conflict culture
I recently read an article about the Anatomy of Internet Arguments. Itâs about how to have better online discussions, how to deescalate and have more civil discussions. I recommend reading it because itâs hard to summarize it further since it builds on the included examples and wording.
I understand the OPs arguments and their effort is great, and I understand you have to make some concessions and compromises when interacting with people; especially strangers who have nothing to lose since you have no friendship that can be hurt by bad behavior. But I also found it a bit depressing. It seems like to not escalate an online conflict and get people to apologize, you have to over-concede, and either be self deprecating or downright insulting yourself to signal youâre not a threat, just to appease⌠who exactly? A stranger that was comfortable to insult you straight up over nothing? Thatâs so sad. And itâs presented as a win in the article, which I just cannot agree with. Iâm not making a discussion with a poop thrower better by voluntarily smearing poop on myself, Iâm sorry. Every third party looking on is just gonna see that insulting someone is gonna get them to give up. The examples all involved ending up either just asking questions or ending up agreeing (or heavily implying so). I doubt any of the people who wrote âWow a civil discussion!!11!â would have written that if the other party didnât signal theyâre giving up or changing their mind. They would have never written that if they had to have been the one to concede for once. And in the case of the axiom-example, it doesnât even acknowledge that there was goal post moving going on. You canât ask questions and then be mad someoneâs trying to answer them, and then introduce even more questions.
I hate the culture around discussions or arguments now. It feels like whatâs happening online is also increasingly being taken to small groups, the offline world, face to face. I canât quite pinpoint it⌠but something about the tone, about assuming bad faith in the other, about not talking with a person about a topic but getting the impression they use you to argue against who you represent to them... if that makes sense? Like theyâre projecting onto you a whole group of people or a side of an issue, even though you are you, a multifaceted being, and youâre not an online stranger either. OddâŚ
And thereâs this reflex to ask for credentials or sources, too. I think thatâs perfectly fine when discussing facts and numbers online, like climate stuff or government spending or what % of the population does xyz. But itâs so annoying and unfitting when it is clearly about something un- or understudied, subjective, hard to measure and personal feelings that are voiced off-the-cuff. Itâs like they try to win at all costs.
But youâre not winning by asking for sources on a claim that has no sources.\
Youâre not winning if your friends just wanna casually talk about impressions and subjective opinions and youâre turning it into a competitive sport by asking for a list with dates and timestamps of stuff or academic papers they obviously canât provide.
Youâre not winning by turning a platonic casual space into acting as if your friend is a politician or other public representative spewing this in front of thousands of people and influencing an outcome.
Youâre not winning by squashing discussions with trying to say someone doesnât have the necessary life experience or identity to bring something up.
I think itâs just so boring to expect everything to just stay with experts and specific groups when it is affecting you or loved ones as well. Like, you should obviously be able to discuss in private that itâs shit to not be able to afford a home without having to need an economics degree or being a landlord to do so, why not apply that to a series of similar topics. Itâs almost as if people got tired of always being told online that itâs not their place to talk about something publicly and theyâre finally glad to reverse the roles and do that in real life, even though we are not currently yelling it out loud on a marketplace with spectators. Itâs silly. At this point I walk away from the talk when someone starts up like that. Calm down, Twitter fingers.
Same with people who either donât understand nuance or expect it in literally everything down to the smallest detail, and including their own very specific scenario too. âWell what about ..?â Well if it doesnât fit itâs not about that then! Maybe if you cannot relate, itâs not for you! I truly wonder if algorithms creating the perfect For You page/suggestions turns people into expecting everything and everyone to cater to them in that way?
Published , edited 1Â year, 2Â months ago