Control versus influence, influence v manipulation

[carhill]

I don't see that something like that, where you're so clearly acting in somebody's best interests, is controlling or manipulative.

 

Perhaps, but you bring up an important aspect, that of perception. Each individual perceives the actions and words of others in their own way. While my *intent* man not have be to manipulate or control, a different person with a different personality could have *perceived* it that way. This is another instance where the concept of challenge and support may come into play; a balance of the two dynamics dependent upon the feedback on is getting. For example, during moments of interaction where I saw the subject to be demonstrably overwhelmed, I'd say 'hey, let's take a break; I need some energy. Let's go get a piece of the pizza you got for us and sit a bit'. Now, I could've kept right on working but made a choice based on feedback I was getting.

 

I'm deconstructing such interactions for discussion purposes but in no way have such 'formula' actively being processed in real life. It's completely intuitive. Perhaps that is also the case for people who apparently control and manipulate other people for their own personal gains and ego, IDK. Are my motives selfish, so I can come here and provide an example of apparently caring and generous behavior? Some LS'ers have suggested that people who are apparently generous do it for selfish reasons and that it's a benign manipulation for their own personal satisfaction and ego. Does that assertion have traction?

 

It's interesting to observe and analyze how psychology and human social dynamics works. It's a helluva lot more satisfying and plain old fun living it, IMO.

[Taramere]

Interested in knowing the reasons for this so-called backlash and whether they hold true or are just a load of whingy-winey claptrap. I suggest it would be those reasons and not manipulation that most men would be intolerant towards as far as feminism is concerned. Or put another way, manipulation has never been a word I’ve ever associated with feminism.

 

As for who tolerates manipulation most, the recent manipulation thread is a good example of how tolerant people are towards male manipulation/PUA tactics.

 

Bog standard manipulation I agree with you. PUA tactics on the other hand, that’s a slightly different craft again and usually employed by a certain sector of men largely within the dating sphere. Typical manipulation can be found/used anywhere and anyone that manipulates but doesn’t like the same behavior being done to them, well….

 

Indeed they are, thus viewing them as victims, what is the best way to deal with these types and is that 'best way' often employed here?

 

I think that the best way would involve resisting being drawn into stressful drama....and I would guess that this is what the majority of people do. After all, in flame wars there are often just a few participants. Others tending to watch from the sidelines or address other points in the thread by pointedly ignoring the flamewar in their contributions.

 

However, there's the "best" way in terms of text books...and then there's the more stimulating method of entering into the drama, venting and flaming. Is there any positive outcome in that? I think there can be. People sometimes have flame wars here, then resolve them by PM...and admit later to having learned something that was valuable to them.

 

So I suppose the questions would be, to the person who sees themselves as a victim of other people's negative posting with the result that they're often involved in online arguments..."do you ever manage to resolve these arguments you have with other people?" and "when you do feel that an argument is resolved, how much credit can you claim for promoting some peaceful resolution?"

 

If the honest answers are "no" and "none", then that suggests that the person is seriously lacking in conflict resolution skills...which probably plays a major role in their continued sense of victimhood and disempowerment.

[denise_xo]

Perhaps, but you bring up an important aspect, that of perception. Each individual perceives the actions and words of others in their own way. While my *intent* man not have be to manipulate or control, a different person with a different personality could have *perceived* it that way. This is another instance where the concept of challenge and support may come into play; a balance of the two dynamics dependent upon the feedback on is getting. For example, during moments of interaction where I saw the subject to be demonstrably overwhelmed, I'd say 'hey, let's take a break; I need some energy. Let's go get a piece of the pizza you got for us and sit a bit'. Now, I could've kept right on working but made a choice based on feedback I was getting.

 

I'm deconstructing such interactions for discussion purposes but in no way have such 'formula' actively being processed in real life. It's completely intuitive. Perhaps that is also the case for people who apparently control and manipulate other people for their own personal gains and ego, IDK. Are my motives selfish, so I can come here and provide an example of apparently caring and generous behavior? Some LS'ers have suggested that people who are apparently generous do it for selfish reasons and that it's a benign manipulation for their own personal satisfaction and ego. Does that assertion have traction?

 

It's interesting to observe and analyze how psychology and human social dynamics works. It's a helluva lot more satisfying and plain old fun living it, IMO.

