# Taking a side with a jerk



## Bullgrit (Dec 11, 2013)

Ever been in a discussion, (in the Real World, in a face-to-face situation), where the "side" you agree with has an advocate who is just being a total jerk? You want to participate, and state your view of the topic, but to do so will essentially put you on the same side as someone you find completely repugnant?

What do you do? Enter the discussion with your opinion and ignore the jerk? Stay out of the discussion all together to avoid being related with the jerk? "Join" the other side just to oppose the jerk? Something else?

Are you a good debater in person? 

Bullgrit


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 11, 2013)

Hmmm... I wonder who or what you're referring to.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 11, 2013)

*Taking the side of a jerk*

Bullgrit, please assure me this has nothing to do with anybody here.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 11, 2013)

This is a completely self-contained topic. We can limit this concept to real world, real life, in person discussions.

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2013)

In unbalanced situations, I tend to fill in the void.

So if the jerk has valid points, I may restate and tone down the rhetoric to identify the points that both parties should be able to agree on if there wasn't the ridiculous hyperbole and crap going on.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 11, 2013)

Though I have a feeling I know what this is about, I'll take your word that it isn't and respond accordingly (as the topic does interest me) :



Bullgrit said:


> Ever been in a discussion, (in the Real World, in a face-to-face situation), where the "side" you agree with has an advocate who is just being a total jerk? You want to participate, and state your view of the topic, but to do so will essentially put you on the same side as someone you find completely repugnant?




Yup, I have.  Probably everyone has.  Hell, if you're even a li'l Republican you've undoubtably wound up on the same side of an issue as someone who's potentially clinically insane.  It happens.

Being on the same side as someone doesn't mean you support the way they make their point.  It doesn't say anything negative about you so long as you don't support the behavior.  Make your point and make it your own - that way people won't think your support for the position is also support for the person.



> What do you do? Enter the discussion with your opinion and ignore the jerk? Stay out of the discussion all together to avoid being related with the jerk? "Join" the other side just to oppose the jerk? Something else?




I enter the discussion and make sure to frame my argument in a way to make sure it's understood that it's my own.  I'd never join the other side just to shut someone I agree with but don't like how they present themselves up.  The truth is more important than your comfort, no?  Hell, you can even go so far as to say something like 'Opie Thomas Timmons may be coming off a bit aggressively but he does have a point, you see' and then explain where you think he's right but in a way you're comfortable with.  There's no reason to compromise yourself just to make sure you're not associated with a sociopath.



> Are you a good debater in person?
> 
> Bullgrit




Excellent, actually, and even more decisive, vicious, and sneakily insulting.  Er, when I want to be.  Typically I debate friends or whatever and they know my crap so I have to actually be on my game.  It's fun - especially when hammered.  Oh, and I don't do Devil's Advocate.  Not my style.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 11, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:
			
		

> Being on the same side as someone doesn't mean you support the way they make their point. It doesn't say anything negative about you so long as you don't support the behavior. Make your point and make it your own - that way people won't think your support for the position is also support for the person.



I once almost lost a friend because I was on the opposite of a discussion from him, "teamed up" with an obnoxious jerk. The discussion was about "good restaurants," (of all pointless things), and the guy who agreed with me chose to belittle and insult my friend's choices. The jerk was just an acquaintance of ours, and I thought my friend and I were tight enough that he knew I wouldn't side against him like the jerk was doing. My friend was bothered for many days until a third friend told me he was mad. We made up, and we both agreed to hate the jerk 

Bullgrit


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 11, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> I once almost lost a friend because I was on the opposite of a discussion from him, "teamed up" with an obnoxious jerk. The discussion was about "good restaurants," (of all pointless things), and the guy who agreed with me chose to belittle and insult my friend's choices. The jerk was just an acquaintance of ours, and I thought my friend and I were tight enough that he knew I wouldn't side against him like the jerk was doing. My friend was bothered for many days until a third friend told me he was mad. We made up, and we both agreed to hate the jerk
> 
> Bullgrit




That's amazing to me.  I've never had a friend get angry with me for disagreeing with them even if _I'm_ acting like an idiot (which, since I _do _argue when drinking (I try not to but a couple of pals like to drag me into it) sometimes happens).  I dunno, to us disagreement, argument and even downright battles aren't a big deal.  We know where things stand.  

