Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

I've been on Gaia for awhile now. I was here when the ED was first introduced and all kinds of other "site firsts." When I joined Gaia I was just interested in the pretty pixels. I had fun playing with my little avatar and there were some threads with games that kept my interest. (Word tag, anyone?) But what really sucked me and kept me coming back despite several hiatuses was the discussion aspect. I've had a few different pet topics, but what they all had in common was their ability to generate an ongoing dialogue of viewpoints, associated issues, potential implications, and the like. It was always fun to find validation in the meeting of a like-minded person, but that's not what kept the threads alive. What kept them alive was different experiences and different ways of being, different outlooks and different ways of interpreting the world at large.

But there's a trend that rears its head time and time again and threatens to wrestle threads to the ground and shake the life from them and, unfortunately, it's often perpetuated by those who would claim that they wish to see the thread flourish.

I don't know how to label this trend exactly, but each time it comes up, there are generally a few key points present each time.

One, two, and you're done
In this, there seems to be some rule that only certain members have been informed of. This rule states that more than two back-and-forth exchanges between posters with differing opinions is automatically an argument, flame war, hostile, or "a mess." It doesn't matter what the topic is or whether or not any actual insults or hostility has been exchanged, what matters is that you continued the conversation/discussion/whathaveyou and that's a no-no.

But it's semantics
This one gets pulled out whenever someone points out anything to do with the fact that words in our language can often have multiple, related meanings and that different words, though they might be similar, often carry different emotional weight and therefore are more or less appropriate for use in varying scenarios. Now, obviously, there comes a point when arguing teal versus aquamarine is just ludicrous, but the initial mention of their difference and some discussion to get everyone on the same page is just fine and even necessary. Because discussion and understanding are difficult if not impossible when individuals operate from different base definitions.

This is often a common tactic employed when someone has said something potentially harmful. The offending individual believes that their intent is all that matters and that they owe nothing to the larger group in terms of owning their language choices. They also claim the right to redefine language as they see fit regardless of the existing meanings of their words.

First to disagree? You must be the aggressor!
This is a corollary to the "one, two, and you're done" phenomenon. In this whoever was the first to present a contradicting viewpoint is automatically at fault. It doesn't matter if this individual was respectful or even whether or not he/she was met with hostility by other posters, this person is the one to blame and other thread members are free to flame, name call, and abuse as they see fit with no consequences. Attempts from the poster to defend him/herself will result in further flaming, calls to "drop it" and general shunning of the perceived aggressor until he or she can "play nice."

You're so [_blank_]!
This involves a poster being accused of feelings or attitudes which he/she has not stated and likely doesn't actually feel or possess. The first occurs when a poster tries to present a logical or rational argument or explanation. If the post is presented in a formal fashion and especially if it is free of emoticons or "smilies" then that person must be mean or cold and they are therefore wrong and labeled as being hostile. (See the above aggressor section for the effects of this "hostile" label.) The second type comes in the form of "you're just hypersensitive/looking to be offended." This occurs when a poster disagrees on a subject and the individual they are disagreeing with has no rebuttal. Therefore they resort to derailing and attempts to turn other thread members against the one in disagreement rather than dealing with the discussion at hand and refraining from ad hominem attacks.


That's really what this whole ******** trend boils down to--derailing. People don't want to be wrong and therefore discussion is only okay so as long as no one is contradicted and no information is brought forth which might show that someone's presumptions were incorrect. It seems that many Gaians don't actually desire discussion and dialogue, but would rather take part in a Happy Opinion Circlejerk(TM) where everyone simply states their peace, refrains from comment on anyone else's post, and allows any intellectual merits to a thread die a slow, painful death.

It all just seems to defeat the purpose of a forum. Is there anyone who still honestly believes that everyone else thinks the same as they do? Cause I'm sorry to inform you that that's not the case and it's only going to get worse from here.