Do you care what other CAF posters think of you?

[Xantippe]

I think that this kind of “Church Lady” style of being subtly uncharitable, sadly may be more common on a Christian/Catholic forum than a secular one.

Another passive-aggressive posting strategy I have noticed is to heavily imply something very uncharitable such as implying one’s opponent in a topic is Hell-bound.

“I’ll be praying for you” is one utterance that can be very insulting if in the context of “obviously you are a horrible sinner who needs to be prayed for the way St. Monica prayed for St. Augustine”.

Yet when called out upon it, such passive aggressive posters will adamantly deny they ever meant such a thing, and claim THEY are the victims of hostile posters who are uncharitably “twisting my words”.

Then there’s the “say very insulting uncharitable things” followed by a platitude like “have a blessed day” and think they are now immune from any charges of being uncharitable because “but LOOK I wished them a blessed day, so obviously I didn’t mean to be uncharitable”!

Oh my goodness, yes.

 

[Xantippe]

The addition of avatars (which was probably 8 years ago by now ) has both helped and hurt in this regard. If a poster has a unique and recognizable avatar, I can more easily connect their posts. But then some users have the same avatars, so then I sometimes confuse their posts. “Wow, poster ABC is really more snarky that usual today! O wait, that’s because it’s really poster CBA.”

Yeah.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The addition of avatars (which was probably 8 years ago by now ) has both helped and hurt in this regard. If a poster has a unique and recognizable avatar, I can more easily connect their posts. But then some users have the same avatars, so then I sometimes confuse their posts. “Wow, poster ABC is really more snarky that usual today! O wait, that’s because it’s really poster CBA.”

I am also pretty certain there are case where inactive poster ABC’s account gets hacked by poster CBA, who then commences to use that account after it has been idle for months or even years. Not sure if such is done by banned posters or just those who have a sock-puppeting hobby.

Either that or something very dramatic happened to that poster during his or her time away, that resulted in them undergoing a complete personality change and/or caused them to change all of their previously held political positions upon their return.

 

[CatholicFireman]

**

Do you care what other CAF posters think of you?

**

Nope.

 

[Joe_5859]

I am also pretty certain there are case where inactive poster ABC’s account gets hacked by poster CBA, who then commences to use that account after it has been idle for months or even years. Not sure if such is done by banned posters or just those who have a sock-puppeting hobby.

Either that or something very dramatic happened to that poster during his or her time away, that resulted in them undergoing a complete personality change and/or caused them to change all of their previously held political positions upon their return.

I wouldn’t be surprised. I can’t say that I can recall personally observing any posters really flip flop like that. I’m pretty slow when it comes to observing such things, though. I mean, I know there are people who do the whole “sock puppet” thing or (for whatever reason) like to create and post under some online persona that doesn’t match who they really are. But I generally respond as if the person is sincere and honest.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I wouldn’t be surprised. I can’t say that I can recall personally observing any posters really flip flop like that. I’m pretty slow when it comes to observing such things, though. I mean, I know there are people who do the whole “sock puppet” thing or (for whatever reason) like to create and post under some online persona that doesn’t match who they really are. But I generally respond as if the person is sincere and honest.

I can think of a poster who was eventually banned, who started out as a strident Traditionalist Catholic, and ended as a very anti-Catholic fundamentalist literally accusing the Church of being the Whore of Babylon. Either an actual fundamentalist converted him over the course of a couple months, or he was a troll.

Not that extreme flip-flops don’t happen in real life. Anyone remember how Arianna Huffington started out as an extreme right-winger? Then she claimed she “saw the light” and became a liberal, albeit not a particularly extreme one. I have no idea if she was ever sincere about her beliefs or just going along with whatever got her the most attention.

 

[Irishmom2]

“I’ll be praying for you” is one utterance that can be very insulting if in the context of “obviously you are a horrible sinner who needs to be prayed for the way St. Monica prayed for St. Augustine”.

Yet when called out upon it, such passive aggressive posters will adamantly deny they ever meant such a thing, and claim THEY are the victims of hostile posters who are uncharitably “twisting my words”.

Then there’s the “say very insulting uncharitable things” followed by a platitude like “have a blessed day” and think they are now immune from any charges of being uncharitable because “but LOOK I wished them a blessed day, so obviously I didn’t mean to be uncharitable”!

Oh yes! As if all of the negative they just said is okay because they say, "I am praying for you, really, I am! "

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I can think of a poster who was eventually banned, who started out as a strident Traditionalist Catholic, and ended as a very anti-Catholic fundamentalist literally accusing the Church of being the Whore of Babylon. Either an actual fundamentalist converted him over the course of a couple months, or he was a troll.

Not that extreme flip-flops don’t happen in real life. Anyone remember how Arianna Huffington started out as an extreme right-winger? Then she claimed she “saw the light” and became a liberal, albeit not a particularly extreme one. I have no idea if she was ever sincere about her beliefs or just going along with whatever got her the most attention.

Wow, do you have a good memory! I thought mine was good, but I don’t remember a poster like that at all.

I remember seeing Arianna on Phil Donohue a long time ago. But I don’t remember the context.

