I've been participating in online forums since the mid-90s when I subscribed to the Delphi online service. Since then I've experienced different environments, from highly moderated forums where you're expected to interact with others as if they were sitting in front of you (and if you don't, off you go), to totally unregulated forums where everything goes.
In fact, in my early days of online blogging I used to frequent some right wing blogs (the unregulated ones) to debate issues related to the economy, war-and-peace, and society at large.
Anyways, I long ago realized that because of the (virtual) nature of online communities, it doesn't make sense to allow oneself to react emotionally to perceived curt treatment. In other words, you are operating in a world that's both, real (in the fact that you are actually interacting with people through letters on a screen), and surreal, since there is no way for you to know who exactly you're communicating with, intentions, motives, physical cues, etc.
That realization has been very helpful (at least for me) because in environments where the debates are respectful, it is usually not that hard to reach the end of a debate with some sort of clear end: I convince my interlocutor; my interlocutor convinces me; or we agree to disagree. Those three outcomes could quickly be reached between debaters who are engaging in good faith.
Now, as you can imagine, debating in good faith doesn't always happen online, and after all these years of blogging, I've seen everything under the sun when it comes to the worst possible behavior online.
I long ago realized that when it comes to bad faith commenters, they exhibit sadistic and sociopathic tendencies, meaning that they enjoy causing people grief. And so, if you take away that possibility from them (not let yourself fall for their bait), you take away their power.
Now, I know none of this applies to Daily Kos since we have a pretty good self-regulating system (hide rates), community guidelines that are followed by most users, and a dedicated support admin that handles conflicts with professionalism and in an unbiased and objective manner...
Nevertheless, I came across a recent study that may be helpful to community members when it comes to understanding some of the worst behavior online, and to reiterate the importance of trying not to let emotions flare when interacting with obvious bad faith commenters.
SLATE:Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People
Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic.
In the past few years, the science of Internet trollology has made some strides. Last year, for instance, we learned that by hurling insults and inciting discord in online comment sections, so-called Internet trolls (who are frequently anonymous) have a polarizing effect on audiences, leading to politicization, rather than deeper understanding of scientific topics.
That’s bad, but it’s nothing compared with what a new psychology paper has to say about the personalities of trolls themselves. The research, conducted by Erin Buckels of the University of Manitoba and two colleagues, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).
~Snip~
The study comes as websites, particularly at major media outlets, are increasingly weighing steps to rein in trollish behavior. Last year Popular Science did away with its comments sections completely, citing research on the deleterious effects of trolling, and YouTube also took measures to rein in trolling.
This being the case (that bad faith commenters are sadistic and psychopathic), is not worth letting yourself be dragged into their turf, emotionally.
Here's my rule of thumb: If you are engaging in an honest debate it should not take too long to get to one of the three outcomes I listed: you convince your opponent; your opponent convinces you; you agree to disagree.
If you feel that your opponent is personalizing the debate and starts calling you names, questioning your integrity, mocking you, and things like that, that's usually a sign you may not be dealing with an honest debater, and once you start suspecting that (by the evidence) the best course of action is to disengage.
Once you get so upset that you get into vulgarity and insults, you've been had, and more than that, you will never win a debate at that level because your interlocutor is usually ready to get into a vulgarity- and insults-laden endless circular argument.
And it's not good for your health. I've talked to many people about this issue throughout the years... Some people's days or entire week can be ruined by one of these encounters.
Remember, if you ever interact with one of the folks described in the study, the debate is no longer about the issue at hand, about examining evidence, sharing views, connecting the dots, presenting a cogent argument or counter-argument.
So again, I know this type of behavior is not prevalent here, but I'm sharing the study just in case you run into it somewhere else.
Happy blogging!