What matters, though, is that you worked it out.  I had questioned what type of friend this may have been.  Turns out, the answer is a damned good one.  I wouldn't let that situation deter you from speaking your mind, though.  I think it does bring up an important point, though: After a discussion like this it's a good idea to talk to the reasonable person you were arguing with and explain that though you don't agree with them you disagree even more vehemently with the way the other person chose to treat them.  Excellent lesson learned, I'd say.  Thanks for sharing.  It's something I'm gonna try to keep in mind.


----------



## Cyclone_Joker (Dec 11, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Ever been in a discussion, (in the Real World, in a face-to-face situation), where the "side" you agree with has an advocate who is just being a total jerk? You want to participate, and state your view of the topic, but to do so will essentially put you on the same side as someone you find completely repugnant?



This doesn't look like an thinly-veiled insult,  not at all.

But, hey, I'll bite.


> What do you do? Enter the discussion with your opinion and ignore the jerk? Stay out of the discussion all together to avoid being related with the jerk? "Join" the other side just to oppose the jerk? Something else?



The person's jerkness is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they're correct.

What I view as more frustrating is when someone on my side is using terrible arguments and generally making a fool of both themselves and anyone associated with them. Or, basically, when someone manages to be on my side, but still manage to be wrong despite that.


> Are you a good debater in person?



Yes, when I choose to be. However, I'm just as likely to decide that my opponents aren't worth being taken seriously.


----------



## Janx (Dec 11, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> That's amazing to me.  I've never had a friend get angry with me for disagreeing with them even if _I'm_ acting like an idiot (which, since I _do _argue when drinking (I try not to but a couple of pals like to drag me into it) sometimes happens).  I dunno, to us disagreement, argument and even downright battles aren't a big deal.  We know where things stand.
> 
> What matters, though, is that you worked it out.  I had questioned what type of friend this may have been.  Turns out, the answer is a damned good one.  I wouldn't let that situation deter you from speaking your mind, though.  I think it does bring up an important point, though: After a discussion like this it's a good idea to talk to the reasonable person you were arguing with and explain that though you don't agree with them you disagree even more vehemently with the way the other person chose to treat them.  Excellent lesson learned, I'd say.  Thanks for sharing.  It's something I'm gonna try to keep in mind.




There are some people, like my wife, who really hates debating things.  Since I have friends who like to debate things, this can be seen as a negative attribute on them.  Namely, because to non-debaters, they get annoyed that the other person can't just let the matter drop.

For someone like myself, debating can be a trap of trying to get the other person to change/admit something.  If I can detect that I'm falling into it early, I'd just as soon wrap it up, rather than irritate the missus.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 11, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:
			
		

> I've never had a friend get angry with me for disagreeing with them...



It's not about simple disagreement. Friends can and do and will disagree all the time. Even sometimes vehemently. But *friends* [edit: at least my kind of friends] disagree without being mean jerks to each other.

Bullgrit


----------



## PigKnight (Dec 11, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Ever been in a discussion, (in the Real World, in a face-to-face situation),



That feels like a pretty thin veil, but I'll bite.



> where the "side" you agree with has an advocate who is just being a total jerk? You want to participate, and state your view of the topic, but to do so will essentially put you on the same side as someone you find completely repugnant?



As a Republican I face this problem far too often.



> What do you do? Enter the discussion with your opinion and ignore the jerk?



Yes.



> Stay out of the discussion all together to avoid being related with the jerk?



If you're not a jerk and the discusion won't label you a jerk, why are you worried about being labeled a jerk?



