yet.

Sort of like how people keep using the President's middle name to try to stir similar anger and feelings huh?

There are nonconstructive, junk, BS filled posts from people on both ends of the political spectrum on this site. I can understand the frustration that develops on both sides because you have the liberals harping on Kern all the time and the conservatives call foul. Then you have radical conservatives spout Hussein this and that, and the liberals go crazy. The issue you point out PQ is on both sides, unfortunately people continue to take any responsibility for trying to diffuse it.

Like others have posted on this thread, the most successful online communities get to the point to where they police themselves. Unfortunately we see people who complain about behavior or one side, and then contribute to it from the other side. It is a never ending process and why frustration gets so high and where some of the anger begins to develop. If people would shut up and let others contribute, then we would be in a better place. However, everyone is more worried about destroying the opposing party (in anything) to prove they are better or superior. No one is ever willing to yield the floor and try to diffuse the situation. It is always, push push...defend defend...blame blame...push push...scream yell cry...rinse and repeat.

Going back a couple posts, I like that idea of a Blue and Red area and prohibiting people from posting in either to keep trolling down. However, what I don't like is that it effectively segregates two sides, isolates those of us in the middle, and goes against the purpose of building an online community. It would almost be better to just do away with politics on the site, except for local civic issues, and move on. Plus it probably won't be an easy system for Pete to implement, and we all know how much he enjoys installing Mods. :-)

[SoonerQueen]

I hate to see Politics deleted from this board. I have to admit that some people really get carried away and instead of talking issues they deal with personal attacks. I don't think that is acceptable regardless what side you support. Since we don't have much local talk on the radio, I would hate to not be able to discuss local and state issues, especially during election time.

[PennyQuilts]

Venture, yeah, kinda like using the President's middle name to stir things up.

[Thunder]

Venture and Penny, you both know that the years I was using his middle name was not to attend stir anything up. Hope you both still love me.

[USG'60]

I gotta ask then, ol' buddy, why were you doing it? Search your heart.

[Thunder]

I gotta ask then, ol' buddy, why were you doing it? Search your heart.

I felt violated and betrayed. I can't think of anything else now. I'm drugged up. :-/

[PennyQuilts]

Oh Thunder.

[BDK]

Personally, I think we all need to step our game up.

[Spartan]

So what is your thought on the question that is being discussed in this thread?

I think people are too defensive on this board. They get their little feelings hurt if you express anything less than totally positive or even suggest how things could be better, or -gasp- just speak honestly about things. Some people want us all to be little vapid cheerleaders incapable of thinking for ourselves. I think the ability to speak honestly is paramount, and that involves criticizing sometimes. And I think above all, some people can not an honest discussion.

I also think in the politics forum some people are too tied up in their ideology to understand things in real terms. We do nothing but talk past each other on this forum. I stay out of the politics board and whenever I criticize a city policy, I always expect at least 3 angry responses and 3 agreeing responses.

I know this sounds elitist and condescending, but I really do think some people just don't have very high intelligence and aren't capable of handling an honest, sharp, critical discussion. They get overly defensive and then start making personal attacks. The personal attacks on this forum actually bother me a lot, usually I ignore them, but sometimes I get annoyed and forget that it's just the internet and respond in-kind. The fact that many people know me in real life means I should be above getting tied up in online fights, but sometimes it is too tempting to read a post full of idiotic arguments laced with personal attacks and not respond.

If people acted this defensive and attacking in real life, I wouldn't even know how to react. I am used to having reasonable debates with people, but there are some people you just CAN NOT debate with, and I think a lot of those people are HERE on this board unfortunately.

[Spartan]

Oh and a few extremely prolific posters on here are hyper-bitter. That makes things difficult.

[Questor]

Even if it were the case that person x and y had wildly different intelligence levels or simply very different world views, they should still be able to interact and learn from one another without wanting to say mean things or hunt the other guy down in real life for a Bricktown back-alley beat-down. :-) I actually have to wonder if the problem isn't so called "emotional quotient/intelligence." I honestly don't think the people who hold their emotions on their sleeve realize that is what they do. I honestly don't think that the people who replied early-on in this thread offering advise to others while loading up their post with words and phrases designed to incite hostility know what they are doing.

I think as a society EQ is what we are losing and is what is taking a big toll on our civilization, and I think that comes out clearly in written form. I often think that the 'art of polite conversation' has been lost and that we would be so much better off if that weren't the case. The ability for one to get their point across without sounding acrimonious, and the skill of listening to nuanced language and reading between the lines for its meaning, is not what it once was. Or maybe we haven't lost it, maybe it is still there but is being dwarfed by the ever-growing legions of people who now have something to say.

Sadly, none of that will be solved here. Perhaps the best advise is for everyone to always try to put yourself in the other person's shoes and start out by giving them the benefit of the doubt. So often it seems like person x says something and person y comes right in and "corrects" them incessantly. That's just wrong on many levels. I think if you treat a subject like you are a teacher and try to explain your point of view to others, and if the other person listens to that point of view, takes it in and analyzes it, asks questions or offers up an explanation of their different point of view, we would all be a lot better off. Especially with topics like politics there is rarely a definitely "correct" answer.

[CuatrodeMayo]

The first thing I do when visiting OKCTalk is click "what's new".

Not seeing political posts populate that list has been the single best improvement made to this site, bar none.

[USG'60]

I like it like that too, and I hope it would stay that way if we make any other changes or limitations. I never look at Politics until I am in the mood for it.

[PennyQuilts]

I like it like that too, and I hope it would stay that way if we make any other changes or limitations. I never look at Politics until I am in the mood for it.

I also like that politics is an area that requires you to make a special effort to see what is going on there.

[Thunder]

Well.... I'm not sure what exactly it has been doing since Pete took Politics out of New Posts list. I just checked clicking New Posts and each thread/topic does show what section of the forum it is in. They can either click to read/view or not. The only side effect to this change is that it forces us to manually go into Politics to see what is going on. Not criticizing my brother, Pete, just my comment on that. :-)