 

I agree with a lot of the points here on perception. A lot of nineteenth century colonialists sincerely thought they were acting in the best interest of the 'colonised peoples' (although our daily encounters might be a bit more nuanced than that example).

 

I also really agree with the bold. Over the years I've become quite accustomed to monitoring my own propensity to either 'positively manipulate' (as carhill was outlining in his example) a course of events, or to act negatively on power relations in ways I'm only half aware of. It's really difficult for me, though, to outline a 'model' or 'definition' of what it is I'm actually trying to do, or to avoid, in those situations, that would play in to the definitions being discussed in this thread. It's a very intuitive process based on tacit knowledge, which I'm often very aware of but not good at articulating in explicit, propositional forms.

 

On the line between 'support' and 'manipulation', I quite like this piece:

 

http://stuffexpataidworkerslike.com/2011/02/16/24-facipulation/

[Taramere]

Perhaps, but you bring up an important aspect, that of perception. Each individual perceives the actions and words of others in their own way. While my *intent* man not have be to manipulate or control, a different person with a different personality could have *perceived* it that way. This is another instance where the concept of challenge and support may come into play; a balance of the two dynamics dependent upon the feedback on is getting. For example, during moments of interaction where I saw the subject to be demonstrably overwhelmed, I'd say 'hey, let's take a break; I need some energy. Let's go get a piece of the pizza you got for us and sit a bit'. Now, I could've kept right on working but made a choice based on feedback I was getting.

 

I'm deconstructing such interactions for discussion purposes but in no way have such 'formula' actively being processed in real life. It's completely intuitive. Perhaps that is also the case for people who apparently control and manipulate other people for their own personal gains and ego, IDK. Are my motives selfish, so I can come here and provide an example of apparently caring and generous behavior? Some LS'ers have suggested that people who are apparently generous do it for selfish reasons and that it's a benign manipulation for their own personal satisfaction and ego. Does that assertion have traction?

 

It's interesting to observe and analyze how psychology and human social dynamics works. It's a helluva lot more satisfying and plain old fun living it, IMO.

 

I think if somebody's personal relationships habitually feature them being in a rescuer role (to addicts, people with financial difficulties, depressed people etc) then there's a possibility that they've an unhealthy investment in other people being, or feeling, weak and dysfunctional.

 

I don't think helping a seriously ill person is co-dependent behaviour. I think it's just decent human behaviour. I would see the manipulative or controlling "rescuer" as being somebody who was forever helping out or rescuing other people, and expressing resentment about it whenever the person disappoints them in some way. "I've tried to be a good friend...." "after all I've done for you..."

[A O]

I think that the best way would involve resisting being drawn into stressful drama.

Well, if people really saw them as victims then there wouldn't be a lot of drama in the first place. It may be an accurate reflection of their behavior but its hardly an indicator of how they will be treated.

 

.

[Taramere]

Well, if people really saw them as victims then there wouldn't be a lot of drama in the first place.

 

I think the drama often sparks up as a result of people thinking that others have adopted the victim position dishonestly, as part of a strategy to manipulate others. Most reasonable and empathic people don't want to see themselves as persecutors of others. There are some who will manipulate that by falling into the "you are persecuting me" role every time they want to change some aspect of the person's thinking, or prevent themselves from being held reasonably accountable for their own actions and decisions.

 

On this board, a common refrain is that men are persecuted by feminism. That relationships between men and women are poisoned by feminism. Yet often the same men who make this claim will express their own poisonous views of relationships. For example, the same poster makes these two comments in the space of about 10 minutes

 

Comments to a female poster about her marriage

If he contributed nothing, your clothes are not coming off for him. On the other hand, if he contributed most of the expenses and you contribute nothing, he'll still want you to take your clothes off to provide him with sexual services when he wants them. That's what women are for. If you give him a hard time about that, he'll demand divorce and look for a hotter, younger slut who will suck his dick in your place.

 

Comment alleging feminism destroys relationships between men and women

 

Feminism has corrupted the minds of many. The ether has seeped its way into their ideas and likes of what they look for in relationships. But ether is bad for you, which explains all the disharmony in relationships. So many divorces and so many singles who are always in search for answers that will inevitably screw them over even more.

