conflict culture
I recently read an article about the Anatomy of Internet Arguments. It’s about how to have better online discussions, how to deescalate and have more civil discussions. I recommend reading it because it’s 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 you’re not a threat, just to appease… who exactly? A stranger that was comfortable to insult you straight up over nothing? That’s so sad. And it’s presented as a win in the article, which I just cannot agree with. I’m not making a discussion with a poop thrower better by voluntarily smearing poop on myself, I’m 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 “Wow a civil discussion!!11!” would have written that if the other party didn’t signal they’re 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 doesn’t even acknowledge that there was goal post moving going on. You can’t ask questions and then be mad someone’s trying to answer them, and then introduce even more questions.
I hate the culture around discussions or arguments now. It feels like what’s happening online is also increasingly being taken to small groups, the offline world, face to face. I can’t 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 they’re projecting onto you a whole group of people or a side of an issue, even though you are you, a multifaceted being, and you’re not an online stranger either. Odd…
And there’s this reflex to ask for credentials or sources, too. I think that’s perfectly fine when discussing facts and numbers online, like climate stuff or government spending or what % of the population does xyz. But it’s 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. It’s like they try to win at all costs.
But you’re not winning by asking for sources on a claim that has no sources.\
You’re not winning if your friends just wanna casually talk about impressions and subjective opinions and you’re turning it into a competitive sport by asking for a list with dates and timestamps of stuff or academic papers they obviously can’t provide.
You’re 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.
You’re not winning by squashing discussions with trying to say someone doesn’t have the necessary life experience or identity to bring something up.
I think it’s 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 it’s 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. It’s almost as if people got tired of always being told online that it’s not their place to talk about something publicly and they’re 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. It’s 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 don’t understand nuance or expect it in literally everything down to the smallest detail, and including their own very specific scenario too. “Well what about ..?” Well if it doesn’t fit it’s not about that then! Maybe if you cannot relate, it’s 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 10 Oct, 2024, edited 7Â months, 2Â weeks ago