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.

 

[TheLobster]

That's a huge one. I catch that one on a regular basis and it elicits the most vitriol of anything.

Probably because it's pointless. Humans are not perfectly consistent creatures and bringing up this fact isn't really productive in any way.

 

[SimonDoom]

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

My personal experience, in a long relationship that ended a long time ago, is that the release of unchecked anger isn't cathartic or useful at all, but pure toxin, poisoning the relationship until there's nothing left. The key is to find a way to communicate disagreement without being poisonous about it.

 

[AG31]

I tend to avoid arguments, and I'll bow out if somebody just ain't trying to understand and being a bad player.

Sometimes arguments are made up of people trying to understand. They just don't always phrase what they say in a way that makes that clear.

 

[AG31]

Generally I agree that an online debate can be just that, a debate. Don't get personal, don't let it make you angry, and even if it does, try to be factual and polite. I've worked in fields that require some kind of debate or even argument pretty much all my life. I've also taught kids debate and tried to have them absorb all those rules.

But some things are personal. Very personal. Personal to the point that they threaten the existence of the people you love, and the "debate" for debate's sake is actually harming people. That's where the debate changes for me. That's where I draw the line. I still try to be fact based, and polite and not attack other people, because that won't change anyone's mind about anything, but it's no more about being able to 'agree to disagree'. And that's where all those rules about a nice debate can go out the window.

“We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my (or my kids/friends/fellow humans) humanity and right to exist.”

In forums like here I avoid the political forum, because of this, and because I get enough of that shit elsewhere in my life. Here, I try to leave threads that pierce those lines alone. I'll admit that I'm not always successful.

Not trying to start anything here, just explaining my reality.

View attachment 2594070

This has different meanings for online and real life interchanges. On line, I expect people who are getting hurt by a thread to leave. Not so easy with friends and family.

 

[alohadave]

Thanks, I'll try that - next time I think, nah, best not send that!

Then you reply to someone else and forget that the bit you quoted earlier is still there.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Sometimes arguments are made up of people trying to understand. They just don't always phrase what they say in a way that makes that clear.

I'll give folks the botd. I could probably screenshot some reddit interactions of people who just aren't trying to understand and already have their mind made up on whatever stance I presented. I'm not talking about a "typical asshole filled sub", it's mostly the ao3 sub.

"I believe in option C."

"You like option C, you must do this, that, and the other thing, because you're an asshole."

"Just because I believe option C doesn't mean I engage in negative behavior associated with it. So, no, I don't do that, nor agree with the other thing."

"Only people who believe in option C, believe it so they can do this, that, and the other thing."

"I don't do this, that, and the other thing, just because I believe in option C. I just don't see a problem with option C, if it doesn't break the TOS."

"No, you're just a rude asshole trying to validate and make excuses."

That's where I bow out, when somebody doesn't want to understand and think they know me through and through over one situation, certain they got me down packed.

 

[AG31]

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.)

Note: None of the questions here are rhetorical

First off, my apologies if I'm doing exactly what you asked us not to do, but I'll continue on, in the hopes of more interchange.

I was hoping my reply would prompt your thoughts about how your post relates to conversation and debate. As I said, "My summary response is how do you characterize a conversation?" I tend to assume that posts in AH are meant to prompt back and forth messages. I look forward to replies to my posts, whether clarification, or request for clarification, or emotional reaction. But I see you're following your own advice and not engaging in back and forth in this thread.

I feel a smidgen guilty for trying to nudge you out of your silence, but I'd really like to know more. You're clearly a congenial, supportive person, and surely engage in conversations IRL, but maybe you do avoid debate? Did I misunderstand your post somehow? Maybe it is just a personality thing, as @Comshaw suggested, "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."

Hoping to hear from you!!

 

[lovecraft68]

Debated doing this, then figured, what the hell, I always say how I feel so this shouldn't be different.

I can't help but notice this thread was started after the "You might be an AHer if..." Thread. And we not only have this thread but the OP's AI thread that now as "and a refuge from bickering" added to it.

Funny how the OP has no issue with his friends here bullying people, snarking at people in their clever passive aggressive way where they make funny little remarks without mentioning names and if that person says something then its "Oh, get over yourself, we weren't talking about you." Let alone their crude views of other people that they think are okay because they're always the victim in their mind. Of what? Have to ask them for that story.

But they don't like it when it's done to them. The Aher thread and my "types of writer' thread, funny who was absent from that one even though the view count said a lot more people looked at it than people who were willing to post on it because they weren't butthurt over it. Thing is in that thread there was a second video about types of readers I thought fit this place to a T and would be fun, but not one mention of that one, just the first one because oh, no, someone might be thinking I'm one of those types.

Now we get this condescending "Let's talk about arguing". No, let's talk about the bad behavior of this forum that's okay if their friends are doing it, but not okay to have the mirror held up to them. The OP has often run into a thread where one of their friends has been attacking someone and done the "Oh, they didn't mean it that way" Right.

