Lost my temper on-line - feeling stupid

Post Reply New Topic

Warning: This is long and partly about meta-messages and indirect communication, so my writing will likely be ambiguous in places.

The nicknames and exact vocabulary of the quotes have been changed to protect the identity of the people involved. If you go hunting around the net to find this conversation, I am pretty sure you will find at least ten, and likely more, that fit the description well enough.


Damn!

I had a feeling, from the start, that I probably should not have gotten involved in that particular debate on another forum. The guy at the center of it (I'll call him "Bill") had written something condescending-sounding about women, and then used multiple quite long posts to explain why anybody who minded his comment was wrong to react so, because he had not intended to offend. The main irony in the situation was that in almost every new post where he defended himself, he also said something more about his attitudes about or relationships with women, and some of these comments also sounded condescending.

Several people (so far three men and four women, me included) explained several times how a text can seem to say more than or different from what the literal meaning of the words is. "Bill" kept insisting that he had done nothing wrong, and as one of the women involved also spoke of her problems in understanding some aspects of communication, I started to wonder if "Bill" was on the autism spectrum but unaware of it himself. The length of his posts, and the detail he paid attention to suggested this possibility, likewise his proclaimed inability to understand why he had offended. So I hung along and followed the thread, occasionally commenting on how one sentence or another could be understood in several ways and why.

I was hoping to find an opening in the thread's discussion for suggesting that "Bill" could look into the Empathy Quotient and Autism Quotient tests and other spectrum related resources. At one point I identified myself as a spectrumite and commented on the importance of both respecting one's own point of view and adapting to the majority culture when needed, hoping "Bill" would comment on that, but he didn't.

At a later time I suggested that "Bill" just apologize, in words like "I am sorry if I offended - it was not my intention". As an answer he wrote that he did not see the point in apologizing because he a) had not intended to offend and b) had explained his original intentions already. In his words those who had misunderstood his text and "kept yammering about it" were the ones who should apologize, to him. At this point I started to feel vaguely and persistently uncomfortable about the thread and "Bill".

As the thread grew further, things got uglier. In several posts, "Bill" claimed that everyone who had a problem with what he had written must be overly sensitive, have emotional hang-ups, or be "nervous". When some people pointed out where in his voluminous writing he had contradicted himself, he denied there being any contradictions, and wrote a detailed "explanation" for each contradiction (all such explanations were at least partly illogical according to me).

Then a couple of people called "Bill" out on twisting others' words (purposely misunderstanding) - and his response was to claim that *they* were the ones doing that, to him. Later on he was called out on a couple of other misbehaviors or shortcomings, and each time his reaction was to not address the claim but throw it right back at whoever had made the claim, in this style "No, YOU are the one doing it - you need to explain yourself / apologize before you can demand that I address this issue." Each time someone confronted him he also used (mildly) insulting adjectives of the person who had pointed out the contradiction or made insinuations of their mental capacity and/or stability.

Fairly recently one of the women ("Anna") wrote, as one part of a post "Why do you say XYZ", to which "Bill" answered: "If you think I am wrong to say XYZ, you prove it!" I got peeved and protested that "Anna" had *asked*a*question*, not claimed anything about the rightness or wrongness of saying XYZ. "Bill's" reaction was "Why ask the question if she does not mean to challenge - we are in a debate, for Christ sake!" When I then presented three different ways of interpreting the question's meta-message, "Bill" quoted that part of my post and answered only "This is bullsh*t, and you know it." and then started to write about other things. In further discussion on this theme "Bill" insisted that "Anna" had to have an opinion about XYZ - that she could not be undecided or just looking for information, that being undecided was somehow bad of her.

Then one of the other men ("Charlie") pointed out a mistake "Bill" had made: "Bill" had waived off "Charlie's" comment on an earlier exchange between the two of them (in this same thread) by writing that that exchange had been with "someone" who was "looking to get their knickers in a twist anyway". "Bill" waived off "Charlie's" comment that the word "someone" should have been "Charlie" with "That is not what we (naming three people, including me and not including "Charlie") are discussing right now". Now on that forum, this was a particularly silly comment, because joking and letting the focus of a discussion wander are completely accepted in the free discussion zone (there is a no-derail rule for the more serious areas of the forum, though). "Bill" himself had joked and made off-topic comments in that very thread, as had others, and that had thus far not been commented on by anyone.

So I pointed out that "Charlie" had indeed made a valid observation about "Bill's" mistake, and that the most straight forward way to get back to the main discussion was for "Bill" to acknowledge his mistake fair and square. "Bill's" answer to this began with "F*ck that!" and continued with an accusation that "Charlie" was only trying to disrupt, because he obviously had nothing valid to contribute to the actual discussion. At no point did "Bill" address the issue that he had indeed made a mistake in attributing "Charlie's" comment to a generic "someone".

I got a very frustrated at this point, and pointed out that "Bill" hurt his own imago on the forum by refusing to admit that he had made a mistake, for which there was undeniable evidence on-line. He answered that he had "never claimed that Charlie was not the someone I meant." He also claimed that I knew that I was wrong and loosing in the actual debate, and that that was the reason I tried to steer the focus of the discussion elsewhere. He also wrote: "That you say that I was wrong does not automatically make it so."