 

[Patavium]

I think there’s a few reasons:

1. The general decline in popularity of internet message board style forums as mentioned above
2. The moderation is a victim of it’s own success. Moderation here is excellent at removing overtly hostile, obscene or aggressively offensive material. However, it does not regulate personality/characterological traits which are not necessarily “wrong,” but still antisocial. This includes passive aggression, multiple repetitive overly long replies within one thread, advice w/o any attempt at empathy, the tendency to parse every statement in order to take offense, and beating a dead horse. And the worst on here: extensive post histories in which one is never wrong, and never concedes a point ever.
   These are all behaviors that tend to be corrected; if at all, by mockery and overt hostility, so when those are moderated successfully you eventually create a thriving safe zone for these second tier anti-social approaches to posting.

3) Most message boards have a dominant “voice” which you will notice posters deferring to and imitating over time. This forum still has a dominant female voice~the unflappable seen it all matriarch who has a wise word for every situation in and out of Church.** However, my impression is that the forum’s male alpha and dominant voice was previously the very impressive poster “JREducation,” but now the forum is sort of rudderless, with multiple competing styles such as the “I beg to differ my good man, and respectfully disagree for the 9879789689th time in this thread” voice, the “womankind has wronged all men but me most of all” voice, and the “It’s ok for me to be extra smarmy and condescending because I’m a JPII Catholic” voice among others.

I agree with this paragraph, especially the underlined and italicized line. I would probably add to my previous experience that some female posters think they know best about any situation to provide unsolicited reprimands even though they implicitly are equating knowing someone in real life with knowing someone through the internet. This is of course equivocating. I think that this falls into this dominant female voice.

I think the take away message is that some posters would always think they know better than you regardless if they have all the data or not. It’s better to take all these experiences with a grain of salt in case they repeat, sometimes they do

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I’m also pretty sure some who appear to be strident right-wingers are actually doing the same as Stephen Colbert did in his Comedy Central days, playing the part of a strident right-winger and not actually believing anything they state using that persona. I assume some of the strident left-wingers are the same, though I can’t think of any comedian in popular culture who specializes in that as a brand of humor.

ETA: I am not referring to any veteran forumers or Forum Masters here though many have strident political views, I am referring to the type who get banned pretty quickly, either for saying extremely uncharitable things about their opponents, or because they are found out to be trolls.

 

[exnihilo]

I have another reason I think might explain it, but it encompasses the internet as a whole.

I’ve observed is that in the 90s and most of the 2000s, you had to have a little bit of technical skill to get on the internet and post, so not just any person could get online and have a voice. Plus the cost of owning a connection and a computer were much higher then.

Now in the last 10 years things have become super simplified, the internet is super cheap in many places around the globe, and even the cheapest of Smart Phones can connect to the internet. The entry barrier has dropped which has allowed people who previously didn’t have a voice to have one.

This can be good and bad. It’s good because there are likely some people who can now better themselves and give a unique perspective, but the bad side is now people who aren’t willing to learn, people who have severe mental issues, and people who have huge cognitive dissonance problems now have a voice and can easily connect to other like minded people.

I think this bad side is why there are so many mega forums out there now that become huge echo chambers that breed irrational thought. People don’t care about facts, they always want to be right because no one ever taught them to deal with being wrong.

I do not know if it’s true, but being on the internet since I was 11, it sure seems like it.

Edit: Also to answer the original question. I don’t care, but I have defended other posters in private when others (most likely trolls) have posted nonsense about them.

That is a good point. Over the last few years I’ve noticed more and more people participating in forums (not necessarily this one) who seem to be barely literate. I understand lots of people online are not fluent in English. But some people I’m pretty sure are native English speakers but just have terrible writing skills, bad spelling, less comprehension and are less rational. I was thinking it was just millennials, who get blamed for everything. But it could be just a broader section of humanity.

 

[Xantippe]

That is a good point. Over the last few years I’ve noticed more and more people participating in forums (not necessarily this one) who seem to be barely literate. I understand lots of people online are not fluent in English. But some people I’m pretty sure are native English speakers but just have terrible writing skills, bad spelling, less comprehension and are less rational. I was thinking it was just millennials, who get blamed for everything. But it could be just a broader section of humanity.

Posting via cell phone also makes people sound worse.

 

[pianistclare]

I agree with this paragraph, especially the underlined and italicized line. I would probably add to my previous experience that some female posters think they know best about any situation to provide unsolicited reprimands even though they implicitly are equating knowing someone in real life with knowing someone through the internet. This is of course equivocating. I think that this falls into this dominant female voice.

I think the take away message is that some posters would always think they know better than you regardless if they have all the data or not. It’s better to take all these experiences with a grain of salt in case they repeat, sometimes they do

So I guess your answer would be “yes” you do care.

 

[Patavium]

So I guess your answer would be “yes” you do care.

If it struck home what I wrote to you then it struck home, I guess. I am just talking about my experience. No need to infer anything on it without having all the data.

 

[pianistclare]

If it struck home what I wrote to you then it struck home, I guess. I am just talking about my experience. No need to infer anything on it without having all the data.

Ha! no, it’s didn’t strike me at all, I just recall what you and who are talking about, that’s all.

Which makes me return to my original premise.
Everybody cares. Or else they wouldn’t be on a forum at all.