I grew up pre-social media (and am more thankful for that every day as time goes on) I'm from the time-and a family-that was confrontational. You have something to say, say it, but you had to be careful because face to face there were actual consequences, not mad face emojis as a reaction.

I'd rather someone get in my face, call me a prick, an asshole, say all manner of nasty things and tell me to fuck off, then the childish things that go on here with the forum superstars (who insist they're just the nicest people) and the reason for that is simple. Telling someone off is an honest human reaction and very real and leaves no doubt as to how you feel.

But here, and I suppose a lot of places online, we get this. Someone is mad about something some people posted. Maybe mad their friends were on the butt end of some how do you like it? And instead of being honest we get "Let's talk about online disagreements." Which IMO translates into 'Let us sling it, but don't do it back to us."

Every action has a reaction and if your action is to dig at people-or be the one who condones it based on who it is- then that tends to come back around.

There are a few folks-and I feel its a minority but by far the most vocal-here with an attitude of I'm better you, both as a writer and a person. Newsflash, you're not, and neither am I or anyone else, difference is most of use realize that.

Feel free to disagree with everything I said, after all, that's what this thread is "ahem" supposed to be about. I mean what I say and admit to sometimes saying it mean (In reality just kind of blunt but that's mean to a lot of people these days) like it or don't, just like I can like what someone says or not. But that's how it is and this lecture posed as a thread won't change that.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Speak not ill of the self anointed.

 

[PennyThompson]

 

[SimonDoom]

Debated doing this, then figured, what the hell, I always say how I feel so this shouldn't be different.

I can't help but notice this thread was started after the "You might be an AHer if..." Thread. And we not only have this thread but the OP's AI thread that now as "and a refuge from bickering" added to it.

Funny how the OP has no issue with his friends here bullying people, snarking at people in their clever passive aggressive way where they make funny little remarks without mentioning names and if that person says something then its "Oh, get over yourself, we weren't talking about you." Let alone their crude views of other people that they think are okay because they're always the victim in their mind. Of what? Have to ask them for that story.

But they don't like it when it's done to them. The Aher thread and my "types of writer' thread, funny who was absent from that one even though the view count said a lot more people looked at it than people who were willing to post on it because they weren't butthurt over it. Thing is in that thread there was a second video about types of readers I thought fit this place to a T and would be fun, but not one mention of that one, just the first one because oh, no, someone might be thinking I'm one of those types.

Now we get this condescending "Let's talk about arguing". No, let's talk about the bad behavior of this forum that's okay if their friends are doing it, but not okay to have the mirror held up to them. The OP has often run into a thread where one of their friends has been attacking someone and done the "Oh, they didn't mean it that way" Right.

I grew up pre-social media (and am more thankful for that every day as time goes on) I'm from the time-and a family-that was confrontational. You have something to say, say it, but you had to be careful because face to face there were actual consequences, not mad face emojis as a reaction.

I'd rather someone get in my face, call me a prick, an asshole, say all manner of nasty things and tell me to fuck off, then the childish things that go on here with the forum superstars (who insist they're just the nicest people) and the reason for that is simple. Telling someone off is an honest human reaction and very real and leaves no doubt as to how you feel.

But here, and I suppose a lot of places online, we get this. Someone is mad about something some people posted. Maybe mad their friends were on the butt end of some how do you like it? And instead of being honest we get "Let's talk about online disagreements." Which IMO translates into 'Let us sling it, but don't do it back to us."

Every action has a reaction and if your action is to dig at people-or be the one who condones it based on who it is- then that tends to come back around.

There are a few folks-and I feel its a minority but by far the most vocal-here with an attitude of I'm better you, both as a writer and a person. Newsflash, you're not, and neither am I or anyone else, difference is most of use realize that.

Feel free to disagree with everything I said, after all, that's what this thread is "ahem" supposed to be about. I mean what I say and admit to sometimes saying it mean (In reality just kind of blunt but that's mean to a lot of people these days) like it or don't, just like I can like what someone says or not. But that's how it is and this lecture posed as a thread won't change that.

"passive aggressive"

I don't even know where to start. So, I will leave it at that.

Stillstunned, I think it's a great thread. Kudos. But some people can't appreciate nice things.

 

[Actingup]

I can't help but notice this thread was started after the "You might be an AHer if..." Thread. And we not only have this thread but the OP's AI thread that now as "and a refuge from bickering" added to it.
.

I couldn’t help but notice that the thread was started after some persistent and really frustrating bickering in a completely different thread.

My take on this is that the worst, most mood sapping, soul crushing threads are those where people persistently make it about point scoring rather than the topic in question. You end up with pages of enervating, low grade drivel punctuated by occasional biting wit and attempts by others to raise the tone until they eventually give up and wander off to contemplate the futility of existence. In that context, I was really glad to see this thread, even though I have never sat down to have a beer with OP (and if we know their handle, we can use it instead of saying OP as though it’s not a personalised attack).