> "Join" the other side just to oppose the jerk?




Why? Why would you ever do that? That makes you a phony and a liar.



> Something else?



A systematic destruction of their argument followed up by a point-by-point statement of facts backing up my argument. If I am winning the argument and they start attacking me personally, a boolean thingy occurs.
>If I know the person's background/thinking patterns and the agrument is not particularily important
>>Then destroy them psychologically
>>Else take the high road



> Are you a good debater in person?



I'm the best AROUND! no one's ever gonna take me down. 'Cus I'm the best AROUND! no one's ever gonna take me doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooown. 



> Bullgrit



PigKnight


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 11, 2013)

Janx said:


> There are some people, like my wife, who really hates debating things.  Since I have friends who like to debate things, this can be seen as a negative attribute on them.  Namely, because to non-debaters, they get annoyed that the other person can't just let the matter drop.
> 
> For someone like myself, debating can be a trap of trying to get the other person to change/admit something.  If I can detect that I'm falling into it early, I'd just as soon wrap it up, rather than irritate the missus.




Heh, keeping the missus happy is generally always a good idea.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 11, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> It's not about simple disagreement. Friends can and do and will disagree all the time. Even sometimes vehemently. But *friends* [edit: at least my kind of friends] disagree without being mean jerks to each other.
> 
> Bullgrit




Heh, my friends and I are mean jerks to each other all the time.  The thing is, we don't mean it.  We're not the sort to require that we're very careful with what we say.  Thick skin is absolutely necessary to roll with my crew.  Just sorta happened that way, too.  Not sure why.


----------



## Bullgrit (Dec 11, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:
			
		

> Heh, my friends and I are mean jerks to each other all the time. The thing is, we don't mean it. We're not the sort to require that we're very careful with what we say. Thick skin is absolutely necessary to roll with my crew. Just sorta happened that way, too. Not sure why.



Some people like to salsa, some people like to slam dance.

Bullgrit


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Dec 11, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Ever been in a discussion, (in the Real World, in a face-to-face situation), where the "side" you agree with has an advocate who is just being a total jerk? You want to participate, and state your view of the topic, but to do so will essentially put you on the same side as someone you find completely repugnant?
> 
> What do you do? Enter the discussion with your opinion and ignore the jerk? Stay out of the discussion all together to avoid being related with the jerk? "Join" the other side just to oppose the jerk? Something else?
> 
> ...




I'm a jerk anyway, so I would simply continue to be me.

I too have found myself agreeing with people I totally loathe and despise. I even tell them when I do so. 
Just ask CJ.


----------



## Janx (Dec 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Heh, keeping the missus happy is generally always a good idea.




Yup.  When I'm wiser, I figure out if I really need to be right and discern that I do not.

Like the thread with the robo telemarketing and how I hate telemarketing.

I don't NEED to have telemarketing be eliminated.  Certainly not more than somebody else needs a check from it.

now if it's a debate about a course of action that I know is going to hurt me, then I will be more vociferous in my defense of the rightness of not doing things that hurt me.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 12, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> What do you do? Enter the discussion with your opinion and ignore the jerk?




Sometimes.  In some real-life, face-to-face conversations, with the more full communication available, the jerk is easier to manage than in plain text.



> Stay out of the discussion all together to avoid being related with the jerk?




I may stay out of the discussion, but not for your stated reason.  The jerk may just make the conversation unpleasant, and then I may just not engage.



> "Join" the other side just to oppose the jerk?




No.  That's just making it personal, which is a bad scene.



> Are you a good debater in person?




Depends what you mean by "good debater".  

There's formal debate, which has a scoring system and which can be won or lost.  But most folks aren't actually learned of the forms - they remember that you're supposed to win or lose, and they forget the purpose of the exercise, which is to explore a topic to see what grains of truth can be found.   

That forgetfulness means that most modern social situations are not appropriate places to really debate things - the winning and losing hangup becomes a real issue that can louse up a social gathering something fierce.

