Lazy Arses, Reading Threads, and Posting

[Watcheroftrends]

I'm a bit of a Hemingway, so I feel the need to go into great detail when creating a post. This results in the "wall of text" phenomenon as is often quoted on forums such as this. I believe my posts are interesting and contain good information, but it seems that the length immediately makes people avoid reading them.

I argue for longer posts because it's impossible to make an argument without sufficient length. Most posts are one dimensional without any supporting information. It seems that people are persuaded simply by being told what to think. There's no need to "convince" them. Here are three archetypes I've observed in how ass-hats post:

1. Stick to what they previously believed, taking no time to understand your points, and begin creating a "bash" post of your ideas

2. Immediately jump on the bandwagon, reiterating what little was already said, and add no depth of their own. The points made remain completely unfounded, but are now somehow stronger because more people are idiots

3. Post something irrelevant that doesn't argue against or for the points. What's said usually just pisses someone else off. People go off on tangents and the thread dissolves into a "flamewar"

What do you think? Does this pretty much some up how little thinking often goes on before people click "post"? I'm interested to hear if you have other types of stereotypical poster varieties to describe.

Thanks for reading!

 

[Dark Knifer]

I argue for longer posts because it's impossible to make an argument without sufficient length.

This is a bit much, length has nothing to do with the thought process. Look at your favorite quotes, they probably are only a sentence long yet they can make a good point. As long as the post can show some thought it doesn't matter how long the post is. Also the one dimensional posts you speak of, there are bound to be some of those. It's the internet after all. But your still much better off here because the actual good posts outnumber the bad ones. So your point still stands, but it doesn't seem to be as common as you seem to make it sound.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

1. Stick to what they previously believed, taking no time to understand your points, and begin creating a "bash" post of your ideas

2. Immediately jump on the bandwagon, reiterating what little was already said, and add no depth of their own. The points made remain completely unfounded, but are now somehow stronger because more people are idiots

3. Post something irrelevant that doesn't argue against or for the points. What's said usually just pisses someone else off. People go off on tangents and the thread dissolves into a "flamewar"

Those tend to point towards trollish behavior. If a persons quote seems really stupid and ill-informed try and use logic to change their mind. Should they still stick with what they've said just ignore them and end the conversation.

 

[Thamous]

If there is one thing I hate it is seeing the same exact comment 27 different times in one thread. Do people even read things besides the first post? If 12 other people have already presented my particular argument or belief there isn't really any reason for me to say anything. If I don't actually add anything I normally don't say anything. Then again I usually read damn near every page in each topic I look at.

 

[Gruevy]

I don't often read long posts from start to finish and I'll glaze over them until I find something that catches my attention and choose to respond to it. If there's something interesting then I'll read the rest.

I argue for longer posts because it's impossible to make an argument without sufficient length.

I'll have to disagree. Positions on a subject can be made with one sentence or even a single word if it fits your intent. I agree that in order to convince other people of why your position is right will often require more in-depth explanation, but there are individuals who are less inclined and even unwilling to convince people of anything. I often post one-liners when I'm sure that my position should be obvious. This also serves as a fail-safe in that anyone who is convinced by my position will have read into it more and be better justified at coming towards their own conclusions on a given subject.

 

[flim.geek.chic]

You're a "Hemingway" huh? That view point says you set high standards and expectations for yourself and inturn hold every on else up to the same level of scrutiny. Well this is the internet home of Anonymous, there's very little thinking going on for the most part.

This Board is an exception though, there is far fewer cases of stupid here.

 

[Anarchemitis]

The responses to this thread will be an interesting study in your hypotheses.

 

[Danish rage]

Sometimes i post stuff that has little to do with the OP. But i only do it when i find little or no discussion value. Most times i refrain from posting at all . Because even thoug i have a far above average intelligence, im not born in a english country and therefore the grammanazis line up to bash me.

 

[TerranReaper]

I agree with point 3, somewhat agree with point 2, and somewhat disagree with point 1. I find most people are very stubborn in clinging to their beliefs, especially something they feel strongly about and will not be easily swayed, even when presented with logical arguments. At the expense of going on and making myself the archetype of point 3, this is where I stop.

 

[omicron1]

I think there are certain topics that individuals have strong opinions on - not just so-called "stupid" individuals (which are a much rarer breed than one might suppose), but pretty much any forumgoer whatsoever. So when they come across a topic they have strong opinions on, they're not necessarily looking to understand. (And, indeed, I do not believe anyone comes to a topic looking to have their minds changed) Their options are, then, limited:
* If it's a topic that's in agreement, you more often than not have your second case. This is a conversational choice - chiming in with agreement. It doesn't add much to the debate; it's more like having a squad of yes-men materialize from nowhere.
* If it's a topic they disagree with, they can either leave out of frustration or a wish not to get involved, or post. And if they post, they can either critique your opinion with their own (which may be construed as a "bash post" when it is not) or create a "bash post" - which is, again, a conversational option as opposed to deeper debate.

All that to say, strong opinions lead to inconsequential posts. It's not some innate property of the person doing the talking - most of the time, at least. And there's not that much to be done about it.

