The charge of "dogpile"

[_honorentheos]

Prior to seeing this term used around here, I though a dogpile was a pile of dog poo.

H.

We used to use it as a call to jump on one of our friends while horsing around as young teens. In the context of playing nintendo, usually. Also used it in football to refer to "piling on" after a play.

[_MsJack]

I had a couple of examples in mind when I created this thread. One of them was most certainly a lot of what occurs over at MADB/MDDB. When I had my conflict with Dan Peterson over the summer of 2010, I recall feeling like a lot of the attacks on me over there were nothing but senseless dog piling. Like people were just posting whatever they could on the threads in a desperate attempt at damage control via thread cluttering. I remember, at one point, the moderators even went in and deleted three pages worth of comments from some of the usual thread-cluttering suspects.

I also had in mind a conflict that I had with a well-known Bloggernacle blogger on a thread over at Times & Seasons. This blogger was rude to me without provocation and made a pretty embarrassing display in the thread in question (several people rebuked her while the thread was still going on; she didn't apologize, but she did dial back her behavior). I had in mind to let the whole thing go once the thread was closed, but then I learned that she had started a new thread at her blog further responding to (and badly misrepresenting) my arguments, so I started a thread at my own blog showcasing her terrible behavior at T&S and complaining about this misrepresentation. While my blog doesn't normally get a lot of traffic, T&S surprised me by linking to the thread in their sideblog, and soon my thread was full of comments from people around the Bloggernacle who felt this blogger had also treated them pretty terribly. I'd had no idea that so many people were upset at her, and that they would use my post to air their grievances over her.

Then some of her friends began complaining about my post. What was their complaint? That I was hosting a "dogpile" on her. They didn't try to defend her behavior or argue that I was just as bad; they didn't call for their friend to apologize to all of the people she'd offended. Instead, they just attacked the fact that so many people were complaining about her poor behavior. "Dogpile."

(Well, okay, one person did claim I was just as bad, but it was a transparently terrible argument. When the original thread was in progress, I had gritted my teeth and told myself not to return fire in kind at all, because as soon as I did, her fans would use it to start insisting that "I gave as good as I got," even if what I said was ten times tamer than what she said. I'm still glad that I did.)

Something pretty similar happened with my "misogyny" thread from last year. As if it were my fault that so many people found William Schryver's behavior objectionable.

Those were some of the big examples that I had in mind when writing this thread.

honorentheos ~ I think when one is in the heat of an exchange it's not easy to self-assess where one has not met the minimum standard you outlined above of "acting no worse than the person with whom they were engaged".

I think that's very true. I can't speak for others, but I have a private blog where I sometimes discuss heated Internet conflicts, as well as a number of good friends who have been willing to tell me when I am out of line, or when I need to just walk away and stop dealing with idiots. I'm not always happy to hear what they have to say right away, but usually if I give it some time, I'll come around.

For a different take on the phenom, consider this article - http://voices.yahoo.com/the-mob-mentali ... 88241.html

It's an interesting article, but I'm not sure how well it describes anything taking place at MDB. I think some of the most independent-minded, confident, and substantive posters at MDB are some of those most commonly accused of "mob mentality."

Individual bad behaviour is another topic entirely. And impossible to decide in any way that wouldn't turn ugly.

I don't really know what you mean by this. Thank you for your thoughtful comments just the same.

-----------------------

[by the way, I didn't name the Bloggernacle blogger or link to the thread in question because I don't want this thread to become about her. If anyone wants the links, please let me know.]

[_bcspace]

As for dog piling, I've experienced it quite a few times here but never complained.

This is true. When I was posting on the postmo during its early days, I would receive a rapid fire of posts of which I was told that I should respond to all. I couldn't keep up with the dogpiling. I find that critics do this with LDS posters. They pile so much dog crap on the LDS poster that they can't get out from under.

However, i called it a circling by the wolves on the postmo. It is a good hunting tactic by the critics. But not exactly fair.

And then if you don't respond to every post, you must somehow be incapable of answering or avoiding.

Prior to seeing this term used around here, I though a dogpile was a pile of dog poo.

