Definitely uncalled for in that case. A polite, civilized response would be more like "I can't agree with X's advice because my experience has been..." It really doesn't take a lot of effort to be polite instead of rude. Just more self-control.
ooh you have me so paranoid now I hope, that I never offend any one, and that if I did I would like be told that my comment could be constructed as rude. I struggle any way with what seems to be acceptable to me in reality might not be, some times I am not sure, It seems ok, then folk dont tell you out of kindness, yet you are learning, they make allowances, saying its so and so she has LD it is so frustrating.
I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who saw instances of this rudeness. There is no excuse, end of story. If your that uncensored that you can't help but to write mean comments, go to another website.
No need to be nervous, what is acceptable is different than what is morally right. You know? You can still say that it's not very good, or that you didn't like it, but provide instructions of how to better it, and then always add a few things you did like.
Leave the moderating to the mods. The last thing we need is every member telling every other member how they can and cannot write if they want to be here.
rudeness can only be down to two things according to me: ONE: is because the user knows no better and therefore thinks by being rude they are being noticed.. a bit like attention seeking and so resort to vulgarism swear words, you name it it is there. mind you the computer is geared for that, the amount and type of visuals and content circulating in the internet is enough to make one want to kick off. or/and TWO: the user suffers from computer spasms which manifests itself in the userbehaving badly,a bit like roadrage, where one cannot control the urge to swear flap or hit the keyboard with swear words as big as their heads. apart from these two reasons, rudeness would not be justified.
I don't know why you'd think I'm moderating, steerpike, we're all voicing our opinions about what we think is right, and we scared a newbie into being hesitant to post here. It was more of a suggestion and proof as to why they needn't be afraid! lol And people, I don't know why it's hard to get...I don't care if your sarcastic, English, American, Chinese, there isn't an excuse for writing something like "frankly moronic", even if we've all got different opinions. We all went to school and learned how to open our milks and learned to read, has everyone forgotten the Golden Rule?
I do not believe they justify being rude in the literal world. I was trying to work out why rudeness so those were the only two I could come up with.
computer spasms is just a made up word of mine. what I mean is that I believe that some people may have withdraw symptoms from using the computer. I compared to a driver and road rage because some people are better off not driving as it makes them aggressive. so some people get aggressivity from using the Internet or shall I say the way the computer is set allow room for anger and aggressivity. a kind of a rash reaction to it.
OK, I apologize - it looks like I misconstrued your post. The part about telling writers to go to another site if they don't conform to what you want to see posted is what I was referring to. My view is that writers need thicker skins in general, if they're going to get into this business. That doesn't excuse rudeness, of course, but I do think that the general insecurities and thin skins among writers can lead to blunt honesty being characterized as rudeness. My general view toward critiques is that no matter what the critiquer says, and whether you agree with it or not or perceive it as rude or not, you simply thank the reviewer for taking the time to comment and move on. You can always disregard the comments later. When it comes to non-critique discussions, the difficulty, in my view, is that people can differ greatly in terms of what they consider rude or offensive. I'm fairly hard to "offend." Another writer might be easily offended. Neither is inherently right or wrong, just two personality types. Someone who is easily offended might also be more circumscribed or soft in their posts, whereas someone who is hard to offend might come across as more brash at times. This is because we all gauge our own conduct subjectively, at least in large part. I've had people take offense to things I've posted that I do not believe merited such a reaction. So when you talk about being able to self-censor for rudeness, or about any other subjective value judgment associated with posts, the question ultimately comes down to who is making the judgment about what is offensive or not, what is rude or not, and what is allowed or not. All too often the most sensitive or most easily offended become the loudest and you end up with a situation where people are tailoring their posts to avoid offending that group. I think this is a bad idea in general, and particularly bad when dealing with writers, where artistic freedom is paramount. So my personal preference is for a more laissez-faire approach, where in all but the most egregious cases the members of the community work it out amongst themselves through dialogue, and where members who feel offended or insulted by a particular other member use the ignore feature rather than have the mods descend from on high to make the offending person conform. That's just my subjective preference. Reasonable people can differ
I'm not sure rudeness is subjective. If one uses adjectives or analogies, it's pretty easy to discern what reaction the words will elicit. If one uses words/phrases which are directed at the person rather than at the writing/discussion, it also easy to know the type of reaction. If one is dismissive of anything other than agreement with one's own position... There are definitely writers out there who need to get a thicker skin. But too often that 'thin skin' thing is used as a dismissal by the person being rude. It never hurts to sit back for a moment and think about what we're saying and how we're saying it. I mean, that's what we do all the time with our stories, isn't it?
Not exactly. Genocide can be explained, but not justified (except in the minds of those committing it).
Not exactly. Suppose person A cuts off person B in a car as they're driving down the road, and at the next light person B gets out of his car and shoots person A. It can be explained: Person B became angry when he was cut off; the anger led him to get out of his car at the next light and shoot person A. But the shooting of person A over the traffic incident is not justified by any means (which is something I hope we can all agree on).
you see this where I have a problem. I don't consider genocide as being explained because an explanation for me means logic. like 1+1= 2. that is explained .
No. Explained means that the reasons behind the action are known and apparent. Justified means that the action was morally right. Not the same.
you mean the idea behind the action is called a motive an explanation means why has something happened. if you explaind the meaning of something that you have given me a good /POSITIVE indication to why it has happened. and explanation has a POSITIVE meaning or carrier.
you mean to say it can be told how it happened. but it is in no way explained because we do not understand what wenr wrong in that person's mind when they decided to shoot. it is as ambigous and as complicated as anything. and I so I would say I do not understand why he did it and therefore there is no explanation whatsover to be had. I know the facts but that is all. understanding is another.
I guess it depends on the level of explanation you want. Pointing out he was angry is an explanation. If we go further and determine why such a thing would make him so angry, that's another level of explanation. If we identify a biochemical problem in his mind that causes him to behave irrationally, that is yet another level of explanation. But the key for purposes of this discussion is that none of these is a justification
I know I've heard a lot of people say: "Well writing is a tough job and it's a tough world, get over it." That I understand, but I'm 19 and I have no ambitions of ever having my writing support me fiscally, it's more of a beloved "escape" just like drawing and painting. I've had maybe five years of creative writing experience, and although I am so much further from where I started, I am far from where I want to be. I love critique, but I would be seriously discouraged if someone called one of my stories or poems "frankly moronic" or "terrible". I'm almost positive that my feelings would be bruised and I would probably take the story down and erase it off of my computer and stop writing for a while because if that's the only opinions I get, then why would I want to keep writing? Even with super HARSH criticism I would be motivated to rewrite and re-post, instead of being discouraged. It's just everyone has different opinions of what is great and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. And I've really only seen a few instances of people being this way towards others, and it was no one on this thread...and probably isn't done by anyone of intellect. It's like cyber bullying in a way, so if you see it, stop it, bottom line.
Banzai was the first to reply to this thread, and I guess this would be my only answer, from a mod themselves.
