![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lenora_roseSo:
If theoretically you saw two respectable, theoretically reasonable, well-educated professionals disagree online, whose side would you feel *automatically* inclined to take?
One who:
- Sticks to her guns in spite of being consistently and regularly tarred as a SH**-stirrer and accused of trolling for fun.
- Attempts to use logic first to refute arguments against her
- Snarks and doesn't hide her anger or frustration, but doesn't forget to stick to attacking the problem.
- Leaves her words up for all to see. If she feels the need to change or edit or otherwise follow-up, does so by addendum or additional post.
- Leaves up all but the most blatantly offensive, violent or threatening responses.
- Responds directly or by general commentary to more people than she doesn't.
- Lets people use consistent pseudonyms such as lj names.
One who:
- Regularly removes, edits and deletes posts if the response isn't to her liking. Notes she has removed or edited.
- Outs peoples' real names then doesn't apologize.
- Claims any pseudonym is there to conceal trolling and illegal harrassment, and everyone should have the guts to use their real name.
- Forces every comment through moderation so strong disagreement isn't visible
- Attempts to use logic to refute those she does allow through.
- Responds pretty consistently to all those whose arguments she does allow through.
It happens that I agree more often with person #1. However, the substance isn't the issue here. If person #1 was a homophobic mysogynist ****, and person #2 were in agreement with me on most of our politics... I'd still be damned uncomfortable in that room with her. I'm just trying to figure out how someone of that professional calibre business-wise half imagines this is appropriate behaviour. Even knowing the roots of the anti-pseudonym attitude.
If theoretically you saw two respectable, theoretically reasonable, well-educated professionals disagree online, whose side would you feel *automatically* inclined to take?
One who:
- Sticks to her guns in spite of being consistently and regularly tarred as a SH**-stirrer and accused of trolling for fun.
- Attempts to use logic first to refute arguments against her
- Snarks and doesn't hide her anger or frustration, but doesn't forget to stick to attacking the problem.
- Leaves her words up for all to see. If she feels the need to change or edit or otherwise follow-up, does so by addendum or additional post.
- Leaves up all but the most blatantly offensive, violent or threatening responses.
- Responds directly or by general commentary to more people than she doesn't.
- Lets people use consistent pseudonyms such as lj names.
One who:
- Regularly removes, edits and deletes posts if the response isn't to her liking. Notes she has removed or edited.
- Outs peoples' real names then doesn't apologize.
- Claims any pseudonym is there to conceal trolling and illegal harrassment, and everyone should have the guts to use their real name.
- Forces every comment through moderation so strong disagreement isn't visible
- Attempts to use logic to refute those she does allow through.
- Responds pretty consistently to all those whose arguments she does allow through.
It happens that I agree more often with person #1. However, the substance isn't the issue here. If person #1 was a homophobic mysogynist ****, and person #2 were in agreement with me on most of our politics... I'd still be damned uncomfortable in that room with her. I'm just trying to figure out how someone of that professional calibre business-wise half imagines this is appropriate behaviour. Even knowing the roots of the anti-pseudonym attitude.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-09-17 10:42 pm (UTC)Number #1, regardless of what their status on the issue was, is the more credible individual simply b/c they are keeping an open book on all discussions. Agree with them or not, they are behaving in the most credible fashion.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-23 05:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-18 01:33 pm (UTC)Delivery means something and while content is paramount, if you preach life and perform death, well, there's the message.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-23 05:11 am (UTC)It's mostly just trying to separate delivery from content in case I was missing something. And trying to include the positives in case my prejudice, too, was making me miss something.