

Ask HN: What explains the ad hominem rampant in online discourse? - robg

Dear HN,<p>I was recently bothered by a thread here in which there was a glee in attacking someone and their idea. There seems to be a noob tendency to compare HN to Digg or Reddit whenever a post doesn't fit some people's eyes of HN quality (even as there's a clear, and easy, mechanism for dealing with submissions of this type). A primary reason I never wade into the comments of Digg or Reddit is because of the rampant ad hominem. So when I start to see that here, I worry, but I also know that pg will never let that happen.<p>Still, with how big the internet is, why do some folks seem to take delight in ad hominem? Is it as simple as folks who have bullied, or been bullied, regressing in these semi-anonymous spaces?<p>Don't get me wrong. Honest criticism is extremely valuable. But as soon as it becomes personal it loses any importance it may have. I'm truly interested in deeply dissecting ideas and products. But if you attack me or my ideas, then I'm almost immediately uninterested in whatever you're saying. Disagree without being disagreeable.<p>With how easy it is to find alternative content online, why is there this rampant negativity? Take HN for example. There are hundreds of posts each day and thousands of comments. If you don't find something to your liking, or without good feedback to add, it's trivially easy to ignore it and move on. So why do some folks linger long enough to throw feces from their cage?<p>I think comments may be a big part of it. They fit nowhere else in the real world. Heck, someone simply commenting in a movie theater is soon met with glares and are at-risk for being ushered out. But while comments may make it easier to trash people and ideas, that doesn't explain the ubiquity of the ad hominem.<p>Can you help me understand this phenomenon? Of course, if there are extended treatments, I'd love to read them.<p>Thanks.
======
jacquesm
Anonymity.

If you look at the people that go off on rants like that invariably they do
not have a profile that allows you to identify them.

As soon as people are out in the open with their name and/or other identifying
information they usually are a lot less abrasive.

~~~
furyg3
Obligatory: <http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/>

~~~
pbhjpbhj
The one about the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory", ie that those online and
anonymous become inflammatory, profaninty-spouting morons.

------
pbhjpbhj
If someone resorts to an ad-hominem attack it seems that they don't have a
logical comeback, or at least not one that can promote the verity of their
argument over the others being proferred.

Ad hominem attacks very rarely take the form of genuine criticism of the
person or indeed a criticism of the characteristics of that person pertinent
to the argument at hand.

Most of it is just "bad mouthing".

Personally I don't have a problem with people questioning my character if it's
pertinent to the issue.

I presume it's one of those role-playing things. People act out against what
they are restricted in doing in real life - you can't just rant and rave at
people without repurcussions when you're off-line. Online behind a veil of
pseudo-anonymity you can try out your best swearing and put downs and make a
game of attack those who seek logical conclusions by being simply
inflammatory.

One very weak example (though I've had people on HN tell me they feel all my
kind should be murdered!):I was having a mathematical block picturing a
particular plane and asked in response to a story if someone could post a link
to an online 3d function plotter; the response was along the line of "you
moron that's the simplest possible plane to imagine" followed by 2 other
helpful responses.

For one I don't see asking for help to be moronic, not all people have the
same skillset, some of us have specific learning issues. For another the
assertion that it was the simplest plane was plain wrong (no pun intended!).

So why did the guy attack me with vemon and false assertion - in this instance
I feel he wanted to exert his intellectual superiority by attempting to
belittle me. Others would then jump on this and vote him up and he gets a
happy "I'm the dogs-bollocks" [that amazingly is a good thing! it means
"supreme in this field"] feeling all day.

My tuppence.

------
roundsquare
Lots of room for misinterpretation online. You type something and you think
its clear, but the next person who reads it misinterprets. You don't get a
chance to explain yourself before the person gets mad and replies with ad
hominem.

This is especially true when this happens on a subject someone is sensitive
too. Someone sees something that resembles something else they think is
horrible and they go nuts.

Though its tough to do this all the time, I think the best thing to do online
is give someone the benefit of the doubt. If you think someone is suggesting
something immoral, ask a clarifying question.

------
peterhi
Although pg might not allow it (just quite how I do not know) if the level of
abuse rises to a significant level for long enough people will leave. So for
example a couple of trolls go on the rampage (and it doesn't require many
people, just a few with far too much time on their hands) for a week you could
lose quite a few members and when the trolls leave or are banned not all of
them will come back.

The abusive behaviour needs to be stamped on hard and fast as others might
just get plain fed up if nothing is done about a troll and leave. And it is
not just abusive behaviour, just imagine that on every post someone posted the
(ir)relevant xkcd / penny arcade / dilbert link to go with the post and the
discussion gets flooded with chatter about the cartoons.

You could completely ruin HN without a single swear word or sexist / racist /
whateverist remark.

------
anamax
Many people live in like-minded tribes. One of the tribal activities is
slagging "the other". In fact, there's often a competition along those lines.
However, since said other isn't present, they're really engaging a caricature
that they invented. As a result, their arguments are weak.

When they run into said other online, they're basically cued up for battle.
However the reality doesn't behave like the caricature, so all of winning
arguments fall flat. Rather than acknowledge that they're lame, they lash out.

------
DanielStraight
<http://xkcd.com/481/>

