Sounds like until studies are done on forum communication IRT persuasion or behavior change, you won't consider any evidence presented because it's all apples and oranges.

FWIW, 95% of the berating ITF is motivated by the momentary feel good associated with yelling at people you don't like or respect. The forum is a safe and acceptable place to behave in this way.

Being able to yell at racists in this forum makes me less likely to use a baseball bat on racists in the real world. Thus, racists should be allowed to post here to keep me from killing racists. Anyone who advocates banning racist posts is a bloodthirsty individual who just wants to see racists die.

'Yelling' at -ists and -ots is more entertainment than it is politics.

I am entertained by your expression of kept rage.

Naw... the three points I made are not connected. The first point is that posting on the interwebs isn't verbal, there's no 'shouting down', etc. That's the apples -vs- oranges part.

IDK about the percentage, and once again, there is no 'yelling'... only name calling at worst. This was my point #2... not all Politards wanna post to maximize some collective EV at this alleged 'converting' process.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, especially in Baja. It does sure get tiring having to read the whiners whine about, and try to censor, Politards who aren't doing anything wrong.

Such studies would be very interesting IMO. Short of those studies however, how come those who constantly whine and pine for these 'alternatives' can't even articulate what they might be, explain why they think they would 'convert', or point to even one little example?

With that kind of rage, you're inevitably going to kill someone someday. Much better that it be a racist than someone we actually like and then they can lock you away for a good long while.

Seems like your attitude is nobody on the internet learns anything anyway so why even bother with faux civility or attempts to persuade?

What's your goal when you ID someone who you feel exhibits some form of prejudice and you commence aggressive communication (not yelling)? What's the point of it? This can be answered for you or for how you feel the majority might answer who behave in this way ITF.

Why do you do it?

The distinction between verbal communication and chatting on an internet forum is way too much. Seems like apples all the way down to me.

Sure you can't literally 'yell' or 'shout' but no-one was suggesting you could. It might negate the study on yelling at kids that I'm not sure how relevant that was anyway.

I get off telling people my uncensored, raw feelings, especially when it comes to choice topics of particular interest to me. I'd bet the majority of folks would say similar if they were being honest with themselves/others. Something more unique to me would be a perverse occasional interest in playing a (trollish) devil's advocate.

I think most those claiming they're trying to influence lurkers are mildly deluded TBH. I think mostly they're uncomfortable with the more selfish motivations at play.

The main thing holding me back is that I haven't finished my manifesto yet.

Naw, people learn things on the interwebs all the time.

There's nothing wrong with a Politard attempting to persuade. But there's also nothing wrong with a Politard posting for any number of other reasons. What I'm pointing out is a certain hidden assumption that everybody should be maximizing 'persuasion', or what I called 'conversion'.

I'm asserting that in the particular case of Los Dos Politardia that the kinda faux civility surrounding posting "You're X", "That's X", or "Excuse me sir... X ... perhaps" has never 'worked' in practice. I'm asserting that the particular whiners who whine about using 'alternatives' can't even articulate what these 'alternatives' might be, or why they might 'convert'. It's like this...

Whiners: Stop being meanies, there are better alternatives !!!1!
Non-whiners: OK, like what ???/?
Whiners: <silence>

The Whiners are doing a piss-poor job of attempting to persuade the rest of us into changing our ways.

Personally, I try to stay on the "That's X" track, and try to avoid posting "You're X"... even though in this context I consider them both exactly equivalent. I usually don't take the "Excuse me sir,... X... perhaps" detour because I don't like typing THAT much. As I've mentioned, I've never seen it make the slightest lick of difference here in Los Dos.

I (honestly) don't attempt to persuade people here. Why... because I love youz guyz just the way you are, and I don't ever wanna see you change. Perversely perhaps, I simply post to try to explain things.

Underlying any other motives, such as enjoying calling others out... I feel they are trying to bring what they feel are legitimate concerns regarding institutionalized discrimination explicitly into the conversation at hand.

But that doesn't require aggro communication. So why go there? What's the motivation for "YOU ****ING RACIST POS!!1!"

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I've only ever seen the bigots on this forum advance this argument. They like to pretend they're sticking up for the unvoiced opinions. Playing the martyr, that sort of thing.

I've absolutely read plenty of female/minority haters spew stuff about how at least the lurkers can see that their argument is winning (when it clearly isn't). For example:

bold added

pretty sure in this and one of the many other threads moo buckets has tossed around the idea that the minority view that 'women are evil and corrupting games with their vaginas' is actually shared by most lurkers who are too scared to voice their opinions.

It's just ludicrous stuff.

The later is certainly true but re the former it's not really about lurkers. The active conversation is not confined to the person responding and the person being responded to. The two posters directly involved are most likely to change their views over time closely followed by all the active posters in the thread.

Also the 'them' and 'us' attitude is pernicious at best.

So it kinda sounds like you're cool with people discussing politics here like they would in a bar, and if you were there you would certainly act more civil if for no other reason but to avoid a bottle over the head, but you also think it should be fine to just call the bar, have the bartender put you on speakerphone, and then prank the entire bar. I would enjoy that too. In fact, come to think of it, I have done that

Well, some people aren't trying to persuade, but they don't wanna see certain kinds of statements (like dog whistles) go by without comment or opposition. In addition, I'm sure a lot of regs feel (at least intuitively) that it doesn't matter a lick here how polite someone is called out.

If you wanna call someone out, and (a) you don't feel it matters how it's done, and (b) you enjoy name-calling... why not name-call ???/?

I think the importance of B gets massively downplayed ITF.

Like, if persuasion isn't desired and/or it's generally accepted that the approach one takes to a poster/topic is of trivial inportance, then really all that's left is your preferred method of engagement.

The Hulkster posts here to sing his song and to challenge heteronormative social archetypes.

Are there any documented cases of racists changing their mind after being given a rational, calm talking to?

Note that the movie American History X doesn't count.

This "educate the lurkers" rationalization is used by some members of all camps. I believe the most recent example from your team was Goofy, who said something along the lines of posting in an aggro way in order to influence lurking bigots to not become active; like, by getting aggro he was preventing undesirables from joining in. I think this surely is, at the very least, not the primary motive.

I can tell you that increased exposure to groups you're prejudiced against can be conducive to change, and that Motivational Interviewing is great for generating buy in from people who are initially adverse to changing their ways.

Getting aggro with perceived bigots will certainly work against both of these things.

"Certainly" because verbal abuse doesn't work well for children, or...?

You don't know this, but have thousands of posts commenting on the topic?

I'd add empathetic to go along with calm and rational, for human realism.