 

One moment he is employing shame and ridicule against a female poster who is happily married, and denigrating her marriage as nothing more than a prostitute/client relationship. The next he is adopting this "feminism is to blame for men and women not getting along" stance...which seeks to ascribe accountability for disharmony to some intangible external force. Rather than to the parties within the marriage who aren't getting along.

 

In this way, women are encouraged to see themselves as victims of feminism as part of some "come on girls...we're all in this together you know" attempt to bond against this alleged dark force called feminism.

 

Some women might buy into that. I think most would probably laugh and say "well, you yourself only see women as good for one thing - sex. Your comments suggest a lack of liking and respect for women, or the ability to have authentic loving, loyal relationships with them...regardless of what era they might have walked out of."

 

For a woman to reject something like feminism, which sought to free women from loveless domestic situations with the kind of men who express those "women are only good for sex and housework" views...in order to bond with the very men who hold those views, and who would betray them in a heartbeat the moment they didn't do as they were told and/or a younger woman appeared on the scene....well, I would think a woman who did that would be either stupid or totally lacking in self respect.

 

Or perhaps just so low in self esteem that she really didn't believe that she could be anything more than a prostitute and an emotional punchbag for a man who had no liking or respect for her. So unfortunate in her experiences with men that she couldn't envisage anything other than a man who would treat her like that. Which is the genuine "victim" aspect of some people. That as a result of circumstances they've been through, and messages they got when growing up, their expectations of other people's behaviour are extremely low. They'll accept ridicule and abuse as something which it's their job to absorb.

 

The faux victim is the one who wants to make that genuine victim of other people. They know where they want to see other people. Slap bang beneath them and soaking up whatever crap they give them. If temporarily degrading themselves in a pretend victim role is what it takes to get other people into that place of genuine victimhood, that's what they'll do.

 

Which will result in drama as they are criticised and called out by other people for their voluntary, dishonest and ill intended adoption of the victim role which others have genuinely inhabited and worked very hard to free themselves from.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Taramere

[zengirl]

I don't see that something like that, where you're so clearly acting in somebody's best interests, is controlling or manipulative. I would call it appropriately and in a very caring way, taking charge in a situation where somebody is under immense strain and very vulnerable due to the recurrence of a serious illness. The intention being to reduce any stress or hassle for them, which is clearly in their health interests.

 

I didn't see carhill's story as manipulative either, but for a slightly different reason. . . I don't see what was really 'hidden' from her.

 

Carhill, you may have had additional goals (distraction and positive interaction), besides the actual tasks at hand, but you didn't really do anything --- at least not that you posted (or maybe I'm just misunderstanding) --- that forced her or manipulated her into participating. Instead, you simply broke things down to make them easier and encouraged her--- that isn't even really influence, IMO, or if it is, I'd say it's a generally positive kind. I also imagine she wouldn't have been distracted by that, and it wouldn't have been effective, had she not chosen to 'buy in.' The way I see it, you gave her an opportunity, but no force or deception was really used.

[carhill]

'The police are going to send an undercover policewoman to stay here and catch the people who have been harassing you. We're going to go have lunch with the nice man who has been working with the police to catch these people. I think you'll like him and he has been a great help to us'

 

Chew on that one for awhile and see which dynamic you can ascribe it too. I had to become a master of manipulation in a particular job I had in the recent past.

 

 

Regarding my best friend's sister, the 'manipulation' was I started unilaterally handling her things, so she felt compelled to interact. Her default choice would have been inaction, save for my proactive and unilateral invasion of that space. I didn't give her any real choices (I was going to do the work anyway) but I presented the dynamic in a spirit of cooperation.

 

A more extreme example (for discussion purposes) would be a family which intervenes with a member who is a hoarder and, without discussion, starts to 'clean up'.

 

 

I recall an instance driving down the freeway where my exW started hammering away at me verbally about providing her niece and prospective husband with a honeymoon. If it were legal to open the door and toss her out at speed, I would've had to exercise superior impulse control not to have done it. Choices work in many ways. I chose to continue driving safely and suggested that it wasn't the proper time nor place for such a 'discussion'. My experience has been that people who do control and manipulate bank on the mark not pushing back.

 

So, by example, provide some dynamics of your own for discussion. Perhaps, start with interactions with children, since you're a teacher, and how those dynamics both apply in real time and also form their psychology for future interaction. Since we 'teach' children for their own benefit, the 'styles' would be a great tool for discussion.

