The End of Civility?

[ottohauser1977]

Well, I will strive that people see me less of the latter. Presumably, they already know that I'm not the former (though I'm moving past my homophobic ways).

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, I will strive that people see me less of the latter. Presumably, they already know that I'm not the former (though I'm moving past my homophobic ways).

Forward motion is always a good thing!

 

[ottohauser1977]

Yes, but I admit that it is tough. Particularly where marriage is concerned. Most straight men don't even like marriage, so why are gay men so eager to pursue it? I understand the lesbians, since they're women, but I don't get why any man would be interested in monogamy, regardless of his sexuality.

But that's probably bias, and I admit that. I don't see why they want marriage so much.

 

[freshface]

I don't read his sig. I don't read him, either.

I end all exchanges with trash talkers like him right away, before an argument can brew. I don't have time for watching people like sr71 make idiots of themselves. I use iggy and their thrashing ends.

I have to admit that I'm entertained by the number of people who insist that they're ignoring someone in the middle of a response to that someone.

Seems to me like you either ignore someone or you don't. Of course, I also think that announcing to the world that you are ignoring someone is one of the ruder things you can do on the forum. Ignore if you like, but does it require a public announcement?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I have to admit that I'm entertained by the number of people who insist that they're ignoring someone in the middle of a response to that someone.

But I'm not responding to him. I was responding to Stella Omega.

I'd like to say it puzzles me that you missed that detail, but actually... it doesn't. People are predictable like that.

 

[matriarch]

Yes, but I admit that it is tough. Particularly where marriage is concerned. Most straight men don't even like marriage, so why are gay men so eager to pursue it? I understand the lesbians, since they're women, but I don't get why any man would be interested in monogamy, regardless of his sexuality.

But that's probably bias, and I admit that. I don't see why they want marriage so much.

My word you like generalisatons don't you. 'Most straight ment don't even like marriage'........sure.

and....'I understand the lesbians, since they're women'.......another one.

Maybe if you were to look at people as people, and stop putting them in pigeon holes or imposing stereotypical characteristics on them, you might understand better.

As for the marriage thing, it's about recognition and legality. Without them, lesbians and gay couples have no rights. No rights whatsoever.

Oh. Welcome to the AH. Hang around a bit more, and you might understand a bit more.

~Auntie~

 

[Le Jacquelope]

My word you like generalisatons don't you. 'Most straight ment don't even like marriage'........sure.

and....'I understand the lesbians, since they're women'.......another one.

Sooo wait a second.

Generalizing men is okay when 3113 and other misandrists do it, but suddenly ottohauser1977 does it, and it's wrong?

Maybe if you were to look at people as people, and stop putting them in pigeon holes or imposing stereotypical characteristics on them, you might understand better.

Wow. Maybe if people just stopped pigeon holing people here altogether, we'd probably have a little more civility.

I love the switch-on, switch-off rules thing that passes for morality on Lit.

 

[gauchecritic]

Rules? who said anything about rules?

I wouldn't call advising someone (however rudely you may see it) about how you might get along better in a community you've just volunteered to join is making (switching on) a rule.

Otto didn't preface his generalisations with "It seems to me...." or even IMHO, he simply stated them and Matt called him on it with a widely held AH opinion that people are people and not queers, lezzers, whitebreads, pakis, chinks, wops, yids and et cetera.


Eyup Otto (if you've read this far) Welcome to the zoo. (or is that willkomen? but I wouldn't say that anyway, otherwise I just burst into song)

 

[neonlyte]

I've only been hanging around the Lit forums for about 18 months. Some of the folks with more longevity might be able to recall periods of time when the general tone was as nasty as it seems to be now.

Jeez... it seems so much longer.

The AH isn't 'nasty'. Many forums are far nastier than this. Oddly, writing forum are particularly uncivil, and engender a tendancy to form groupings for self preservation (which is why I'm in Bel's posse 'cos he's man enough to wear a kilt in the run up to the election).

One of the problems with critique, whether of writing or of opinion, is most individuals do not know how to deliver it and even more don't know how to receive it. And we don't do 'kiss and make-up' when were not sure if 'mooningforyou' is a person or a proclivity.

 

[Guest]

The incivility toward newbies like myself might well be a factor.

Your incivility in your initial posts may be a factor as well.

I'll repost that here.

I find it amazing that you've constantly insulted people since you arrived and are now shocked that people haven't dropped to one knee to welcome you.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=29029949&postcount=60


Otto - your first four or five posts here were snarky criticisms of the U.S. citizens here and their concerns about the election. You've posted other things since that time, but for your first posts? Let's just say it isn't a really positive way to drop into the middle of an established forum and attempt to communicate - with anyone, regulars or no.

