The stick vs. the carrot (online discussions here)

[Scott]

I've been doing a bit of browing the forums here in the last day or 2 and the content of my browsing to me thinking, do people really think they're doing a good thing by casting shade on others so much? I know for my part that I disagree strongly with some posters here on various issues, but then, we I can also strongly -agree- with those same posters on other issues. There was a time when I considered my arch nemesis to be Dutch Uncle, based on the insults he was always sending my way, and so he was the first person I ever thread banned. Now that thread banning has been abolished, we rarely cross paths and when we do, it's not always as ideological opponents. Honestly, the person I least like the posts of these days is actually dancing dave, simply because they all seem to make little sense and so I just feel like I waste my time reading them.

I spent a bit of time in the War Zone Forum. Ironically, I've had some short conversations there that were actually quite nice, but then some posters that are -usually- reasonable started saying things that I wouldn't expect from them elsewhere- not against me, but against ther person I was responding to. I've seen this happen elsewhere too. I just don't see the point in insulting other's ideas and beliefs in simplistic ways- you're bound to either shut the conversation or tune you out at best, or for them to respond with the same at worst, resulting in a possible flame war. I suppose a "Can't we all just get along?" line isn't going to cut it, but I still think the following meme says a lot ...


Don't get me wrong, I have certainly gotten mad at people offline (though rarely), but one of the things about doing things offline is that you don't always have time to choose your words carefully and editing is not an option. I've personally found that the carrot generally works much better than the stick in getting people to see things differently. As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't mean it works wonders, just better.

 

[EdwinA]

posts like the above remind me of that old skit on Carol Burnett's show:

View: https://youtu.be/QUHQkWrqdG4


'Mama's ' response seems entirely appropriate.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I've been doing a bit of browing the forums here in the last day or 2 and the content of my browsing to me thinking, do people really think they're doing a good thing by casting shade on others so much? I know for my part that I disagree strongly with some posters here on various issues, but then, we I can also strongly -agree- with those same posters on other issues. There was a time when I considered my arch nemesis to be Dutch Uncle, based on the insults he was always sending my way, and so he was the first person I ever thread banned. Now that thread banning has been abolished, we rarely cross paths and when we do, it's not always as ideological opponents. Honestly, the person I least like the posts of these days is actually dancing dave, simply because they all seem to make little sense and so I just feel like I waste my time reading them.

I spent a bit of time in the War Zone Forum. Ironically, I've had some short conversations there that were actually quite nice, but then some posters that are -usually- reasonable started saying things that I wouldn't expect from them elsewhere- not against me, but against ther person I was responding to. I've seen this happen elsewhere too. I just don't see the point in insulting other's ideas and beliefs in simplistic ways- you're bound to either shut the conversation or tune you out at best, or for them to respond with the same at worst, resulting in a possible flame war. I suppose a "Can't we all just get along?" line isn't going to cut it, but I still think the following meme says a lot ...
View attachment 48076

Don't get me wrong, I have certainly gotten mad at people offline (though rarely), but one of the things about doing things offline is that you don't always have time to choose your words carefully and editing is not an option. I've personally found that the carrot generally works much better than the stick in getting people to see things differently. As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't mean it works wonders, just better.

You have one life, yours....U R NOT responsible for what other people think.

Work on Yourself.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I say what I see because I am a Truth Teller and this is how we operate.

But make no mistake, your education is your problem.

I Got Mine.

 

[Scott]

You have one life, yours....U R NOT responsible for what other people think.

Work on Yourself.

Agreed, but every once in a while, I think it might be good to remind people that the carrot generally works better than the stick when it comes to persuading people of things.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Agreed, but every once in a while, I think it might be good to remind people that the carrot generally works better than the stick when it comes to persuading people of things.

I've seen you assert that several times, Scott...but I don't understand what you base it on.

Al Capone used to say, " "You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

I suspect he was closer to the truth than you on this issue.

