Some thoughts on online disagreements

[Actingup]

And that's how we deal with our politicians and hence we are ruled by loudmouth assholes that do whatever they want to us because we walk away and ignore them. ; )

Well, some of us are. Not naming any countries here of course. I mean, some have more bigly arseholes than others, of course, but it would be polite to not name names unless on the politics forum.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Well, some of us are. Not naming any countries here of course. I mean, some have more bigly arseholes than others, of course, but it would be polite to not name names unless on the politics forum.

For the record I'm not playing any favorites here, but of course, not going to take it any further into politics.

 

[Writer61]

I'm a simple woman. I prefer Maslow's Pie-rarchy of needs.

View attachment 2593921

I assume that is a venison pie.

 

[SmilingLez]

Take the advice of the gambler

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run

 

[Writer61]

I'd try to re-phrase it, so it was clearer, or more complete, or whatever seems appropriate.

Yes, re-phrase is a better description of what I try to do.

 

[onehitwanda]

I assume that is a venison pie.

Bambi is nothing if not delicious.

 

[onehitwanda]

I'm just wondering how much static electricity your cat has accumulated so far...

Enough to ionise a couple of meters of air. I'm weaponising her as we speak.

 

[Bamagan]

My preferred approach to online arguments is similar to the climactic scene in Batman Begins.
"I'm not going to kill you." {Blows up train.} "But I don't have to save you." {Flies away and watches fiery derailment with grim satisfaction.}

 

[Omenainen]

Why, has there been some juicy drama I haven’t seen?

 

[Actingup]

Why, has there been some juicy drama I haven’t seen?

You could probably pick a few different threads if you're keen to see blood on the floor...

 

[SouthernCrossfire]

Yep. This is the big difference between me now and me 20 years ago. Now, for all that I post here a lot, I also find myself deleting posts before replying. Often, I look at a thread and think "oh, why bother".

Yes, that's one of the reasons my post count is a lot lower than it could be on this and another forum I frequent. Like you and Wanda, I delete many (all?) of my most inciteful posts.

I like to write out long, thought-provoking rebuttals, peppered with swear words and inventive invective - just so it's freed from my psyche.

Then I delete it all and go and tickle my cat's tummy.

Unfortunately, I can't go tickle my cat's tummy after deleting; the female monster would bite the crap out of me (for the bazillionth time) and the male would say, "Ooh! Back leg scratching practice!"

 

[onehitwanda]

YUnfortunately, I can't go tickle my cat's tummy after deleting; the female monster would bite the crap out of me (for the bazillionth time) and the male would say, "Ooh! Back leg scratching practice!"

I think my cat is actually a dog in a cat suit. It would explain many things about her.

 

[SmilingLez]

Interesting how the people who start the drama, have not commented

 

[Omenainen]

Interesting how the people who start the drama, have not commented

I don’t agree. I’ve seen this kind of reasoning here before, trying to derive meaning from people not saying something or not posting in some threads, and it’s utterly ridiculous. Number one reason that I’m not commenting on thread X is that I’m busy picking my nose, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the thread in question. It’s hard enough to figure out people’s motivations when they’re doing their best to tell you, having a guessing game when they’re absent is just nonsense.

 

[BellaBestia]

Ignorance really is bliss

 

[Britva415]

Interesting how the people who start the drama, have not commented

Hey, I only just got here!

 

[MillieDynamite]

I don't know about that. I don't even know what ignorance we are talking about.

Ignorance really is bliss

 

[Britva415]

Someone will always find a way to misinterpret, misrepresent, or lie about what you've said.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm excited about this thread because it gives me the opportunity to talk about my new business venture. You too can walk away from taxing arguments in style by using my patented "Okay" system, now available to the general public at the low rate of 5 eurodollars per instance!

Okay.

 

[Bramblethorn]

We have a lot of discussions here, sometimes about things were care deeply about and sometimes about trivial nonsense. And often someone says something that we disagree with. Or something that we know to be untrue. Or something that somehow feels wrong, even if we can't put our finger on it.

Statement A meets Statement B. Often an irresistible force and an immovable object. How should you proceed?

It might be tempting (and based on the evidence, it's safe to say that it *is* tempting) to counter the other poster's statement, wait for them to reply, then respond again, and so on. Like mountain goats butting heads, or (to use a less flattering comparison) like toddlers in the playground.

Here's the thing: in all the history of the Internet and online forums, never once* has someone said, "You know what, you're right, I'm wrong. You've convinced me."

This part is correct (allowing for that slight exaggeration), but changing the other poster's mind is not necessarily the point. Sometimes it's about persuading the audience. My rule of thumb, which I don't manage to follow, is to check out at the point where I think anybody reading the thread is likely to have settled on an opinion.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Interesting how the people who start the drama, have not commented

Time zones.

I've woken up, read this thread, found it interesting and even composed a reply. But at this point in the thread, is there a point? It's gone off into jokes and memes and it's already a tail-ender.

Fuck it - here's my carefully considered reply.

I find the forum time-out glitch useful, where you get the Oops message and you need to copy your post. And I think, yeah, the bloody machine has got better judgement than I do right now; and I won't bother recomposing the response or rebuttal or whatever daft thing I was going to send.

I've got several threads where there's the beginnings of a message that I can't get rid of, like a dead skink the cat found and brought in.