[A O]

I think the drama often sparks up as a result of people thinking that others have adopted the victim position dishonestly, as part of a strategy to manipulate others.

The people we're talking about in this situation aren't the ones labeling themselves as victims. They may have a 'woe unto me' attitude but the 'victim' label is being applied by the respondents and not by them. People we truly perceive to be victims are addressed in a more tolerant, more understanding manner (a better way) than currently being displayed. Hence, there is a disconnect between the use of the term and the resultant behavior that should follow by those applying it.

 

 

.

[EasyHeart]

I think that the best way would involve resisting being drawn into stressful drama....and I would guess that this is what the majority of people do. After all, in flame wars there are often just a few participants. Others tending to watch from the sidelines or address other points in the thread by pointedly ignoring the flamewar in their contributions.

 

However, there's the "best" way in terms of text books...and then there's the more stimulating method of entering into the drama, venting and flaming. Is there any positive outcome in that? I think there can be. People sometimes have flame wars here, then resolve them by PM...and admit later to having learned something that was valuable to them.

 

So I suppose the questions would be, to the person who sees themselves as a victim of other people's negative posting with the result that they're often involved in online arguments..."do you ever manage to resolve these arguments you have with other people?" and "when you do feel that an argument is resolved, how much credit can you claim for promoting some peaceful resolution?"

 

If the honest answers are "no" and "none", then that suggests that the person is seriously lacking in conflict resolution skills...which probably plays a major role in their continued sense of victimhood and disempowerment.

I think it's important to remember that some people are just really bad at influencing or persuading other people. Often in flamewars, people have legitimate points, they simply don't know how (or don't want to) actually persuade people to agree with them.

 

No one on a message board can control or manipulate you. They simply don't have the power because you can always close the window on your computer and disengage from them.

 

To me, the more interesting thing is why some people let themselves be drawn into flame wars. If I see someone post something that's antagonistic, it doesn't bother me. I read it, think "Wow, that's stupid," and then I go on living my life.

 

I'm much more curious as to why people bother arguing with stupid people.

[Mme. Chaucer]

No one on a message board can control or manipulate you. They simply don't have the power because you can always close the window on your computer and disengage from them.

 

That's why I sincerely never understand when accusations of "you're trying to manipulate me / her" crop up here. Really? How would that possibly work?

 

I only see manipulation possible in this environment either as when "bait" for attention, pity, or validation ("am I too fat?") is thrown out and reacted to, or, when laughing trolls toss bait of an antagonizing variety.

[A O]

No one on a message board can control or manipulate you. They simply don't have the power because you can always close the window on your computer and disengage from them

That's why I sincerely never understand when accusations of "you're trying to manipulate me / her" crop up here. Really? How would that possibly work?

We see all types of behavior here - whether it affects us any doesn't negate its existence. Abuse doesn't bother some folk but its still abuse.

 

Manipulation - trying to influence the direction of a thread - I've seen best utilized here when someone casts aspersions over the behavior of others or over dramatizes the harm their views may have on the person concerned. Its usually done without any hard evidence to back up their claims or what evidence they actually do have is stretched beyond reason e.g. an OP may have copped abuse from one, maybe two posters but that can easily be manipulated into anyone with similar views (but minus the abuse of course), is now lumped in among the abusers and everyone who holds a like-minded view is now an abuser by association. That can lead to a good v evil situation even though there is no real good v bad dynamic at play (poor behavior of the odd poster aside) - just differing points of view.

 

And when it comes to good v bad, the odds are heavily stacked against the bad. People (in this case casual or fence-sitting posters) identify with good far more than bad. They may now chip in or become more vocal in defence of the good. The good may become galvanized, they have a unified point of attack - poor behavior from the opposing side. Meanwhile, the opposing side have to waste time getting this made-up ogre off their backs before they can even discuss the topic at hand.

 

And thus.....we have been manipulated. Someone has been influenced (and not necessarily the people we thought would be aka ourselves) and most importantly, absolutely of most importance, whomever has been influenced wouldn't know it even if were spelt out to them. Because that is the key to manipulation after all - 'knowingly' getting someone to do something 'you' want without 'them' realizing it.

 

 

.