There were lots of people who were very "persuasive" using the stick rather than the carrot. Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Caligula, Mao, Stalin, Hitler come immediately to mind.

Can you name some people who were successful in persuasion using the carrot?

 

[Scott]

I've seen you assert that several times, Scott...but I don't understand what you base it on.

Al Capone used to say, " "You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

I suspect he was closer to the truth than you on this issue.

Initially, sure, but I think we can agree that most people don't think well of Capone. As to what Capone said, I think a better metaphor is "walk softly but carry a big stick". Yet another way would be something that Frank Herbert wrote in one of his Dune books:
"Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?"

Let's try and translate this to this forum. I think we can agree that the forum Administrators are the ones who have the big stick, in that they can ban people. But generally speaking, they are -not- the ones who are insulting others the most. The problem with using the stick instead of the carrot is that you can end up annoying people to the point that they stop responding as much.

There were lots of people who were very "persuasive" using the stick rather than the carrot. Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Caligula, Mao, Stalin, Hitler come immediately to mind.

Yes, but look at how history views them. I think we can agree that historians have not been so kind to them in return.

Can you name some people who were successful in persuasion using the carrot?

Definitely. The depicion of Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, JFK and Gandhi all come to mind. I'm sure you can think of another chararestics many of them share, such as being persecuted and many of them being killed for what they preached. I think we can also agree that historians generally look well upon them.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Initially, sure, but I think we can agree that most people don't think well of Capone. As to what Capone said, I think a better metaphor is "walk softly but carry a big stick". Yet another way would be something that Frank Herbert wrote in one of his Dune books:
"Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?"

Let's try and translate this to this forum. I think we can agree that the forum Administrators are the ones who have the big stick, in that they can ban people. But generally speaking, they are -not- the ones who are insulting others the most. The problem with using the stick instead of the carrot is that you can end up annoying people to the point that they stop responding as much.



Yes, but look at how history views them. I think we can agree that historians have not been so kind to them in return.



Definitely. The depicion of Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, JFK and Gandhi all come to mind. I'm sure you can think of another chararestics many of them share, such as being persecuted and many of them being killed for what they preached. I think we can also agree that historians generally look well upon them.

It seems, from this response of yours, that you are more concerned with having people like you...than with getting better results by using the carrot rather than the stick.

Be nice...and liked if you want, but to suggest that means you will make more converts is the kind of self-congratulations in which Trump engages when he says he is a master of making deals. It simply is not real...and taking the "nice" road as a path to making better conversions is not real either. (OR AT LEAST, IT MAY NOT BE.)

You seem to be sure it is. I am saying I am not sure. Here in this forum I see no better results from doing things your way...with more respect, than from doing it the way so many here do...with trash talk.

I see that Bill Maher is now preaching in a way that favors your take. Be nice to them...try to understand their position...make concessions...and things have a better chance of working out.

Neville Chamberland felt that way back in the 1930's.

What could go wrong with that?

 

[Scott]

Initially, sure, but I think we can agree that most people don't think well of Capone. As to what Capone said, I think a better metaphor is "walk softly but carry a big stick". Yet another way would be something that Frank Herbert wrote in one of his Dune books:
"Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?"

Let's try and translate this to this forum. I think we can agree that the forum Administrators are the ones who have the big stick, in that they can ban people. But generally speaking, they are -not- the ones who are insulting others the most. The problem with using the stick instead of the carrot is that you can end up annoying people to the point that they stop responding as much.

Yes, but look at how history views them. I think we can agree that historians have not been so kind to them in return.

Definitely. The [depiction] of Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, JFK and Gandhi all come to mind. I'm sure you can think of another chararestics many of them share, such as being persecuted and many of them being killed for what they preached. I think we can also agree that historians generally look well upon them.

It seems, from this response of yours, that you are more concerned with having people like you...than with getting better results by using the carrot rather than the stick.

No, I think that using the carrot tends to lead to better results in the long run.

