[Air-l] Trying not to flame...

[Eva Ekeblad]

At 16.47 +0100 02-01-16, Cristian Berrio scrobe:
>Regarding to the flame topic, once reviewed some sources quoted by the other
>guys in the list, seems to me that FLAME=AGGRESSION WITHIN
>E-COMMUNICATION. That's it and no more. We do not refer here to a
>sistematic relation where agression is the link (some kind of sado-masoquist
>e-marriage), or organised verbal or graphic attacks to certain groups or
>people.

Hi Cristian

You write that FLAMING equals aggression in e-communication, so can we also
reverse the order and say that aggression within e-communication equals
flaming? My conclusion is that there are many kinds of aggression in
e-communication that are not FLAMING.

And perhaps, if that mythical animal, the playful flame war really exists,
then there are also FLAMES that are not aggressive - or at least only
playfully and not seriously so. On the other hand I agree that flaming is
not necessarily systematic, not necessarily a constant relation between
participants in a constant group. It probably CAN be. It isn't necessarily
organized either, though it probably can be.

Your examples of the Net being used for aggressions directed against groups
that aren't Net-based in origin certainly show a limit to the scope of
FLAMING - these forms of aggression might use similar language, but I think
it confuses matters to call hate-mongering on the web by the name of
FLAMING. FLAMING refers to an activity WITHIN groups, not BETWEEN them and
it takes place entirely on the Net.

>There is where I find the lack of sense of the definition. If we are
>just talking about the episodes when you or I drop aggresive verbal
>intercourse, then the possible scenarios are ilimited and this will
>lead to nothing more than speculative conclusions and headaches again, I
>might be flaming someone that thinks, "this guy is really aggressive
>disqualifying the whole discussion...").

So yes, maybe it's a discussion in a duck pond.

About the "HURRAY EVA" thing - no, I don't think that is flaming at all -
did you mean it as an aggression? I thought it was intended as praise, and
just  warned you that Swedes aren't very skilled at taking praise in
public. We tend to blush furiously and get tongue-tied. Can you picture me?
;-)
So yes this is a nice illustration to the difficulties of aligning the
metacommunicative signals when it is so easy to read entirely different
things between the lines.


>This leads
>me to conclude that flaming has also to do with the sex of the
>participants as, sexual reference offers wider possibilities of aggression.

Oh yes. Sexualized insults have already been mentioned in this discussion.
And from my experience and what I can see in archived discussions of
various kinds sex or gender is a highly flammable topic in most electronic
groups. Handle with care!

Eva Ekeblad