[betterdeal]

No one on a message board can control or manipulate you. They simply don't have the power because you can always close the window on your computer and disengage from them.

 

Hmm. I recall a lot of fuss about paedophiles grooming children via the Internet. It is possible to manipulate people with words. That's what NLP, self-talk, pep talks and shaming are based on.

[Taramere]

To me, the more interesting thing is why some people let themselves be drawn into flame wars. If I see someone post something that's antagonistic, it doesn't bother me. I read it, think "Wow, that's stupid," and then I go on living my life.

 

The notion that you "should" respond to points somebody makes can be hard to shake off. If it's an obvious troll then okay (unless communicating with the troll is a form of entertainment). However, if the person seems to sincerely mean what they say, it can be hard to break away from that ingrained belief that you should respond to show that you're taking their points seriously even if you don't agree.

 

In real life, if somebody were ranting or venting at me I wouldn't just walk away from them unless they were verging on violence or being really abusive. If I wanted to end the conversation I'd extract myself in some polite way. On the internet, with its anonymity and different mode of communication, simply not responding is more acceptable...but it can be a hard thing to learn given our usual social rules. Given the nature of some internet vents, and the lack of non verbal social cues that people use to tell eachother "enough's enough" in a face-saving way, flame wars and arguments are far more likely.

 

Especially if, as somebody else said, people feel inarticulate and disadvantaged in internet discussions as a result. In most real life situations, very few people will rant on in the way that they do here. They'll pick up non verbal cues that enough's enough, and there's a lot of face saving involved. The same rules don't apply on the internet

 

I'm much more curious as to why people bother arguing with stupid people.

 

I have a hard time taking the perspective that "X is stupid and not worth my time." Sometimes it's really not that a person is stupid so much as that they're riddled with pure hatred and toxicity. Even though it's just the internet, I can feel alarmed by that. I think especially in an unstable climate like we have just now.

 

Personal insults are pretty meaningless....but occasionally you'll see political views expressed here embody the kind of dishonesty, evil and wilful denial that has laid the foundations for some of the most hideous atrocities to occur. I don't think it's necessarily easy to just walk away from people expressing those views without either expressing disgust or trying to reason with them.

[EasyHeart]

The notion that you "should" respond to points somebody makes can be hard to shake off. If it's an obvious troll then okay (unless communicating with the troll is a form of entertainment). However, if the person seems to sincerely mean what they say, it can be hard to break away from that ingrained belief that you should respond to show that you're taking their points seriously even if you don't agree.

Where did you get this notion? I ask because I've never been exposed to it (or ingrained with it, at least). Is it really that you care about them thinking you take their points seriously or is it more that you want to "win" by getting them to agree with your position?

 

In real life, if somebody were ranting or venting at me I wouldn't just walk away from them unless they were verging on violence or being really abusive. If I wanted to end the conversation I'd extract myself in some polite way. On the internet, with its anonymity and different mode of communication, simply not responding is more acceptable...but it can be a hard thing to learn given our usual social rules. Given the nature of some internet vents, and the lack of non verbal social cues that people use to tell eachother "enough's enough" in a face-saving way, flame wars and arguments are far more likely.

Well, I think you took my comment too literally. I rarely rudely walk away from people in real life. My point was that there is nothing keeping you in a flamewar, unlike arguments in real life with people with whom you share a relationship and have to see every day. One of the advantages of the internet is that we have much more choice about whom we interact with. Are you worried that if you simply leave some war of words, it will be interpreted (by others or by yourself) that the other person has won?

 

I have a hard time taking the perspective that "X is stupid and not worth my time." Sometimes it's really not that a person is stupid so much as that they're riddled with pure hatred and toxicity. Even though it's just the internet, I can feel alarmed by that. I think especially in an unstable climate like we have just now.

Again, we must have very different personalities or experience, because I have NO problem thinking this way! And if they're riddled with hatred and toxicity, I figure they need way more help than I can give, so I leave them be and try not to make things worse for them!

 

Personal insults are pretty meaningless....but occasionally you'll see political views expressed here embody the kind of dishonesty, evil and wilful denial that has laid the foundations for some of the most hideous atrocities to occur. I don't think it's necessarily easy to just walk away from people expressing those views without either expressing disgust or trying to reason with them.

