Rude Online Behavior in Mormon Discussions

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Rude Online Behavior in Mormon Discussions

Post by _Drifting »

Yahoo Bot wrote:"Mormon Discussions" generically, and not specifically here.

There's an interesting Wall Street Journal article today, entitled "Why We Are So Rude Online."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592404578030351784405148.html?KEYWORDS=rude+online

It talks about aggression, anonymity and stuff like that. One quote was interesting:

"People who spent more time on-line and who had a high percentage of close ties in their network were more likely to engage in binge eating and to have a greater body mass index, as well to have more credit card debt and a lower credit score," citing a to-be-published research study from Columbia.

Also, in IQ tests, people who spent more time on Facebook "were more likely to give up on difficult tasks more quickly."

Lots of discussion about uninhibited behavior when posting anonymously, material I've discussed before.

There's even an account of a religious debate involving a TV announcer in Thousand Oaks who talks about debating the question of whether Mormons are Christians, and how he was called an idiot.

It seems that people who spend a lot of time in front of computers for entertainment are more naturally the type to not be likely to hang out in gyms, not likely to have lots of attraction from the opposite sex, more likely to be overweight and not interested in being attractive, not be outdoorsy, not go to parties to hook up, not to exchange a roach with a friend, not read a book, more likely to have bookshelves full of videos rather than books. Likely they turn to online entertainment as their only available avenue for social interaction. So stereotypical but it must be true; see Kevin Smith's character in Live Free and Die Hard. Wayne Knight's ("Newman") character in Jurassic Park. Or so this pending Columbia report suggests.

My recent more active foray into the other board showed me that faithful defenders of the Church can be just as nasty as critics of the Church here, except the faithful defenders tend to use fewer cuss words, sexual references or rely upon excretory references. It is also evident to me that both critics and defenders might attempt to attack a person's real life relationships, jobs, or church connections. The faithful defenders board, however, has lots of "nicer" people, in the sense that they seem to be good Christians and behave such way, but there are also people who think they are good Christians who behave inappropriately. (Just so that I am not accused of being hypocritical, I certainly put myself in the latter category.)

Interesting stuff. I use the DSM-IV manual in my work and know that there is a draft mental disorder diagnosis which has been pending which relies upon anti- or non-social online behavior as a means to declare a new mental disorder. It hasn't made the manual, however.



I suppose there is an additional discussion point about wether this anonymity allowing us the feeling of freedom to vent and challenge and assert and question and explore etc is a bad thing or a good thing.

I would suggest that discussions about Mormonism within the Church structure itself is something that is very carefully controlled, managed and restricted. That isn't a good thing IMHO, which is why members are leaving in droves and why message boards like this one flourish as an outlet for pent up discussion.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Rude Online Behavior in Mormon Discussions

Post by _Chap »

Darth J wrote:I'm pretty sure that Mktavish is either taking too many drugs, or not enough.


I concur. It is wrong to mock the afflicted, so I shall desist.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Rude Online Behavior in Mormon Discussions

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Yahoo Bot wrote:The faithful defenders board, however, has lots of "nicer" people, in the sense that they seem to be good Christians and behave such way, but there are also people who think they are good Christians who behave inappropriately.

In my experience on "the other board," most of those who responded to my posts were nasty and non-recognizable as "Christians." Pahoran, of course, comes to mind, but there were many others.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Rude Online Behavior in Mormon Discussions

Post by _Kishkumen »

Yahoo Bot wrote:"Mormon Discussions" generically, and not specifically here...


Thanks for this, Bot. It is good food for thought.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Yahoo Bot
_Emeritus
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: Rude Online Behavior in Mormon Discussions

Post by _Yahoo Bot »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Yahoo Bot wrote:The faithful defenders board, however, has lots of "nicer" people, in the sense that they seem to be good Christians and behave such way, but there are also people who think they are good Christians who behave inappropriately.

In my experience on "the other board," most of those who responded to my posts were nasty and non-recognizable as "Christians." Pahoran, of course, comes to mind, but there were many others.


There are some really fine people there who do not descend to personal invective. Kevin C, Jeremy, Brant, Cal come to mind. They all dislike my views but they are nice about it. Sure, there are a few here, but lots more there.

The point of the opening post is to show that this particular study seems to indicate that personal invective seems to be the norm on discussion boards. I can go weeks in discussions at work and with litigation adversaries and at church and community stuff such as my biking and running clubs without hearing any such stuff.

Perhaps that shows we should not take offense at what is the norm, and provide much greater respect for those who deviate from the norm. Again, I don't claim to occupy a spot at the top and reserve the right to bash where appropriate.
_lulu
_Emeritus
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Rude Online Behavior in Mormon Discussions

Post by _lulu »

Yahoo Bot wrote:Bundy wasn't LDS.

The myths of Mormonism.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Rude Online Behavior in Mormon Discussions

Post by _Chap »

Yahoo Bot wrote: ...

Perhaps that shows we should not take offense at what is the norm, and provide much greater respect for those who deviate from the norm. Again, I don't claim to occupy a spot at the top and reserve the right to bash where appropriate.


I can only agree.

There are however limits to the amount of coarse abuse and deliberate irelevancy that should be tolerated by those in charge of such boards, and Shades' multiply forums deal with that very neatly.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Eric

Re: Rude Online Behavior in Mormon Discussions

Post by _Eric »

I guess I have no other option but to conclude that, below the long list of other things Robert Dale Crockett has said to/about me/anything, that he was also being a liar (woah unto him) about having lunch together (his treat).

That worries me, Bishop. Your stellar reputation for honesty might become tainted by this should it be misconstrued.

Settle for Brunch?
_Yahoo Bot
_Emeritus
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: Rude Online Behavior in Mormon Discussions

Post by _Yahoo Bot »

lulu wrote:
Yahoo Bot wrote:Bundy wasn't LDS.

The myths of Mormonism.


It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, bu what is the proof that he was a Mormon? I know he was posthumously dunked, but before? Says who and with what proof?
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Rude Online Behavior in Mormon Discussions

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Yahoo Bot wrote:There are some really fine people there who do not descend to personal invective. Kevin C, Jeremy, Brant, Cal come to mind.

True enough; I never had any problem with them.

Perhaps that shows we should not take offense at what is the norm, and provide much greater respect for those who deviate from the norm.

Fair enough.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Post Reply