I also need a shrug and sigh emoji, or shorthand for the Catherine Tate, "Am I boffered?" skits, because that's often my response to some of the trivial and/or predictable things that I see. That's the weird thing about this place, that the wisdom factor can oscillate between a 2 and a 10, sometimes from the same person. Not simultaneously though.

The 1s are on permanent Ignore.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

This part is correct (allowing for that slight exaggeration), but changing the other poster's mind is not necessarily the point. Sometimes it's about persuading the audience. My rule of thumb, which I don't manage to follow, is to check out at the point where I think anybody reading the thread is likely to have settled on an opinion.

I agree with this. You know that you're not going to convince this person spitting rabid foam at you, but you can still speak the truth in front of everyone else.

Because falsehoods and bad ideas need to be shouted down. If they aren't, then people start believing falsehoods and adopting bad ideas. Society follows the loudest voices. This is basically what my politician comment above is about. No matter how stupid the idea is, if it gets shouted repeatedly louder and louder, people start to embrace it and then we're stuck with a stupid idea that we can't get rid of.

Here's an example.

Working in a small logistical operation. We have 6000 sq feet (very small) and eight carts to move goods around on. The carts are always piled up with stuff so no one can find an empty cart when we need one.

Bi-weekly staff meeting: issue is raised, we don't have enough carts. We should buy more carts. I say, we have 8 carts for only 6000 sq ft. We have plenty of carts. The problem is that we don't use them properly. No one trains the staff (except me and no one listens to me) to use the carts for moving things, not storing things. You move the goods on the cart to where they should go and then you take the stuff off the cart and put it on the shelf or the pallet or whatever. Then the cart is empty for the next person, and that person will likely be you again. Everyone sighs and rolls their eyes at me. The motion is dismissed and we move onto other business.

Two weeks later, staff meeting: We don't have enough carts, we need to buy some carts. I go through the same spiel. I get the same eyerolls. Motion is dismissed, move on to other business.

Two weeks later again, staff meeting: we don't have enough carts, we need to buy more carts. Everyone looks at me. I'm sick of everyone being sick of me and I have to work with these people every day, so I just sit there and shut the fuck up. No objections? Sounds good. Ok, R, look into buying some new carts. Decision made.

Monday morning, we have 4 new carts. So now we have TWELVE FUCKING CARTS for 6000 sq feet. And they are quickly filled up with goods and no one can find an empty cart when they need one. It's TOTALLY ... FUCKING .. RETARDED! Why? Because buying extra carts was a STOOPIT IDEA. So long as it gets shouted down, no one employs the idea. But the noisy stupid people keep pushing the stupid idea, and the moment that no one shouts down the idea, BOOM! The stupid pushy people get to have their totally fucking stupid idea and we're all stuck with it.

This is why you have to oppose falsehoods and stupid ideas. Shout them down if you have to. If you don't, society will adopt all of the falsehoods and stupid ideas. And the more important the decision, it won't be stupid people clamoring for it, it will be smart criminal people clamoring for it, like banks and oil companies and such, because they know that the idea fucks YOU but it's very good for them. And they will keep pushing for what they want and lie to all of us to get their way. If it's a bad idea or if it's a lie, shout it down.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

I had to re-read The Art of War for this instance alone.

 

[StrentWriter]

I like the intent behind the thread. I see it a bit differently.

I enjoy argument, for argument's sake. I empathize with the character in that silly Monty Python argument sketch. I like to keep arguments going even when it seems like it's not going anywhere if it's fun and clever and there remains the chance that somebody might say something illuminating.

The key as I see it is not to take it personally. You can disagree with someone without feeling personally attacked, or without feeling the need to personally attack them.

A few rules of thumb I try to follow in online disagreements:

1. Don't assume that my adversary is stupid, ignorant, or evil. Don't say that. Don't get personal. If they are stupid, ignorant, or evil, let their own words hang them.
2. If there are multiple possible interpretations of what my adversary has said in an online disagreement, assume the generous one. Don't go looking for a fight where one might be avoided. Don't assume they are personally attacking me if there's an alternative explanation.
3. Don't take the position that my correctness is more important than being decent to someone else. If we all take that position, disagreement goes to hell.
4. Respect and put up with a wide Overton Window. Don't get overly concerned with the "we can't go there" attitude. Let people say things I think are outrageous.
5. Be fact-based. If I say something and somebody comes back with facts that suggest I might be wrong, acknowledge as much.
6. Grant to everyone the right to participate in an argument regardless of background. Embrace the idea that an argument stands or falls on its merits and its strength has nothing at all to do with the background of the person making it.
7. I accept the idea that I might be wrong. Now, I rarely admit I'm wrong. I'm like everybody else, that way. But I accept the idea of possibly being wrong so I don't feel threatened or angry when people say things that fundamentally conflict with what I believe.
8. I try to deal with the substance of what my opponent is saying rather than trying to use rhetorical tricks to shut them down. This is the single thing I dislike most in online disagreement.

What you like is debating, not arguing.

Which is precisely what’s needed - good faith debate where nobody “needs” to win - more get to a place where mutual understanding is possible.

 

[lovecraft68]

Interesting how the people who start the drama, have not commented

Some people work and can't spend all day posting on websites.