Okay, that's just a tease! I don't spend a lot of time on LS, and I hear a lot of silly generalizations (especially from the youngsters), but I've never heard anything that makes me think hideous atrocities are on the way. Can you recall some examples?

[Taramere]

Where did you get this notion? I ask because I've never been exposed to it (or ingrained with it, at least). Is it really that you care about them thinking you take their points seriously or is it more that you want to "win" by getting them to agree with your position?

 

I don't think that getting people to agree with your position is generally an option. Unless they started out agreeing with you, or there has been a simple misunderstanding.

 

In most real life disputes there will be some areas of common ground, and some areas where you just agree to disagree. If you encounter somebody where it's just an endless stream of points of disagreement between you then at some point you'll just stop engaging with eachother because there's no common ground.

 

I will often search for common ground. Also, giving people a hearing is something I associate with having respect for them, and also perhaps learning something new. I can't say that happens terribly often as a result of arguments on LS....but it does sometimes happen. It happens more in real life.

 

Well, I think you took my comment too literally. I rarely rudely walk away from people in real life. My point was that there is nothing keeping you in a flamewar, unlike arguments in real life with people with whom you share a relationship and have to see every day. One of the advantages of the internet is that we have much more choice about whom we interact with. Are you worried that if you simply leave some war of words, it will be interpreted (by others or by yourself) that the other person has won?

 

Again, it comes down to this "surely there's some common ground?" belief. Sometimes it's hard for me to accept that there just isn't. It's not necessarily about winning an argument as hoping to gain something positive from it. However, sometimes I'll feel pissed off with another poster if they seem hell bent on being as disagreeable as possible ...and then it becomes not so much about winning any argument as about unleashing my sarcastic, quarrelsome side. They do the same thing, and the flame war continues.

 

Again, we must have very different personalities or experience, because I have NO problem thinking this way! And if they're riddled with hatred and toxicity, I figure they need way more help than I can give, so I leave them be and try not to make things worse for them!

 

Yes, that's something that for me is a task to be worked on. I think often people who are very toxic will make a very short term show of being prepared to be reasonable as a way of sucking others back into discussion with them. Then it becomes the same old same old.

 

We probably do have different personalities, but I'm possibly also partly shaped by the expectations there have been of me in certain jobs I've done.

 

 

Okay, that's just a tease! I don't spend a lot of time on LS, and I hear a lot of silly generalizations (especially from the youngsters), but I've never heard anything that makes me think hideous atrocities are on the way. Can you recall some examples?

 

Well, it will no doubt result in him coming into this thread to deliver another barrage of "evidence", and I'll be responsible for mentioning it....but there's one poster here who is very into the whole Holocaust denial thing. A culture of denying that which is very real and very horrible is what enabled that atrocity to occur in the first place.

 

Now, as there are fewer and fewer people around who lived through it and can give their first hand account, Holocaust denial seems to be gathering force. I could see the kind of problems that occurred 70 years ago springing up in Europe again. Despite the attempts to unify Europe. Actually, in great part, because that unification has gone too far. I don't know that society has evolved as much as we'd like to think.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Taramere

[zengirl]

I think it's important to remember that some people are just really bad at influencing or persuading other people. Often in flamewars, people have legitimate points, they simply don't know how (or don't want to) actually persuade people to agree with them.

 

No one on a message board can control or manipulate you. They simply don't have the power because you can always close the window on your computer and disengage from them.

 

To me, the more interesting thing is why some people let themselves be drawn into flame wars. If I see someone post something that's antagonistic, it doesn't bother me. I read it, think "Wow, that's stupid," and then I go on living my life.

 

I'm much more curious as to why people bother arguing with stupid people.

 

Eh, language is essentially the #1 to manipulate people, so I think you can do it online. I agree it's ineffective at producing truly rewarding effects (i.e. you can get little OUT of trying to manipulate people online), but I think many people attempt it and, to some degree, "succeed." The whole word "trolling" was born out of the notion that someone could manipulate a discussion OT and into anger by being incendiary, and that's a web word. I don't often fall victim to trolls, but I find many lower level manipulations more insidious, even online. Words have power. Bad and erroneous information spreads over the internet like wildfire and is used in manipulations, just as it is in TV, film, or print; propaganda is a huge form of manipulation and it works on the web just as effectively as anywhere else. I think your suggestion is simply untrue.

