Some thoughts on online disagreements

[StillStunned]

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."

* Exaggerated for effect, but probably not by much.

So ask yourself: how much energy do you want to spend? How angry do you want to be? How much time would you rather spend writing, or reading, or playing with yourself or your partner, or watching cat videos? How important is it to get one over on a stranger you're unlikely to ever meet in real life? How important is it to save face in front of a bunch of other strangers?

So here's my Golden Rule for Online Disagreements: Reply once to clear up a possible misunderstanding. If that doesn't work, walk away. Life's too short.

If you want, you can hum "Coward of the County" to yourself. "Everyone considered him the coward of the county." You know better: you don't have to fight to be a man/woman/other gender.

(And yes, I know the guy does actually fight at the end of the song, but it wasn't over someone disagreeing with him on a forum about sex stories.)

 

[THBGato]

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".

 

[MillieDynamite]

You know what, @StillStunned, you're right, I'm wrong.

 

[crookedletter]

Well said, sir.

There comes a time in many of these disputes where you have three options, as I see it:

1. Restate your position in subtly different words. Repeat as necessary because they're just not getting it.

2. Frustrated because they're just not getting it, start insulting your interlocutor's intelligence, because there must be something wrong with them for still not getting it. Repeat as necessary with increasingly sharpened invective.

3. Review what's been said, conclude that you've said your piece as well as you can say it, and despite the fact they're just not getting it, walk away and live your life.

 

[AwkwardMD]

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!

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Well said, sir.

There comes a time in many of these disputes where you have three options, as I see it:

1. Restate your position in subtly different words. Repeat as necessary because they're just not getting it.

2. Frustrated because they're just not getting it, start insulting your interlocutor's intelligence, because there must be something wrong with them for still not getting it. Repeat as necessary with increasingly sharpened invective.

3. Review what's been said, conclude that you've said your piece as well as you can say it, and despite the fact they're just not getting it, walk away and live your life.

4. Bomb their catalog of stories.

 

[AwkwardMD]

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!

Subtitle: Big Troll hates her for using this one weird trick

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Hence, this thread:

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/when-do-you-bail-out-of-a-thread.1638255/


.

 

[SimonDoom]

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.

 

[MillieDynamite]

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

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.

 

[AG31]

My summary response is, how do you characterize a conversation?

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.

One could interpret this as providing potential clarification, or asking for clarification, or, yes, waiting for a reply, for a counter argument. (Not all arguments are fights.)

Like mountain goats butting heads, or (to use a less flattering comparison) like toddlers in the playground.

Again, why isn't what you describe the beginning of a conversation, or, mercy me, a debate? I love debates.

how much energy do you want to spend? How angry do you want to be?

As far as I'm concerned anger never enters into my interactions in AH.

Reply once to clear up a possible misunderstanding. If that doesn't work, walk away. Life's too short.

How boring...

 

[MelissaBaby]

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!

I’ve tried it. it really works!

 

[AG31]

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.

Excellent!!!!!

 

[AwkwardMD]

I’ve tried it. it really works!

Another satisfied customer!

 

[Dodola]

I've found that there's selective community pushback in these arguments, depending upon who's involved.
Until the cool kids start getting called out for saying something shitty, or derailing a thread, these episodes will continue.
Some AHers can say whatever they want, and argue as long as they want, with no one calling them out, like they do others.
People choose sides, whether they want to admit it or not, and that usually determines who gets scolded.
So, when the AH hierarchy are toddlers, shenanigans should be expected from all.

 

[onehitwanda]

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.

 

[Writer61]

Recently, I have been involved in a couple of "discussions" here that became unpleasant, and may even be part of the motivation for this post.

My rules are:

1. always be polite, even if the other party is not
2. believe the other person when they say something (I expect them to extend the same courtesy to me)
3. restate my overall position once
4. highlight points of issue twice at most
5. refuse to engage further unless coherent points are made
6. accept when I am wrong (yes, I do this)
7. never let my opinion of a person influence my vote on a story

I am not perfect, so I have probably strayed from these on occasion.

 

[AG31]

Recently, I have been involved in a couple of "discussions" here that became unpleasant, and may even be part of the motivation for this post.

My rules are:

1. always be polite, even if the other party is not

For by so doing you will heap coals of fire upon their heads.

1. believe the other person when they say something (I expect them to extend the same courtesy to me)

Absolutely!! So much would go smoother if we just took people at face value and didn't ascribe ulterior motives to what they're saying.

1. restate my overall position once

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

1. highlight points of issue twice at most

Yes, stop when it's clear it's going nowhere.

1. refuse to engage further unless coherent points are made

Yep.

1. accept when I am wrong (yes, I do this)

Absolutely! It gives me a special kind of pleasure to engage with someone to that point.

1. never let my opinion of a person influence my vote on a story

Nah... I only give 5's anyway. If it's not a 5 I don't vote.

I am not perfect, so I have probably strayed from these on occasion.

???????

 

[InvisibleHarvey]

You know... there was this moment a few years back when we were all in quarantine and normal, regular people were active in online spaces. That's when I found out about Discord servers, and it was lovely. Like, there were trolls and Very Online People, but you could ignore them and focus on the actual humans who were there to be normal.

I've unsubscribed from nearly every Discord server I was on and just about completely abandoned online spaces. I think a lot of us have. These are just places that are overrun by the most obnoxious people among us, and sometimes it feels like there's no point to going online unless you're trying to upset yourself.

That's sad, right?

For something like this, online spaces are all you're likely to get. I'm not going to talk to people in my real human life about writing hardcore graphic pornography, some of which is sprinkled with quasi-autobiographical elements. But also, I'm really reluctant to talk to people in online spaces about it. I just don't want people who are determined to find ways to not understand me to talk over me and about me.

So of course this advice is very practical. That's why we keep hearing it over and over. When someone is being as obnoxious as humanly possible, just walk away. Don't engage. Let them have the floor.

Of course that's the only thing you can do.

But it's sad, right?

 

[Actingup]

It's important to work in a story plug with every Author's Hangout argument, right?

In that vein, @PennyThompson and I used Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in our recent glittering LW triumph, having the daughter of our estranged couple sketch it out on a restaurant tablecloth at dinner, and then having the male lead refer to it as the 'fucking argument pyramid' (to anticipate the commentary from readers) as he grudgingly accepted the point.


I really, really like this schematic, and I think it's always good to push ourselves to get one level higher (at least) up the pyramid than our first draft might do. And if the other parties stick to the bottom level... well the conversation is getting boring, and they've 'lost' anyway.

 

[Erozetta]

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!

Hey now, Mine is more succinct with a "K" and has been in use since 1996 at minimum! And it's free use 'cause that's site appropriate.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

So of course this advice is very practical. That's why we keep hearing it over and over. When someone is being as obnoxious as humanly possible, just walk away. Don't engage. Let them have the floor.

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. ; )

 

[SimonDoom]

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

Absolutely, 100% true. But, IMO, not a reason not to give it a go, anyway.

 

[onehitwanda]

It's important to work in a story plug with every Author's Hangout argument, right?

In that vein, @PennyThompson and I used Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in our recent glittering LW triumph, having the daughter of our estranged couple sketch it out on a restaurant tablecloth at dinner, and then having the male lead refer to it as the 'fucking argument pyramid' (to anticipate the commentary from readers) as he grudgingly accepted the point.

View attachment 2593918
I really, really like this schematic, and I think it's always good to push ourselves to get one level higher (at least) up the pyramid than our first draft might do. And if the other parties stick to the bottom level... well the conversation is getting boring, and they've 'lost' anyway.

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

 

[AwkwardlySet]

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.

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