All in all, there is really very little chance of a forum debate actually producing useful results, either in changing people's minds or in deep discussion, where strong feelings are in evidence. This may be related to why pretty much every religious/political topic degrades into a shouting match, while topics related to less controversial issues maintain their dignity more readily. Perhaps the medium is uniquely unsuited to the task - unlike a conversation, there is no sense of interrupting an ongoing activity when posting in a forum thread; unlike a debate, there is no preparation for discussion (and no assurance of willingness to take part in such); and unlike a classic forum, you don't have to be paying attention to talk.

But it is important not to assume that those who post such responses are somehow less intelligent or less informed; they are simply less engaged. (Or, in the case of those vehemently opposed, not particularly open to "being convinced of the 'wisdom of your ways.'")


/mytwentytwocents

 

[Falseprophet]

Well, as Hemingway himself wrote in Death in the Afternoon, "all bad writers are in love with the epic."

I'm inclined to wordiness in my own writing, but it's something I've been working on since second-year philosophy when I was given essay assignments with maximum word counts. So I'll write a rambling response to a thread, then go over it and see what can be trimmed and still make my point. Or decide if it's better to just respond to one point at a time. Long paragraphs are just hard to read on a backlit computer screen.

 

[BonsaiK]

American kids are getting to fat and have no attention span!

We have a thread winner.

I think people can respond to threads however they want as long as it's in the rules and they're not being rude. If I see something that falls way outside of this, I report it, otherwise I let it go. I can't really think of anything else to discuss here, it seems like a really basic issue. A post is either acceptable or it isn't for whatever reason.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

It always makes me wince a little on the inside when I see people enclose say... two to three paragraphs in a spoiler box because they want to avoid inflicting a "wall of text" on their poor unsuspecting audience, as if reading a couple of measly paragraphs is a hardship that people should have to opt into. There is something very wrong with that picture.

Have our collective attention spans become so short that we can't be bothered to read anything longer than a sentence unless it has pictures? I remember when saying "Whoa, wall of text" meant somebody didn't seem to understand what paragraphs were for, and thus there was a literal "wall of text" which is just a pain in the ass for anyone to read (especially if they are equally lax in using proper punctuation, spelling, and grammar, which they usually are in those cases).

Now though when you see "wall of text" it seems to mean "Oh man, 4 whole paragraphs? I don't have time to read that! Time to make it look like it's somehow not my fault for being too damn lazy to read it by suggesting it's actually unreadable - it's the perfect plan!", which is frankly a load of bullshit. It could be worse though - you could get mired in arguments with people who, while posting lengthy and detailed responses, are in fact crazy; at least with the chuckleheads who can't be arsed to even bother reading what you've posted you're saved the time and frustration of realizing your sparring partner is a lunatic only after you've wasted far too much time interacting with them, as you can simply dismiss the obvious wastes of time from the beginning (yay!).

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

TL;DR

Now that the obvious joke has been make and my sense of humor satified, I think that the reason some people don't properly read the whole OP is because they came for a different reason. Some people come to a thread looking for an intelligent conversation on a varity of subjects with other intelligent members of the community. Others would rather just talk about simple things. The problem arises is when one of these quick posters walks into a thread where the subject matter has been greatly delved into by the OP; these guys don't want to have to read some long essay just so they can post (improper formating can also work against you, the true block walls of text are intimidating), they wanna say their bit then move on. Or perhaps they're just stubborn and won't listen to the OP no matter what they say. People are like this in real life, makes sense for them to do the same on the internet.

And some people are just tired and don't want to do that much work. Like me. I need some sleep. So imma gonna post my post now. Nice subject though.

 

[keideki]

Sometimes it is hard to read pages and pages and pages of replies in a thread. I can appreciate short posts as well as long posts and needlessly verbose post are just as annoying.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I think you're wrong. A short post can be concise and to the point, while long posts can sometimes be unnecessarily long. I also think you're misinterpreting "Wall of Text", which is generally reserved for long posts which haven't been divided into paragraphs.

See, that wasn't long was it?

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Short posts can have the power of long posts, it depends on the wording. As for the "Jump on the bandwagon" phenomenon, we are kind of herd-like creatures sometimes but many times what I genuinely believe has already been said. However, when it is page 12 of a thread, people don't really care that much about repeated opinions.

 

[IndianaJonny]

1. Stick to what they previously believed, taking no time to understand your points, and begin creating a "bash" post of your ideas

2. Immediately jump on the bandwagon, reiterating what little was already said, and add no depth of their own. The points made remain completely unfounded, but are now somehow stronger because more people are idiots

3. Post something irrelevant that doesn't argue against or for the points. What's said usually just pisses someone else off. People go off on tangents and the thread dissolves into a "flamewar"

Better referencing and links to relevant sites in posts would diminish some of the problems mentioned here. They would certainly make for more concise arguments that can stand up to better scrutiny and suggest that there's been a proper amount of contemplation upstairs rather than posting knee-jerk responses.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I think people are allowed to derrive whatever enjoyment they wish from the forums, as long as they're in line with the websites standards. If that means short, largely irrelevent posts...so be it. They're short, it only takes a moment to scroll past them...

The only thing that bothers me on these forums, is the rampant negativity and complaining. I really hope that alot of you people are alot more cheery in your day to day lives than you let on in your posts.

 

[Zantos]

I try to make a post as short as possible while containing all necessary information, that way people can easily read through. One or two long posts may be ok, but people won't read the previous posts at all if they're all short novels and their response will just be to the thread title or first post.