 

Sure, we can all leave when we choose to, so coercion or bullying are pretty impossible, but manipulation is much easier to accomplish via text.

[EasyHeart]

Eh, language is essentially the #1 to manipulate people, so I think you can do it online. I agree it's ineffective at producing truly rewarding effects (i.e. you can get little OUT of trying to manipulate people online), but I think many people attempt it and, to some degree, "succeed." The whole word "trolling" was born out of the notion that someone could manipulate a discussion OT and into anger by being incendiary, and that's a web word. I don't often fall victim to trolls, but I find many lower level manipulations more insidious, even online. Words have power. Bad and erroneous information spreads over the internet like wildfire and is used in manipulations, just as it is in TV, film, or print; propaganda is a huge form of manipulation and it works on the web just as effectively as anywhere else. I think your suggestion is simply untrue.

 

Sure, we can all leave when we choose to, so coercion or bullying are pretty impossible, but manipulation is much easier to accomplish via text.

I agree that propaganda is a type of manipulation (though it's often hard to distinguish between advocacy and propaganda), but I struggle to think of how interacting on a message board can be considered propaganda. Maybe I should have said that no one on a message board can manipulate you without your allowing them to manipulate you. I don't think being aggressive or incendiary or just generally being a jerk is manipulation. Words certainly have power, but I think they only have the power that we (the reader/listener) give to them. If someone insults me or calls me a name, it only hurts me if I accept their judgment as valid (or if it's accurate, which is more of a guilt-thing).

 

I tend to be a free speech extremist. The best way to shut up stupid people is to let them talk so that people can hear how stupid they are.

[EasyHeart]

Again, it comes down to this "surely there's some common ground?" belief. Sometimes it's hard for me to accept that there just isn't. It's not necessarily about winning an argument as hoping to gain something positive from it. However, sometimes I'll feel pissed off with another poster if they seem hell bent on being as disagreeable as possible ...and then it becomes not so much about winning any argument as about unleashing my sarcastic, quarrelsome side. They do the same thing, and the flame war continues.

I think that's a admirable goal (and I happen to share it with you), but you can only find common ground with someone whose mind is open. Some people are looking for a discussion, others are simply advocating a fixed position. I can usually distinguish the two by way a person speaks or writes, and if someone is just advocating (or, even more often, just trying to pick a fight) I don't bother arguing because I know it's not going to go anywhere. I only engage with people on internet fora if they seem interested in having a conversation. It's easy to find people who want to fight; it's more interesting to find someone who wants to converse.

 

Yes, that's something that for me is a task to be worked on. I think often people who are very toxic will make a very short term show of being prepared to be reasonable as a way of sucking others back into discussion with them. Then it becomes the same old same old.

And a message board like this is basically a gathering place for damaged and toxic people, so I think we have to take that into account. I don't think LS is representative of the real world (which is one of the reasons I come here!)

[/quote=Taramere;3729682]

Well, it will no doubt result in him coming into this thread to deliver another barrage of "evidence", and I'll be responsible for mentioning it....but there's one poster here who is very into the whole Holocaust denial thing. A culture of denying that which is very real and very horrible is what enabled that atrocity to occur in the first place.

 

Now, as there are fewer and fewer people around who lived through it and can give their first hand account, Holocaust denial seems to be gathering force. I could see the kind of problems that occurred 70 years ago springing up in Europe again. Despite the attempts to unify Europe. Actually, in great part, because that unification has gone too far. I don't know that society has evolved as much as we'd like to think.

I haven't run into that, but that's pretty bad (though I'm admittedly biased because most of my family was killed in the Holocaust). One thing I never do is argue facts with people. If people are just going to deny events or facts or evidence, then there's no starting place for a discussion (or even an argument).

[carhill]

Close one's eyes and imagine listening to this on the radio. History is a wonderful teacher of such subjects.

 

Much like a proud and intelligent people, beaten down by defeat, were vulnerable to the message in the above linked video, people who come to LS beaten and defeated in relationships can be vulnerable to the messages and words proffered here. The same can occur IRL when one is vulnerable psychologically. Another person can use words to manipulate, influence or control the other in a way which perhaps might not normally be possible.