What you are calling clique and hazing is no more than some people saying, "Who the fuck is this, and why is he insulting everyone here?" You have been welcomed, by the way, by more than one person.

Here are your first five posts and my initial reaction to you.

I love this country, having seen far worse under Honecker in East Germany. Trust me, Bush is awful, yes. So is Palin, from what I can tell. But they're not Honecker, but any means, let alone Hitler. Nor is Obama, for that matter. Though, unlike my fellow Germans, I am no admirer of him.

Life under Communism cured me of the "audacity of hope". The only hope for me is what I seize for myself. That's all the audacity I need.

As for McCain, he's a bit old to be picking an overzealous and underqualified "hockey mom" as his running mate, don't you think?

Still, this isn't tough times. Tough times is life under a one party state, with rationing and Stasi monitoring even your sex life.

Mind you, I was 12 when the Berlin Wall fell, but I remember a few terrible things.

I have a friend with whom I argue about politics frequently. He mentioned Lit with disgust, which intrigued me. So I signed up. We're both German immigrants, but I am not as jaded as Karl. He remembers the order of Communism with some nostalgia. I don't. I often wonder why he came here, if he's so disenchanted with democracy and capitalism.

Though, to be fair, Obama's more like the Christian Democrats than like the Socialists in many ways. American socialism is tame by European standards.

I'm voting for Nader this year, but that's a separate issue. Obama is too corrupt for me, as is McCain. I prefer Nader's honesty and dedication to public service. But, then, unlike Karl, I am a naturalized citizen of the USA, not a citizen of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

I won't worry about who wins that much. McCain is liberal for a Republican, though Palin isn't. And Obama is a touch of a demagogue. Either way, someone will rein in Wall Street's excesses. Though that's all they are. Excesses of capitalism. Even at its worst, capitalism isn't half as corrupt as Communism.

Until you've lived under a one-party state, you can't begin to understand real campaign violations. Trust me, this stuff is tame, no matter which party does it.

Myself, I lean more toward the cyclical view, especially in light of the pendulum shift between business and government. This is a useful, if precarious balance. Too much of a swing, and people naturally react to the overreaching by either government or corporations. The excess power breeds corruption and triggers a backlash. This is because of fundamental facts of human nature. Particularly, we have free will, but we also have irrational impulses. These impulses often cloud judgment, leading to mistakes and reactions.

So, the pendulum shifts again. For now. Until the Left expands government too much again, and the Right takes advantage of a new backlash. And they will, because they are human.

So he lacks people skills. But he probably wants to use tough love. Why don't you confront him first, and only then resort to informing? Let him see how badly he has treated you.

Of course, I wouldn't let this bother me, but I've dealt with far worse hazing in my lifetime.

Otto - first, welcome to the AH.

Secondly, on how many threads are you going to post the same damn thing?

Yes, we get it. No one had it as bad as you, no one has it as bad as you. The U.S. is filled with silly people arguing about silly things. Certainly not as important as you and your history and your country.

Thirdly - you're certainly welcome to contribute more than just a complaint.

My point was to make a comparison to give the posters here some perspective. That's all. Not to attack Americans, since I am one now. Just trying to demonstrate that you're merely speaking of corruption, not of tyranny.

Right.

 

[Luke's Angel]

I've only been hanging around the Lit forums for about 18 months. Some of the folks with more longevity might be able to recall periods of time when the general tone was as nasty as it seems to be now.

Over the last year and a half, the AH and several other forums (most notably the GB) seem to have shown a marked increase in shooting from the hip, pointless argument, sniping, name-calling, backstabbing, and character assassination. It's amazing to watch intelligent peoples' posts devolve into nothing more than an endless round of "You said... / No, I didn't!"

(Let me hasten to add that the above does not apply to everyone who posts.)

This may be a cyclical thing. It might also be due to an influx of people whose online personalities simply don't play well together. Or maybe an increase in the level of general assholery.

Or, it could be stress due to the building political, financial, and global insecurities.

Here's the Mayo Clinic's rundown on stress-related symptoms:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/stress-symptoms/SR00008_D

You'll notice that under "Effects of Stress on Your Thoughts and Feelings" are items such as anger, mood swings, feeling insecure, confusion, forgetfulness, resentment, inability to concentrate, and seeing only the negatives.

"Effects of Stress on Your Behaviors" include angry outbursts, relationship conflicts, and blaming others.

Sound familiar?

So, while there remain a number of people who aren't engaging in eternal recriminations and poo-flinging--is this the end of general civility on Lit? Or only until things improve in the "real" world?