And this, finally, was what got my adrenalin seriously up. I wrote back that I was angry now, because his "I never claimed that Charlie was not the someone I meant." comment was insulting to the concepts of truth and honesty, and that I could not trust his claims anymore, if his attitude and treatment of language and evidence were like this. I further wrote that he was mocking everyone involved in the thread and in the forum, if he claimed that all claims in the world were subject to "he said - she said" relativity.

His answer to this was to claim that I had misunderstood everything, that I was loosing the debate, and that I was just pretending to react like this to get out of a loosing fight before my incompetence became glaringly obvious to everyone. He also insinuated that I have problems in understanding English, as I "can't see the difference between a true statement and a false one".

I have not commented on that thread since, and I don't intend to. I'm mad at myself for letting him get under my skin, yet more mad about that his sheer writing volume in relation to the smallish number of commenters let him get away with the patterns of behavior that I have described in this post, for so long. I intend to not discuss anything with him again, as I judge him to be highly unlikely to be a pleasant or contributing discussion partner, unless everything about the discussion shows him in a good light (or he can imagine it to be or present it as positive about himself).

What makes me feel extra stupid is that today I noticed that "Charlie" had made the newest post in the thread (I still see the thread in my listing, because I have posted in it - that forum does not have the ability to hide threads from oneself), so I checked what he had to say. He commented about that "Bill" had started a "complain about your ex" thread several months ago, claiming it to be a joke and a game, and there presented such opinions about women that cannot be called much other than sexist and condescending ("Charlie" called them that, and when I checked out that thread, I was inclined to agree with his assessment). That thread had died out rather swiftly, apparently due to lack of interest, so I had never noticed it.

Can I / we learn something from this? At least that not everyone who shares some communication problems with spectrumites is necessarily a spectrumite, nor is (s)he necessarily a nice person who is aiming to overcome her/his problems.

The word "narcissist" has also crossed my mind. I guess I had better do some reading on that issue, just in case. I'll go see if anyone has posted anything here about how spectrumites can handle (on-line) narcissists effectively.

Thank you for listening! I feel better now that I've "written this out from my system".

I hate it when I let myself get over-invested in something online, too. For some reason, many people have decided that if an issue is important, then one must automatically be on one side or the other and loyally defend that side to the end, regardless of arguments or evidence that may arise. They see it as a sign of strength, rather than just knee-jerk opposition and refusal to reason. The more people argue with them without making them sway, the stronger they believe themselves to be, and therefore, somehow, more right. It's not an attitude I understand or have much sympathy for.

I lost my temper online on Tuesday, when chatting with a young lady. Online chat seems to bring out the worst in me, because though I'm probably wrong some of the time I do often tend to feel like I'm being made out to be some sort of pervert for no apparent reason by most chatters, this gets me upset, and so I lost my temper with this lady. I went to find her later to apologise, which is all you can do when you've got mad at someone. I must point out, though, that it was so easy to apologise in this case, and easy to have the apology readily accepted, because the girl is a stripper, so no doubt will have a lot of social respectability compromised which is the only reason she would be so keen to talk to me online. Although she thought I was an as*hole, this view changed very quickly because she felt I had balls because I apologised.

I didn't read the whole thing...sorry, I am too lazy.

However, I can tell you, I have been there before. Online comunication can be so hard to get through, and so easy at the same time. Like I remember that I once had a debate about Obama being a communist (now, I know he is a socialist) on a thread not even about that. I also know now that if you lose your temper online, it may haunt you forever (luckily that happens often on that site). I am not going to say what you should do because I have not read the story and it is not my place, but I hope you figure it out because there are SO many things people can find out these days, and you don't want someone you would ever want to impress (like a boss or someone you may be romantically involved with) to find it.

Good luck!

i read it all.

i have a hard time with characters like this, and there are a few here.

objectively the best thing to do is remove yourself from the conversation before it gives you an ulcer. but i understand this is really hard especially if the person who is being difficult is saying offensive things about women (or gays, or minorities .. ) because it's difficult to let the comments go unchallenged. it feels wrong, like you are condoning what he has to say if you don't speak up. at least this is why i find it difficult to disengage from it. but it really is all you can do.

some people cannot be bothered by the facts. ignore such people the same way you ignore your neighbor's barking dogs. they are not worth one iota of your energy.

i am the WORST for caring so much about arguments online. it's like i feel as though i really could not stand for a person to keep going on unware of the effect they are having. it's silly, but i have not yet found a cure.

a suggestion- none of us can fundamentally change another human being. the only thing we CAN change is our own reaction to other human beings. unpleasant people exist for a reason, if only to serve as a bad example. it's a dirty job but somebody has to do it.

good advice. i probably won't take it lol. eventually my obsession with WP will pass, and the door will close behind me and people will forget me and that'll be it. but for now, i argue what is important to me (a whole lot of things, apparently).

i've been told IRL that i am more christian than a christian (i'm atheist), and i am socratic in my thinking that ignorance leads to wrong actions. i'm not likely to be cured anytime soon, but it is very kind of you to offer such good advice.

I lose my temper online all the time. I'm on WrongPlanet, all the time. Guess where I lose my temper? If I ran away from the Internet, every time that I lost my temper, you guys wouldn't see me, at all. Don't take it personally. It happens to everybody.