[Taramere]

I think that's a admirable goal (and I happen to share it with you), but you can only find common ground with someone whose mind is open. Some people are looking for a discussion, others are simply advocating a fixed position. I can usually distinguish the two by way a person speaks or writes, and if someone is just advocating (or, even more often, just trying to pick a fight) I don't bother arguing because I know it's not going to go anywhere. I only engage with people on internet fora if they seem interested in having a conversation. It's easy to find people who want to fight; it's more interesting to find someone who wants to converse.

 

And a message board like this is basically a gathering place for damaged and toxic people, so I think we have to take that into account. I don't think LS is representative of the real world (which is one of the reasons I come here!)

 

You're right, on all counts. Except that some of the behaviour you see on here is representative of what some people go through when they get unlucky with (for example) a client.

 

I was once approached by this man in the court building.

 

"Excuse me, but I saw you appearing earlier on and I was really impressed by you. I wonder if I could have a quick word."

 

Standing there, feeling a bit surprised (I'd hardly made an appearance that was going to rock the world) I was receptive to listening...when suddenly another solicitor who I didn't know suddenly took me by the arm.

 

"So sorry to interrupt, but I need to talk to you privately about that case we're working on. It's very urgent."

 

He took me to an alcove.

 

"Do you want a Law Society complaint raised against you."

"What?"

"I don't mean to sound dramatic, but just trust me on this. Avoid that individual like the plague "

 

Years later, I encountered one of my own serial complainers. I could write a torrent about it - but I'll spare you. Suffice to say there are people who use complaints procedures against professionals as a tool for harassment as well as a means of feeling powerful.

 

Sometimes I'll read posts on here and wonder "is that person causing the same kind of grief in somebody else's life, out there in the real world? Is some doctor, lawyer or vet who put their pet dog down 12 years ago getting a regular barrage of rage from them?"

 

I haven't run into that, but that's pretty bad (though I'm admittedly biased because most of my family was killed in the Holocaust). One thing I never do is argue facts with people. If people are just going to deny events or facts or evidence, then there's no starting place for a discussion (or even an argument).

 

I'm so sorry to hear that it touched you so closely...and I agree. It's definitely not a discussion I plan to enter into again.

[EasyHeart]

Years later, I encountered one of my own serial complainers. I could write a torrent about it - but I'll spare you. Suffice to say there are people who use complaints procedures against professionals as a tool for harassment as well as a means of feeling powerful.

 

Sometimes I'll read posts on here and wonder "is that person causing the same kind of grief in somebody else's life, out there in the real world? Is some doctor, lawyer or vet who put their pet dog down 12 years ago getting a regular barrage of rage from them?"

Been there, done that!

 

And the ones that complain the most also never want to pay their bills!

[Taramere]

Been there, done that!

 

And the ones that complain the most also never want to pay their bills!

 

Exactly!!! I think it's often receipt of the bill that provokes that flurry of vexatious behaviour!

 

I'm glad you responded. I've just been getting myself embroiled in another fruitless argument...trying to convince a poster that lawyers have a professional duty not to raise vexatious claims (he thinks that no attorney would claim to know what does and doesn't constitute vexatious litigation).

 

Right. Enough of the madness! I'm going to the gym.

[EasyHeart]

I found the thread that I suspect inspired this thread, so now I have some context for your original post. I think it's fair to say that many of the posters in that thread were looking for a fight, not a discussion.

 

FYI, my understanding is that the US has a more generous standard for filing law suits than many other countries, but we do have rules against frivolous litigation. Most jurisdictions have a variation of this rule:

 

an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

 

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

 

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

 

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

 

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

 

The rule is very broadly interpreted, especially when some is trying to extend a legal theory. It's most likely to come into play against attorneys who fail to do a sufficient pre-filing investigation.

 

It's also my understanding that other countries often have "loser pays" types of rules, where a successful defendant can recover some fees and costs from the losing plaintiff. In the US it's almost impossible for a defendant to recover anything, even if they have a resounding win. It's part of our "rugged individualist" past . . .

[Taramere]

It's also my understanding that other countries often have "loser pays" types of rules, where a successful defendant can recover some fees and costs from the losing plaintiff. In the US it's almost impossible for a defendant to recover anything, even if they have a resounding win. It's part of our "rugged individualist" past . . .

 

Yes...the winner will go for expenses, but whether the loser will be left with anything to pay them with is another matter.

 

Vexatious litigation can be scary...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_legal_system