The overwelming majority of people under approximately eighty years of age have no idea what it means to be civil. The word isn't even used to describer the same concept anymore. Yes people use the word civility but it's come to be a truncated imitation of what it used to mean.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

OTTOHAUSER

The issue of Gay marriage is about normalcy by proxy. Gays are like oxen who want to be bulls. The whole planet knows Gays arent bulls but they want the certificate that makes them 'legal bulls.'

 

[Selena_Kitt]

OTTOHAUSER

The issue of Gay marriage is about normalcy by proxy. Gays are like oxen who want to be bulls. The whole planet knows Gays arent bulls but they want the certificate that makes them 'legal bulls.'

No, they just want the same rights and privileges as every other mammal.

 

[gauchecritic]

No, they just want the same rights and privileges as every other mammal.

Except platypusses. Freaks

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Except platypusses. Freaks

*snerk*

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SELENA

Naaah. They just wanna play house and people not laugh at them.

 

[Guest]

Except platypusses. Freaks

But they are very supportive of civil rights for all sorts of mammals.

Even non-Yanqui rights.

 

[ottohauser1977]

Your incivility in your initial posts may be a factor as well.

I'll repost that here.

I find it amazing that you've constantly insulted people since you arrived and are now shocked that people haven't dropped to one knee to welcome you.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=29029949&postcount=60


Otto - your first four or five posts here were snarky criticisms of the U.S. citizens here and their concerns about the election. You've posted other things since that time, but for your first posts? Let's just say it isn't a really positive way to drop into the middle of an established forum and attempt to communicate - with anyone, regulars or no.

What you are calling clique and hazing is no more than some people saying, "Who the fuck is this, and why is he insulting everyone here?" You have been welcomed, by the way, by more than one person.

Here are your first five posts and my initial reaction to you.















Right.

Evidently, I caused unintended offense. I tend to be a bit sardonic at times. Apologies for any unintended insults. That may have been a factor in my divorce. But I could be wrong. I sometimes accidentally offend people.

 

[ottohauser1977]

My word you like generalisatons don't you. 'Most straight ment don't even like marriage'........sure.

and....'I understand the lesbians, since they're women'.......another one.

Maybe if you were to look at people as people, and stop putting them in pigeon holes or imposing stereotypical characteristics on them, you might understand better.

As for the marriage thing, it's about recognition and legality. Without them, lesbians and gay couples have no rights. No rights whatsoever.

Oh. Welcome to the AH. Hang around a bit more, and you might understand a bit more.

~Auntie~

Perhaps I did generalize. If I caused offense, it was not intentional, and I do apologize. I admit to being confused about this, based on the incongruity between my overall impression of my own sex and the conduct of male homosexuals.

As for lesbians, well, I don't think that I understand them any better than I do most women. That's probably why I'm divorced. I observe the behavior, but the logic for it often escapes me. That's probably why I'm not gay. Men are too easy to understand. Women are more of a challenge.

But again, that might be a generalization, and apparently those cause offense. I suppose that I tend to generalize in my observations, because my generalizations are a large part of what I have observed, at least in terms of conduct, and what that conducts suggests to me.

I certainly meant no offense. Just sharing my outlook. It's not totally flawed, just incomplete, like everyone's. None of us see the entire elephant, just part of it.

So it's more about legal status. That makes some sense. We heterosexuals tend to take that prerogative for granted, perhaps. It could be that when you don't have rights like marriage (though it still strikes me as odd to think of marriage as a right, rather than a social convention that has altered considerably through the various shifting social mores of history), you want it more than those who possess it. That was certainly true of those rights that I normally think of as rights. After all, acquiring civil liberties was a major breath of refreshing air to me and many others, once we had them. The West Germans, on the other hand, took it more for granted, or so it often seemed to me at the time. But when your neighbor could report you to the Stasi for a simple joke and they could spy on your most intimate moments, it's a major issue.

I suppose that I just find it a new thing to actually see people want to get married that badly. It's something that I haven't seen much of in the past (well, aside from my sister Ilsa, but that's another matter).

Again, not condemning gay marriage, just perplexed about the motivation to seek it.

Also, my exposure to the homosexual community is somewhat limited, since homosexuality tends to be viewed as verboten both where I am and where I live now (let's just say that the homophobia of East Texas rivals anything in East Germany). So I don't encounter open homosexuals or lesbians on a frequent basis.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That's a very decent and civil response, Otto. Well done on upholding the theme of the thread.