In the context of LDS criticism, that's how I see it. A dog pile is a dog pile.

[_sock puppet]

"Dogpiling." What is it, and should it be treated as a bad thing in itself?

Dictionary.com gives the following definition:

When many people post unfriendly responses in short order to a single posting, they are sometimes said to "dogpile" or "dogpile on" the person to whom they're responding. For example, when a religious missionary posts a simplistic appeal to alt.atheism, he can expect to be dogpiled.

So, is it automatically a bad thing for many people to post unfriendly responses to a single posting in a short amount of time?

To use a recent MDB example without naming names, there was a thread posted yesterday about Elizabeth Smart. Within seven minutes, four people had posted in the thread objecting to thread title (most of them with very strong language). The thread has not been up for a day and now ten people have posted in the thread speaking out against the title of the OP.

How come nobody has come to the defense of the OP and attacked the other posters for "dogpiling" him? Maybe because most of us agree that the OP was ill-conceived and inappropriate and deserved to be denounced by multiple people in a short amount of time?

If the latter is true, then calling out "dogpile" is not, in itself, a particularly meaningful criticism. Some arguments and behaviors are bound to evoke a negative reaction from many different people. Why is it a bad thing if those many different people choose to speak up on the matter? Likewise, some posters or bloggers or blog commentators have a bad habit of being rude, nasty, or outright cruel to those they engage in disagreements with. Is it really so incredible that a person who has acted poorly around a high number of people is likely to have those people speak out against him/her when a good opportunity to do so presents itself?

I feel like I've seen the charge of "dogpile" quite a bit in my last few years of commenting on blogs and message boards. And more and more, I feel like it's become the last line of defense for people who wish to defend those who have engaged in behavior which is ultimately indefensible. When you can't show that a person was justified in acting badly, or that they only acted as poorly as the people they attacked, or that their behavior wasn't really all that bad, what do you do? When you can't show that an argument is not as bad as everyone is making it sound, that it can stand on its own merits, what do you do?

Well, cry "dogpile" and attempt to guilt people for daring to react to bad behavior or refute poor arguments, apparently.

Or in other words, "dogpile": most of the time, it's just another thought-terminating cliché.

There is one place where I believe the charge of "dogpile" is valid. I think that it's okay to say "dogpile" when people are not really responding to or engaging someone's position, but are instead only trying to drown out someone's voice in a tidal wave of noisiness.

Unfortunately, I think people who use "dogpile" in the first sense have completely ruined it for those who wish to use it in the second sense.

Thoughts?

I agree. The person under the proverbial 'dog pile' can push them all off with one good argument post for his or her position--assuming he or she has even one good argument for the position taken that provoked the 'dog pile'. 'Dog piling' is only a problem for those that take indefensible positions.

[_moksha]

When it happens here, it makes me wonder how many rebukes are necessary and how many people need to say me too in order to make their point emphatic. Sometimes dog piles have added their bit of dog poo, such as questioning Wade's sexual preference*.




* Especially unnecessary considering the long history between Wade and Jane Roe!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Something pretty similar happened with my "misogyny" thread from last year. As if it were my fault that so many people found William Schryver's behavior objectionable.

Well, you did [content of private messages deleted]. Then you organized, and encouraged it.

Ya kinda were responsible for that one, Jack.

- VRDRC

[Guest]

[Deleted]

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm not complaining about anything Ms. Umbridge. You're the one who [content of private messages deleted]. I'd post your PM's but I'd be banned for doing it (which you'd love I'm sure).

[MODERATOR NOTE by Shades: Actually, mentioning the content of PMs so that the reader can get the gist of what was contained therein constitutes a violation of that rule. It isn't necessary to actually quote the PM in order to be a violation.]

You are a horrible person. I'd recommend a moment of self-reflection.

[derailment deleted]

Hopefully people will wake up to this psychotic behavior and stop abetting it.

Cheers!

- VRDRC

[Guest]

[Deleted]

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yes, yes... My long history of defending women's rights and homosexual rights certainly abets your assertions of being a sexist... But whatever.

- VRDRC

[image deleted]