Be nice...and liked if you want, but to suggest that means you will make more converts is the kind of self-congratulations in which Trump engages when he says he is a master of making deals. It simply is not real...and taking the "nice" road as a path to making better conversions is not real either. (OR AT LEAST, IT MAY NOT BE.)

I'm glad you acknowledge that it -may- actually be the best way to change people's minds about some things. Perhaps even more importantly though, I think that civilized dialogue makes it easier for all sides to see other people's points of view. I think we can agree that the goal should always be getting to the truth, regardless of whether we already believe it or not.

You seem to be sure it is. I am saying I am not sure. Here in this forum I see no better results from doing things your way...with more respect, than from doing it the way so many here do...with trash talk.

Fair enough. I think I should probably add that my way works best with people who are willing to play the same game- that is, be civilized in return. It's not very good at making headway with people who refuse this path.

I see that Bill Maher is now preaching in a way that favors your take. Be nice to them...try to understand their position...make concessions...and things have a better chance of working out.

Neville Chamberland felt that way back in the 1930's.

What could go wrong with that?

I think we can agree that there are times when trying to find common ground is a good thing and other times when fighting is required. One thing though, once Winston Churchill took over from Chamberland, I think we can agree that he didn't engage much if at all in flame wars with other heads of state- I think that in general, the politeness held and he ultimately formed a coalition of nations, including Russia, to defeat Germany's Nazis.

 

[Ross Dolan]

No, I think that using the carrot tends to lead to better results in the long run.

Yes, I know you think that. As I said...I am not sure, but history seems to me to indicate that the stick is a hell of a lot more effective. If I were forced to make a bet, I would bet on the stick...with the carrot coming in third.

I'm glad you acknowledge that it -may- actually be the best way to change people's minds about some things. Perhaps even more importantly though, I think that civilized dialogue makes it easier for all sides to see other people's points of view. I think we can agree that the goal should always be getting to the truth, regardless of whether we already believe it or not.

Yes, I understand that is what you think. But keep in mind that I would bet the opposite way. In fact, I would argue that history shows that "the stick" changes a hell of a lot more minds than "the carrot."

Fair enough. I think I should probably add that my way works best with people who are willing to play the same game- that is, be civilized in return. It's not very good at making headway with people who refuse this path.

This about that condition a bit more, Scott.

Essentially you are saying that if people are willing to have their mind changed, you can change it using your method.

Okay...so change one of the minds of the people willing to listen to reason here.

Here is a list of them:

I think we can agree that there are times when trying to find common ground is a good thing and other times when fighting is required. One thing though, once Winston Churchill took over from Chamberland, I think we can agree that he didn't engage much if at all in flame wars with other heads of state- I think that in general, the politeness held and he ultimately formed a coalition of nations, including Russia, to defeat Germany's Nazis.

But to bring it back to discussions on the Internet...which is what we should be doing...I have been part of discussions in places with firm and immediate moderators...where no minds get changed to a greater degree than here....with its rather loose moderation.

You want the American public to be reasonable and decent. So do I. You think it can be. I think it more likely that one can teach quantum mechanics to a honey badger.

Said another way, you want to tell them to reason with you. I want to tell them that they are not making America Great Again...that they are turning it into a cesspool. I want to tell the the slimy bastards to go fuck themselves.

 

[Tobytone]

Democrats have morphed from well-meaning but clueless do-gooders into full-blown radicals who’d rather eat their own than tolerate a whiff of dissent. Stray from the script, and they eat you alive. The days of a good productive debate with a democrat are over. For example, try to debate them on men in women’s sports or bathrooms, It’s like arguing with a flat-earther on bath salts. Every one of their ideas are unhinged, their lies are shameless, and they’re basically a traveling circus of crazy.

This site’s a great place for sane takes from like-minded people, stories I haven't seen, and tracking the Dems’ spiraling insanity. As for. insults? I’ decided to sling back the trash libtards chuck, I tried insult free conversations, but it was always a complete waste of time, you can't debate crazy.