Places like EN World offer more appropriate settings for debate.  However, on the internet these days, there's folks still caught up in the winning and losing.  Some feel that refusing to back down, getting the last word, making the other guy lose their cool, playing tricks with semantics, or saying things you can snigger about in private conversations counts as good debate.  I'm not one of those people.  Debate isn't about scoring points within a social group, or taking people down a notch in ego.

Edit:  I'm talking about people in general, folks.  Not OTTers in particular.  Not everything in the world is about OTTers.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 12, 2013)

When i side with a jerk- in a non-professional capacity- I basically have 3 steps:

1) express my support of the position espoused by the jerk, often explicitly rephrasing the jerk's own words, (hopefully) in a clear & non-jerky way.

2) point out the jerk's jerkiness to him, and point out how that behavior is a hinderance to making his point.

3) if the jerkiness gets to a certain point, I disengage.


----------



## Herobizkit (Dec 12, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> When i side with a jerk- in a non-professional capacity- I basically have 3 steps:
> 
> 1) express my support of the position espoused by the jerk, often explicitly rephrasing the jerk's own words, (hopefully) in a clear & non-jerky way.
> 
> ...



Lawyered. :3

I remember a time when my childhood friend was accused of saying jerky things about another person, causing her to yell at him and forbid him from visiting her house (the place where we all hung out). Everyone except me believed my pal said what they were told, jumping to the girl's defense.  I found out where the accusation came from, found and confronted the guy who started the rumour, and made the guy face my pal and (sort of) apologize for the whole thing.  My pal was never allowed back to the house, and he also took it personally that I didn't tell the whole group to piss off and leave with him.  

At the time, I felt I had done the right thing to try and make peace with everyone, but the girl refused to believe the truth even after it was revealed and wouldn't change her mind.  So, for a time, I lost one of my oldest childhood friends over defending a jerk - in this case, it was the girl AND the other guy who were both being jerks.

We eventually reconciled, but it was an intense time for everyone involved.


----------



## delericho (Dec 12, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Ever been in a discussion, (in the Real World, in a face-to-face situation)




In real life, thankfully not. Online, it's happened plenty.



> where the "side" you agree with has an advocate who is just being a total jerk? You want to participate, and state your view of the topic, but to do so will essentially put you on the same side as someone you find completely repugnant?




Yes. Worse than that, there are some topics where there are _so many_ jerks on one side that anyone who raises arguments agreeing with that side is automatically tarred a jerk (and then generally considered discredited and ignored, for good measure). It's really frustrating at times, because it means that some really important debates are effectively silenced.



> What do you do? Enter the discussion with your opinion and ignore the jerk? Stay out of the discussion all together to avoid being related with the jerk? "Join" the other side just to oppose the jerk? Something else?




I'll consider carefully whether it's worth getting involved. Very often, it's just a source of frustration and stress for no benefit, so I'll try to stay clear. This is especially true online, where whatever the outcome of the debate, it ultimately signifies nothing.

If, for whatever reason, I do decide to wade in, then I'll state my opinion as my own, and be sure to state very clearly that it is _my_ opinion, and in no way related to that of the jerk. In fact, I'll generally take pains to denounce the jerkiness of the jerk, in a bid to avoid being tarred with the same brush.

Naturally, it doesn't always work.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 12, 2013)

PigKnight said:


> As a Republican I face this problem far too often.



Hrhr 
I have agreed with jerks in the past, but similar to Janx, I try to make it very clear, what exactly I'm in agreement with.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 12, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Places like EN World offer more appropriate settings for debate.  However, on the internet these days, there's folks still caught up in the winning and losing.  Some feel that refusing to back down, getting the last word, making the other guy lose their cool, playing tricks with semantics, or saying things you can snigger about in private conversations counts as good debate.  I'm not one of those people.  Debate isn't about scoring points within a social group, or taking people down a notch in ego.




