An Updated Evaluation of the GDF
[I give my regards to KharmaDog, as it is his thread that made me consider making this.]
KMC, you beat me.
Really, you did. Which is why I've been such an on-again/off-again poster.
You see, I'd post and post and post for some time, and then other people would post and post and post. And it was all the same stuff. But, it grew tiring. I literally felt completely drained of energy after a "session" of KMC's GDF. In order to rebuild my reserves, I'd take a long break, gather up the energy to come back to the GDF, and the process would repeat itself.
Well, I'm back, for now. [What great news.]
And, in my time off, I did some thinking. Why, exactly, was I feeling so enervated by the GDF? Was it because I was in the minority of my views? Nah, I didn't think so. Was it just the typing away at the keyboard for extended periods of time? Probably not. Was it the people at KMC?
Now this had merit to it. But, it wasn't the people in particular. I've encountered enough conservatives and liberals alike to know that it wasn't the people themselves that were sucking the will from me. And it wasn't purposeful.
I tried recalling certain posts to which I responded that lead to this energy-deficient state, and I realized what the problem was:
How people posted.
And now I know what rots KMC from the inside-out. Kharma originally posted this thread asking for our opinions on the GDF. Rather, I'm going to ask you for your opinions on my opinions of what's wrong with the posting habits of the GDF.
There are several archetypal posters who, in my opinion, diminish the value of KMC as a whole. Rather than being a place of enlightened discussion and debate, they aid in reducing the GDF to the typical flame-war scenario observable on most any forum.
Allow me to preface this with the following:
I am under the impression that so many of us have grown bloated on the freedom of speech that we need to go through a time of fasting to truly appreciate it. We have become so accustomed to the right to say whatever we want, whenever we want, that we have abused and mistreated this wonderful freedom. In all honesty, I think it would be good for many to experience a complete loss of the freedom of speech in order to help them to truly appreciate it.
We ought to be thankful for such a thing that many men fought and died for in numerous wars throughout history. Instead, we take it for granted and boldly declare our right to speak our minds.
That attitude disturbs me greatly.
So, without further ado, allow me to introduce the poster-children posters who harm KMC.
__________________________________________________
1. The *******.
This poster is a jerk. He or she might engage you in sensible debate, but the entire response is so riddled with insults (either outright or thinly-veiled) and condescension that it immediately provokes a negative knee-jerk response.
This, of course, leads to insults flying back and forth from both parties, and, if the ******* responds to multiple people, the shit REALLY starts to fly as the thread gets completely out of hand. May or may not boast of his or her prowess in debate in retrospect.
2. The asshat.
Similar to the *******, the asshat revels in provoking negative responses from other posters. His most recognized "accomplishments" is invading a thread, posting inflammatory things, and then disappearing as his agitation of certain posters leads them to fly off the handle, causing total thread derailment.
3. The Wielder of the Inflamed Wit.
The Wielder holds within himself an unusual sharpness of tongue. Unfortunately, he also holds within himself an ornery, cantankerous spirit. The combination of these two features will more often than not provoke the use of said sharpness of tongue for any slight of his or her character, ideology, etc.--both real and imagined.
Whether or not it's a loquacious post in which the Wielder makes an attempt to portray himself as some sort of Socrates incarnate (woefully inept at being anything save for an obvious counterfeit) or a simple insult, this poster ends up in the midst of ping-pong debates that are more interested in the posters themselves than the topic at hand
4. The derailer.
This poster does not start flame wars or directly harm a thread, but he or she has a tendency to engage in side conversations with other posters. The thread goes off-topic and is eventually buried and/or closed.
5. The know-nothing-at-all.
This poster dives into a debate without knowing anything. At all. [Hence the name.] He or she will support his or her opinion with things that are factually inaccurate--and have been for some time.
As a result, other posters start showing the know-nothing-at-all how he or she is incorrect, the know-nothing-at-all fortifies his or her position either by posting articles that support his or her factually inaccurate position or attacking the veracity of the articles disproving his or her beliefs (though the know-nothing-at-all poster will often employ both strategies in a single thread, but at different times).
6. 😆 😂 🙄
This poster overuses the above three smilie faces in order to show his or her dismissal of another's opinion. This poster also will not hesitate to mock other posters through satire or sarcasm, with results that even an inebriated weatherman could predict accurately.
7. The hypocrite.
[The hypocrite is the most contributing source to my enervation, I feel.]
This poster isn't a hypocrite in the sense that he or she says, "I support a particular view" and then does something contradictory. Rather, the hypocrite is one who rains down sulfur, brimstone, and flame-posts from the heavens when an individual exhibits a characteristic (often times ignorance, broad generalizations, etc.) on a view that conflicts with the hypocrite's own. However, when a supporter of the hypocrite's view exhibits the same characteristic, the hypocrite agrees, demonstrates approval, or remains silent.
__________________________________________________
Well? Am I correct, or am I incorrect? For anyone considering it, save your "this poster makes threads about how crappy other posters on the GDF are" posts; I've already written them in my head.
As an addendum, the fundamental problem I see with forums on the Internet as a whole are statements such as the following:
"Anyone who thinks [X] is an idiot."
"I suppose I'd believe [Y] if I were missing half my brain."
"[Z] is retarded."
Where [X], [Y], and [Z] are various thoughts on any topics.
[Please note that I am fully aware that this isn't an evaluation of the GDF per se. I had originally begun to write it as such, but I ended up changing it. The title didn't, though.]