Discussion»Questions»answerMug Members» Some folks ALWAYS show up for Donald Trump questions but never anything else. Are they one-dimensional? Are they narrowminded?
Interesting. I think we should test this with a scientific experiment before we rush to any conclusions. Why don't you try not to ask any Trump questions at all for a period of time- like maybe a week or so- and we'll see if, in fact, they stop talking altogether.
An owner of a QUESTION/Answer site suggesting a member temporarily stop asking legitimate and intelligent QUESTIONS? Isn't that like shooting yourself in the foot?
Sure I did. I publicly volunteered to make a trash bag dress and post a photo of myself in it if he would agree to talk about other things for a month. He didn't take me up on it. C'est la vie.
And, although I did giggle a bit while I wrote my answer, I meant it sincerely. AM obviously doesn't operate like a lot of other sites do. I have basically taken conventional "wisdom" about community management and thrown it out the window. Diversity, respect, and tolerance were the foundations of the site when we began setting goals for it. I don't think we ever talked bout how many people we wanted here- just the type of environment we wanted to create. If we can maintain that with thousands of posters- great. If not, so be it.
If I was running AM like a lot of community managers do, I wouldn't talk to people about the rules. If someone broke one, they'd get their slap on the hand and some admonishment. We'd probably remove more accounts. Conventional wisdom also suggests that when one person dominates, either in volume or on topic, that the site activity as a whole would suffer, and people will go. I have been told that repeatedly- that allowing that is me shooting myself in the foot. Perhaps it would be if my main concern was having hundreds or thousands of people posting at once. I really don't know if setting limits makes a difference, though, because I've never seen it in action. It's speculation.
At the end of the day, though, I don't really care about who leaves. I care about who stays. And, perhaps the community management fundamentals we apply serve as a "weeding out" tool. The people who don't share the site's values leave, effectively leaving us with just the type of tolerant, well-rounded, intelligent folks we want. It may make us smaller, but, again, size of site was never my goal.
But, yeah, I love science, psychology, and human behavior. I speculate fewer Trump questions wouldn't make a bit of difference. In fact, I hypothesize that, if there were no "Rosie" questions in the morning, there would be no questions at all, and then people would switch to complaining about how there were no questions or no intelligent questions. So, yeah, purely as a curiosity, I'd love to see what happened if no posts on Trump were made for a week. That's not a slight against Rosie. I genuinely want to know. Of course, she, and you, and our trash bag-loving friends, are all following the rules of the site. Whether anyone chooses to indulge me is irrelevant. I'm glad you're all here.
No, I wasn't aware of your suggestion to trashboy. Lol. In some way I find humor in that. Too bad it didn't work. If it had, they would have returned in 7 days anyway. The one thing that immediately came to mind, is it would be like having a stay of execution - you're merely delaying the inevitable. Lol
I do understand the tolerance thing, but the Rosie bashers don't exercise tolerance. So even though you want to weed out those that lack respect and tolerence, the truth is they remain. I certainly realize I have been in that group before, and I have tried to show restraint, but haven't always been successful.
Personally, I don't think limiting questions is the answer. If more people would ask more questions of their own, the volume of the questions they don't like wouldn't be as noticable to them. But you're probably right, people would be complaining about THAT. However, the fault would set on the shoulder's of the complainers for not contributing enough, so they'd only have themselves to blame.
I just think it's pretty sad that the bashing Rosie clan are allowed to continue. Does that emulate the kind of respect and tolerance you're trying to achieve? It doesn't sound like it to me.
Whether or not I remove things depends on the tone and context. If they are talking about a person and making judgments about another member's character, that falls under the respect guidelines and gets removed. If we're talking about a type of question or how moderation is handled, it usually stays. Most of the time, people are capable of staying on the topic, and as long as they do so without discussing a person in a derogatory way, so be it. If I've missed direct comments about a specific person, it was unintentional.
I agree with you on volume, and that's where I've tried to direct most folks. To "be the change" as it were. But, that's "work." So, it is what it is. The group, as a whole, has an incredible amount of power and can make the site whatever they want it to be. I hope they'll direct their energy to something beneficial and positive. And, it doesn't take much. In real life, if you smile at someone, odds are, they're gong to smile back. The same happens here too, just in words, and each interaction each of us has is an opportunity to spread positivity. We make the choice what kind of environment we want to be in with each post we make.
Diversity, respect, and tolerance should be shown not only in the members responses, but in the questions themselves. Alot of President Trumps questions indirectly and directly at times insult Trump supporters. Does this count as having no tolerance for them?
