Some thoughts on online disagreements

[Omenainen]

Do some people actually read every thread here? Sometimes the title is interesting enough to just click on it, but usually when one catches my attention I hover over it and read the blurb shown. I doubt I open more than 5-10% of threads.

I sure don’t, but it seems some have time not only for reading threads, but also keeping taps on who others are commenting on which threads, which to me seems like a wild level of engagement.

 

[Writer61]

Do some people actually read every thread here? Sometimes the title is interesting enough to just click on it, but usually when one catches my attention I hover over it and read the blurb shown. I doubt I open more than 5-10% of threads.

I don't.

There are some long-running threads here that I have never opened.

I open threads if the subject looks interesting to me, and keep following it if it is.

 

[Comshaw]

It seems the OP finds peace in speaking his mind once and moving on. Is there something wrong with that? nope. If it works for him, it works.

Engaging in a running debate or ongoing argument, should we? If it's done calmly, politely, if egos can be put away, if what is said is listened to and evaluated before being answered, yes. I try to do it that way. I'm not perfect at it but I do try. Sometimes things get in the way. I've got more warts and unhealed sore spots on my soul than most, and when one is touched or poked at I'm afraid my polite, logical manner gives way to an unreasoning, emotionally charged one. I try to avoid that, I really do. I don't like the asshole in me any more then others do, but sometimes it gets away from me.

I saw "believe what others tell you" earlier in this thread. That's a dangerous thing to do. I rarely take a claim at face value unless that person has proven to me they are reliable and truthful in what they claim. For anyone else who asserts their "expert" status, my bullshit radar jumps to full on and I always want verification from a reliable source. That may sound like I'm being a dick. I'm not. I've just been around long enough, been offered the deal of a lifetime enough, that when viewed closely is always nothing but smoke, I'm leery of such claims.

There are other things that torch my cookies. Not in an unreasoning manner, for I try to reply politely, but more in a "damn, I can't let that pass without a comment" way.

1) Things quoted as fact that I know damn well aren't.
2) Conclusions to or solutions for things that to me are illogical.
3) Beliefs that are diametrically opposed to those things I believe.

Yeah, I know. Many would just stroll on by without saying a thing. My tortured little brain won't allow that, so I open my yap and comment.

I will take issue with the OP's characterization of "no one admits fault on the internet". It may not happen often, but it does happen. I've had to a time or three. When I get backed into a corner by walking on my own feet, I can either double down and really look like an ass, or just admit it and extricate myself (never gracefully BTW) from whatever hole I've dug for myself.

What it comes down to is we have a choice and most of those choices aren't wrong, just different. Like the OP you can comment and stroll on, OR engage in those ongoing discussions/debts/arguments, OR step into a thread, realize what's going on and wave a goodbye (alternately flip a finger) as you step out, OR for those who really don't want to read anything from a particular denizin, the ultimate solution, the ignore button. I've chosen my way and I'm fine with it.

Comshaw

 

[AG31]

Engaging in a running debate or ongoing argument, should we? If it's done calmly, politely, if egos can be put away, if what is said is listened to and evaluated before being answered, yes.

Why not apply this principle....

There are other things that torch my cookies. Not in an unreasoning manner, for I try to reply politely, but more in a "damn, I can't let that pass without a comment" way.

1) Things quoted as fact that I know damn well aren't.
2) Conclusions to or solutions for things that to me are illogical.

... to these? Assume that the writer is coming from some place that makes sense to them. Try to find out what it is. Address the issues with this new information.

I saw "believe what others tell you" earlier in this thread. That's a dangerous thing to do

See above.

 

[PennyThompson]

In my years of experience, I've found the value of cathartic release. It appears to me that grudges tend to stem from the lack of such release, allowing the pressure to build-up. When you get it all out and move on, it's over. When you bottle it up and pretend it's over, it's not really over.

Maybe sometimes, but I've seen plenty of relationships that are simultaneously long-running grudges and regularly, loudly released anger, and the release doesn't seem to accomplish anything but create a toxic environment for both participants and observers. You and PSG, for example

 

[IWroteThis]

Maybe sometimes, but I've seen plenty of relationships that are simultaneously long-running grudges and regularly, loudly released anger, and the release doesn't seem to accomplish anything but create a toxic environment for both participants and observers. You and PSG, for example

There are very few absolutes in life. I have no doubt there are situations like you mention, although one could question whether they got it all out or just let off the overpressure. There's also the issue where some people are just diametrically opposed in general, which results in repeated, but otherwise unrelated clashes.

As for me and PSG, I wouldn't call it long-running. Perhaps we've clashed before? I don't know. It hasn't been anything that I've dwelled on. At least on my part, this one started over what was said, not who said it.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

It seems the OP finds peace in speaking his mind once and moving on. Is there something wrong with that? nope. If it works for him, it works.

Engaging in a running debate or ongoing argument, should we? If it's done calmly, politely, if egos can be put away, if what is said is listened to and evaluated before being answered, yes.

To an extent.

Four pages and running?

 

[Dodola]

Maybe sometimes, but I've seen plenty of relationships that are simultaneously long-running grudges and regularly, loudly released anger, and the release doesn't seem to accomplish anything but create a toxic environment for both participants and observers. You and PSG, for example

Hey, one person's toxic environment is another person's evening entertainment

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Gee, how ironic that you turn out to be a 1* bombing troll like you rail against.

Excuse me?? I've never given a 1-vote in my life for any reason whatsoever.

However, on five or six different occasions, I have had my entire catalog bombed within 10 minutes of someone flipping the fuck out on me in this forum.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

1) Things quoted as fact that I know damn well aren't.
2) Conclusions to or solutions for things that to me are illogical.
3) Beliefs that are diametrically opposed to those things I believe.

4) Things that are diametrically opposed to what the commenter himself has previously said/claimed.

That's a huge one. I catch that one on a regular basis and it elicits the most vitriol of anything. No one wants to be caught in hypocrisy and it usually results in the most massive and ridiculous (and pathetic) double-downs and name calling.