For what it's worth, that "whole elephant" thing seems to me to be at the bottom of quite a lot of generalizations that aren't intended in ugly ways. Most people have a relatively small group of other people whom they get to know well, and a lot of those (friends) are chosen because they already share similar interests. It can give anyone the impression that a trait is more universal than it actually is.

I think the chief thing is having the willingness - as I think Otto has fairly shown he has - to listen when someone else says, "You know, in my circle of friends, things don't typically work that way. I don't think it's a general truth for all of humanity." Then we all end up getting a more complete picture.

 

[ottohauser1977]

Wow. Maybe if people just stopped pigeon holing people here altogether, we'd probably have a little more civility.

I love the switch-on, switch-off rules thing that passes for morality on Lit.[/QUOTE]

Well spoken, sir.

 

[ottohauser1977]

That's a very decent and civil response, Otto. Well done on upholding the theme of the thread.

For what it's worth, that "whole elephant" thing seems to me to be at the bottom of quite a lot of generalizations that aren't intended in ugly ways. Most people have a relatively small group of other people whom they get to know well, and a lot of those (friends) are chosen because they already share similar interests. It can give anyone the impression that a trait is more universal than it actually is.

I think the chief thing is having the willingness - as I think Otto has fairly shown he has - to listen when someone else says, "You know, in my circle of friends, things don't typically work that way. I don't think it's a general truth for all of humanity." Then we all end up getting a more complete picture.

Well said. I like that Nietzsche always prefaced his statements by saying that "these are my truths", for instance.

 

[freshface]

So it's more about legal status. That makes some sense. We heterosexuals tend to take that prerogative for granted, perhaps. It could be that when you don't have rights like marriage (though it still strikes me as odd to think of marriage as a right, rather than a social convention that has altered considerably through the various shifting social mores of history), you want it more than those who possess it. That was certainly true of those rights that I normally think of as rights. After all, acquiring civil liberties was a major breath of refreshing air to me and many others, once we had them. The West Germans, on the other hand, took it more for granted, or so it often seemed to me at the time. But when your neighbor could report you to the Stasi for a simple joke and they could spy on your most intimate moments, it's a major issue.

I suppose that I just find it a new thing to actually see people want to get married that badly. It's something that I haven't seen much of in the past (well, aside from my sister Ilsa, but that's another matter).

Again, not condemning gay marriage, just perplexed about the motivation to seek it.

Also, my exposure to the homosexual community is somewhat limited, since homosexuality tends to be viewed as verboten both where I am and where I live now (let's just say that the homophobia of East Texas rivals anything in East Germany). So I don't encounter open homosexuals or lesbians on a frequent basis.

I think the exposure is a key point. When homosexuals go from being mysterious other to neighbor or coworker, you realize that they really aren't that different from you. Safe_Bet wrote about that on another thread recently. She and her wife live in California with their twin girls. Some of her neighbors belong to a conservative church that is stridently in favor of Prop 8 (taking away legal marriage for homosexuals in California). She overheard the husband in that marriage say that he didn't care what the pastor of their church said, she and Amy were good people with adorable children and he wouldn't be part of anything that hurt them. I would point out that sociologists estimate that 10% of the population is homosexual. I'm sure you know some.

I would say that part of the motivation in the US is the legal protection it provides you. When you're married, you become next-of-kin. It affects health insurance, benefits, custody of the children, hospital visitation. The list is long and varied. Suppose for a moment that you're in a long term relationship with another man. His family stridently disapproves of you and his lifestyle and cut off contact with him ten years ago because of it. Suppose further that he was married to a woman who died and that you and he are raising his children. Now suppose that he's seriously injured in a car accident. His family comes sweeping in and automatically are able to make all of the decisions regarding his care. You aren't allowed to see him even though he's the love of your life. They can fight for custody of the children and maybe even the house where you live. This couple's ability to protect themselves with powers of attorney etc. vary from state to state. Even if they had one valid for their own state, it might not protect them on vacation. As a woman, I can get all of those rights and benefits automatically if I marry a man. Why shouldn't a man be able to say the same thing? To me it's a simple matter of fairness.

Having been to both Berlin and East Texas, I have to ask why on earth you chose East Texas?

 

[Guest]

Evidently, I caused unintended offense. I tend to be a bit sardonic at times. Apologies for any unintended insults. That may have been a factor in my divorce. But I could be wrong. I sometimes accidentally offend people.

Accepted.

And quite frankly, many of us around here adore sarcasm.

It's just very difficult to tell a poster's intent if they are new to the forum.

Welcome to the AH.

 

[gauchecritic]

And quite frankly, many of us around here adore sarcasm.

Yeah, you do, you really do. (stealing rose)