I have to say, I was, at first, amazed that this thread was allowed to go the direction it has.  Then I see something like this and remember where I am.  Nice one, bro.  So, you wanna be an OTTer?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> So, you wanna be an OTTer?




I'm not much for cliques.  

An aside: Someone seems to have misunderstood me, so I clarified above, and I'll do so here for folks who aren't going to reread.  I'm not talking about OTTers, in particular.  I'm just talking about people.  Funny thing - I have years of experience here before any OTTer showed their face.  Not every comment I make is about OTTers.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> There are some people, like my wife, who really hates debating things.  Since I have friends who like to debate things, this can be seen as a negative attribute on them.  Namely, because to non-debaters, they get annoyed that the other person can't just let the matter drop.
> 
> .




I am in the same boat. My wife generally perceives debate as being unfriendly or hostile. For some people debate is fun, it is a way of communicating with people you respect, for others it is a sign of disrespect. I like a good debate, but i have also developed a sense of when it may not be appropriate. Or when someone doesn't want you to press them.


----------



## Joker (Dec 12, 2013)

Don't you people know how to punch?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 12, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I'm not much for cliques.
> 
> An aside: Someone seems to have misunderstood me, so I clarified above, and I'll do so here for folks who aren't going to reread.  I'm not talking about OTTers, in particular.  I'm just talking about people.  Funny thing - I have years of experience here before any OTTer showed their face.  Not every comment I make is about OTTers.




I really don't think you know who you're talking to.    Srsly, your thinly veiled finger pointing was too thinly veiled.  But hey, if you wanna pretend then I'm fine with that.  I didn't say anything about OTTers in my post either.  Right? *winkety-winkety*

Heh, it's like it's back in the day all over again.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 12, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I'm not much for cliques.
> 
> An aside: Someone seems to have misunderstood me, so I clarified above, and I'll do so here for folks who aren't going to reread.  I'm not talking about OTTers, in particular.  I'm just talking about people.  Funny thing - I have years of experience here before any *OTTer showed their face*.  Not every comment I make is about OTTers.



You know, had it not been for that bolded part, I'd say cool, no harm no foul. It just appears as if you're angry and are trying to make thinly veiled insults. If it's not what you're trying to do, that's fine. 

Now don't get bent out of shape. All I'm saying is that that's what it _seems_ like. 

Also, Morrus has already decreed that there are no OTTers, so it would probably be helpful if you, as mod, stopped referring to OTTers. It goes a long way to show that everyone is view the same.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I really don't think you know who you're talking to.    Srsly, your thinly veiled finger pointing was too thinly veiled.  But hey, if you wanna pretend then I'm fine with that.  I didn't say anything about OTTers in my post either.  Right? *winkety-winkety*
> 
> Heh, it's like it's back in the day all over again.




Welcome to our new rule.  Martyr card = automatic-one-day ban.  See you tomorrow.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 12, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Also, Morrus has already decreed that there are no OTTers, so it would probably be helpful if you, as mod, stopped referring to OTTers.




I intend to.  But someone voiced a particular concern I thought deserved the respect of open mention.  I even tried to write a version of the explanation without using the term - but the intentional circumspection required seemed pretty darned silly.

And angry?  Goodness, no.  Nothing to be angry about there.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 13, 2013)

Umbran said:


> but the intentional circumspection required seemed pretty darned silly.



It was difficult to tell. Morrus sounded serious -red text, thread closing and all- but then again, I am not a mod. I do not get to moderate complaints that concern myself.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Dec 13, 2013)

tee hee


----------



## Morrus (Dec 13, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> tee hee




I believe this "tee hee" to be part of an organised trolling effort. If I see it again, it'll  generate auto-bans similar to those generated by the martyr card.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Dec 13, 2013)

You're paranoid.
I was laughing at goldo.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 13, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I intend to.  But someone voiced a particular
> concern I thought deserved the respect of open mention.  I even tried to
> write a version of the explanation without using the term - but the intentional
> circumspection required seemed pretty darned silly.