The other thing that I take issue with is the concept of whether somebody trying to promote good manners (or good writing) is saying ‘I’m better than you.’ On the one hand, yes, we all have things to learn from each other, and a sneering attitude of superiority rarely goes down well. On the other hand, life is a competition at many levels, and these fora are an opportunity to learn to ‘better ourselves’ without adverse consequences in the real world. To learn to write beautifully, to persuade, excite and inspire people, sexually and otherwise. To influence and understand real people better. To learn about the real thoughts and feelings and secret fantasies as others. And to learn to make love, not war. That’s where we can take threads like this and make them count, as better people.

 

[StillStunned]

Note: None of the questions here are rhetorical

First off, my apologies if I'm doing exactly what you asked us not to do, but I'll continue on, in the hopes of more interchange.

I was hoping my reply would prompt your thoughts about how your post relates to conversation and debate. As I said, "My summary response is how do you characterize a conversation?" I tend to assume that posts in AH are meant to prompt back and forth messages. I look forward to replies to my posts, whether clarification, or request for clarification, or emotional reaction. But I see you're following your own advice and not engaging in back and forth in this thread.

Conversation and debate are fine. But lately I've seen so many threads devolve into a handful of people arguing the same positions again and again, with ever-increasing levels of vitriol, so that it spills over into other discussions as well. Threads about AI, LW, approval times, probably half a dozen other topics too: it seems like people just can't help themselves.

I've seen several people post here that they'll "restate their argument in different words". Fine: like I noted in my original post, clear up a misunderstanding by all means. But hoping that doing so again and again will get your point across? That seems to imply that the other person will agree with you, just as soon as you can make them understand. It doesn't allow for that person disagreeing with the basic idea, or just being unwilling to understand. Or for the possibility that you yourself might be wrong, no matter how you phrase your arguments. And that back-and-forth clogs up threads and makes for very tedious reading for other posters.

At this time, my original post has been liked and loved by 21 other posters. This tells me I'm not the only one who's noticed it and dislikes it.

I feel a smidgen guilty for trying to nudge you out of your silence, but I'd really like to know more. You're clearly a congenial, supportive person, and surely engage in conversations IRL, but maybe you do avoid debate? Did I misunderstand your post somehow? Maybe it is just a personality thing, as @Comshaw suggested, "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."

Hoping to hear from you!!

Note that the subject of this thread refers to "online disagreements". Face-to-face is a different matter entirely: people behave differently, if only because they're often friends, family or colleagues and are a bit more likely to respect each other.

Also, for the record, in real life I'm the grumpiest misanthrope you could ever meet. My wife even bought me a mug that says "Mr Grumpy".

 

[pink_silk_glove]

"passive aggressive"

I don't even know where to start. So, I will leave it at that.

I'll point it out to you.

I can't help but notice this thread was started after the "You might be an AHer if..."

Actually it is far more likely that this thread was started in response to the LW 1-bomb thread where Iwrotethis abandoned his stance to personally attack and insult me repeatedly calling me stupid. I defended myself. Then the mod stepped in and made a mess. I talked to the mod, he apologized, went back and deleted some more to try to make it fair (I respect that). Then Iwrotethis continued to attack and disparage me personally. And then went even further, Iwrotethis started taking shots at me in a completely different thread. Now that's fucking petty. Somehow, this makes the two of us equal bickering cunts. No, there is only one cunt in that exchange. But no one cares to check the details, they just paint the both of us the same.

So about the OP, he's in the room we can call him by name, StillStunned starts this thread to call out anyone who bickers, as if he has never done it himself. Well, on at least two occasions that I care to remember he has treated me very similarly to how Iwrotethis this has this week, doubling down, abandoning his stance to take sarcastic personal shots at me. So, someone claiming a higher ground stance that he won't bicker yet has proven to do so in the past, yeah, that could easily be construed as passive-agg. Others may not agree but you can't deny that it's at least a presentable case.

In fairness, despite StillStunned's attitude toward me on occasion, I usually find him quite respectful around here for the most part and hardly hardly among the bad offenders in the AH. Knowing that he is the quickest to serve up lovely framed hotlinks to his own works as examples of good writing whenever certain writing topics come up, those rare times when he does get snooty and pissy are probably just him having one of his arrogant moments. I can give him a pass. He's not the biggest snob here. That would be Duleigh. StillStunned isn't 2nd nor 3rd neither.

 

[MrHereWriting]

4. Bomb their catalog of stories.

This one does happen. Happened to me recently. It's something you have to accept will happen from time to time if you're going to talk in a forum.

I've been in some spirited disagreements with people, but I can say most of them in the AH never led to my stories being bombed, so when it does happen as you're arguing with the person, it's easy to see. You mark that person down as someone who takes their revenge by damaging your rating, but you don't let that stop you from calling them out on BS again, you just live with it and trust in the sweeps to fix things later.