As far as respect goes, I remove things that are directed at an individual member or insults about a protected class- race, religion, etc. As far as tolerance goes, I think it comes from getting a better understanding of that which you don't care for or don't understand. If those discussions aren't allowed to happen, there will never be tolerance.
Let's say I have an intense dislike for something, and I say "People who like XYZ make no sense to me." or "I think people who XYZ don't understand they're harming society." You, as a firm supporter of XYZ, can talk to me and tell me why you support it. I may never agree with you, but I can learn to respect your opinion. That's tolerance. Something I might not have ever had if I hadn't spoken, and something I certainly wouldn't have ever gained if you hadn't spoken up and told me why you believe in it. The discussion, as uncomfortable as it may be, needs to happen if we're ever going to get anywhere. Now, you don't have to say "I believe in XYZ" in order to get your point across. You can cite studies or provide other examples or whatever. The point being, I'm never going to understand the "other side" if the other side never talks. I'll remain eternally ignorant. And, I'd like to think that most people who are on a Q&A site are actually interested in information and learning. We're sponges. Give me a compelling case on anything and I'll at least hear you out. Moreover, our discussions are here for everyone to read. You may never sway my opinion on XYZ, but maybe, just maybe, some other person is going to come by who thinks like I do, then read your rebuttal, and go "I never thought of it like that." That opportunity would not have happened if I removed the discussion. Our reach extends beyond the immediate discussion.
This is what makes tolerance a value of the site. It's not really about silencing people who are wrong or have unpopular opinions. It's about pulling out those awkward and hard discussions and making headway- finding common ground. Yes, I will shut down a discussion if I see it and it has become personal, but the rest... the rest I have faith in all of you to sort out.
A long time ago, when EP was closing and we got a bunch of newbies here, I explained this philosophy to someone who wanted a block feature. To paraphrase, she said "It's not my job to educate people. It's not my job to promote tolerance of my opinions. If I don't want to talk to someone, I shouldn't have to." Ok, she was right on the last part- she didn't have to talk to anyone. Nobody is under any requirement to answer anything, nor respond to anything. But, I believe we all have an obligation to society itself to educate others- to lift them up to a higher plane of understanding. And, we should all seek the same for ourselves.
I could sit here and police discussions all day long, and it would not serve any benefit. Nobody would learn anything. Nobody would ever grow. Nobody would ever become more tolerant. And, some people would still be offended by some of the content. While I value the social aspects of the site- the friendships and the bonding- I also want it to have more meaning than that. At the end of the day, I want to believe that we made a difference somewhere. That we bridged gaps. That we've found ways to accept others, despite our differences. That we lifted people up. Pretending intolerance doesn't exist won't make it disappear. It's like shutting off the lights to make your house look cleaner.
Diversity is a different plane. Everyone gets a chance to have the floor. One person talking does not silence another. So, talk. Educate. Build tolerance in yourself and in others. Or, shut out the lights and pretend it doesn't exist. That part is your call. I hope you, and all the other brilliant Muggers out there, will choose to make a real difference, but the choice is yours.
There were anti-Tilde protests from exactly one person, if I remember correctly, but those protests from that one member were voluminous and plentiful over a very short period of time. I, as the purveyor of tilde-related content, found those protests humorous, and I responded to them in kind. The gist of her protests revolved around what she considered hypocrisy: I spoke out against Spammelization of anti-Trump postings, yet I littered the website with tildes all the time. Our banter went on for many days, the protestor and I, she expressing her vehement opposition to tildes to the point of questioning my sanity, and me, laughing off the seriousness of it all with every turn. My tongue-in-cheek replies (yes, laced with tildes and with pro-Tilde attitude) only spurned further protest, culminating in the protestor being so frustrated that she finally threw in the towel and conceded. She stated that it wasn't worth her mental wellbeing to fight over such a trivial issue. I took to heart her vanquished stance, and seeing that she's been a dear friend of mine since years ago on the defunct legacy AnswerBag, offered the olive branch by voluntarily initiating a self-imposed moratorium on tildes for 30 days. I held up my end of the bargain, and as a result, did not offend ANYONE with my tildization. After the 30 days, I even tapered off considerably how much I included tildes in my postings. The moral of the story is this: if Spammelina chooses to consider others' perspectives and take into account her effect on people, she just may voluntarily cut down on what she's been informed rubs them the wrong way. She has not chosen to do so. She apparently throws it in our collective faces with daily barrages of one-ended splatterings that offend, and the devil-may-care as to what others think. MANY former members have bolted, citing her content as the primary reason.
In other words, drowning out bad behavior does not change the fact that it's bad behavior. Coming here to be part of a group but at the same time, offering up a hearty f-you to what the group thinks and feels about her actions.
Benedict Arnold 