I can see your point about trying to 
address the point without using the term OTTer; however, did you try an writing another version of that post without the phrase " I have years of experience here before *any OTTer showed their face*."?


> And angry?  Goodness, no.  Nothing to be angry about there.



Well that's good. Still, as I mentioned before, that phrase just makes it seem as if you were angry and trying to be insulting. I know you say you weren't trying to be insulting, and I believe you, but the wording just makes it come off like that. I mean, imagine if someone had said "There were some people that were having a discussion, and it was getting a little out of hand, and then Umbran showed his face." It just doesn't sound like something good that you showed "your face," you know what I mean? It could be a simple description of you showing up as a mod, but it just sounds bad. 

In any case, I'm glad that there is no anger and no intent to insult people.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 13, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> You're paranoid.
> I was laughing at goldo.




I don't believe you. As for "paranoid", it's on record that you want to "burn EN World to the ground". But that aside, both calling other users paranoid and answering back to moderation are enough to get individually get temp bans. Let's say 3 days for each. Plus a bonus one to round it to a week.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 13, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I can see your point about trying to
> address the point without using the term OTTer; however, did you try an writing another version of that post without the phrase " I have years of experience here before *any OTTer showed their face*."?




Okay, so, you don't like that particular phrasing?  Got it.  I'll try to avoid it in the future.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 13, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Okay, so, you don't like that particular phrasing?  Got it.  I'll try to avoid it in the future.



I'm not saying I don't like it. I'm just saying that it takes away from your actual message and may give people the wrong impression. You, among others here, have pointed out how word choice and the internet just don't do well together. Things get confusing. They come off wrong. People take it the wrong way. 

But yeah, it's probably a good thing if you decide to not use that kind of phrasing in the future. In any case, we should probably stop discussing this. It's derailing the thread.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 13, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am in the same boat. My wife generally perceives debate as being unfriendly or hostile. For some people debate is fun, it is a way of communicating with people you respect, for others it is a sign of disrespect. I like a good debate, but i have also developed a sense of when it may not be appropriate. Or when someone doesn't want you to press them.



My wife...lacks a perception of certain nuances. She doesn't debate. She either doesn't care, or she will destroy you. The idea of debating something to not _win_ is not something she really recognizes. (very competitive, very black and white viewpoint. Pretty much opposites in that regard.)


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 13, 2013)

Getting back to the OP, I don't recall being in that kind of a situation. I'd like to think I'd say "You're right, and I agree with you, but you're being an ass. Knock it off."


----------



## Giant Slayer (Dec 15, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I don't believe you. As for "paranoid", it's on record that you want to "burn EN World to the ground". But that aside, both calling other users paranoid and answering back to moderation are enough to get individually get temp bans. Let's say 3 days for each. Plus a bonus one to round it to a week.




Respond to a poster what has been banned- bad form. Put on your big boy pants and engage him directly.
And I don't think he really cares if you believe him or not.
What "record" is he on? All I saw was a post on a message board.


BOO-YA!


----------



## Morrus (Dec 15, 2013)

Giant Slayer said:


> Respond to a poster what has been banned- bad form. Put on your big boy pants and engage him directly.
> And I don't think he really cares if you believe him or not.
> What "record" is he on? All I saw was a post on a message board.
> 
> ...




Circumventing a temp ban with an alt is always an automatic permaban.  Goodbye, Robin. Please do not return; you can add this to the list of places where people don't want you around.

Boo...err.. ya.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 16, 2013)

*Mod Edit:*

Post removed.  A link to the Rules is on the bottom of every forum page.  The rules include the following:

"2) If you really, really disagree with a moderator's position on a [moderating] issue, please don't argue about it on the boards. That means no calling out of moderators, no challenging their decisions in the thread, and certainly no attempts to go over a moderator's head. "

If you want to discuss it, take it to e-mail or PM.  Do not discuss the matter in-thread, please.

~Umbran


----------

