When we agree, apparently there's a lot less to say than when we disagree.
The web has turned writing into a bona fide conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web now allows readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, social and professional networking sites and in their own blog posts such as this one.
Most newspapers, and news channels (CNN, MSNBC etc.), Facebook, Twitter, MyLife as well as countless other forums and discussion boards are on line and offer readers the opportunity to comment. Many who respond to something in a forum either disagree with the forum (so why are they there in the first place?), someone else’s opinion/post/response or some particular within the forum. I’d say that's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. When you agree, apparently there's a lot less to say than when you disagree.
The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on. Does this mean that people are getting angrier or does it mean that the structural change in the way we communicate is simply expanding to the point that hidden behind the anonymity of a screen name or email account that we feel we can ‘let er rip’ so to speak?
I wonder often what is driving the increase in disagreement and, is it troublesome to anyone besides me that this increase in disagreement seems to make people even angrier, particularly on line where it is so much easier to type things that you would never say face to face to a person?
Is it a “what the hell” type of attitude way of thinking in that we “don’t even know this asshole” who is disagreeing with us so why not tell him/her how you really feel? Why do we become so judgmental and condescending so quickly when posting in anonymous forum and why do we react so quickly to post our own comments?
Is it any different on social networks like Facebook, MyLife, or the practically defunct MySpace? I dare say it is. On Facebook for instance, your ‘friends’ are people you actually know. Granted many of them are not people you run into or see on a regular basis however, there is a personal level of history with some, if not all of the folks in your friend list. How many times have you read someone else’s post when there were misspellings and other grammatical errors? How many times have you read someone else’s post when you have completely disagreed with something? HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN SHOUTED AT? Do you mention these things to your ‘friend’ or the ‘friend of your friend’ or are you a little more hesitant because on Facebook you are NOT anonymous and open yourself up for a reply, possible criticism, misunderstanding or (drum roll please…) being dropped from the friend list and/or blocked? Why do we agree to disagree in this forum and, for the most part, agree to disagree and move on when we don’t tend to do that with the cloak of anonymity that most other sites and forums offer?
I got to thinking about this and if we are all going to be disagreeing more, and it seems that we are, shouldn’t we be more careful and more courteous in how we do it? Even if it is on line? Shouldn’t there be some protocol that should be followed or acknowledged or should we all just get used to ranting, raving and criticism?
Most readers, also now writers, can discern the difference between name-calling, the aficionado, soap-box, grand-standing, bullying type post and a carefully reasoned refutation.
That being said, there are a lot of different ways we respond to others on line. Starting with what I personally believe to be the lowest form of debate: Name Calling. We’ve all seen comments such as “<screen name>, “You’re an asshole” or worse such as “<screen name>, you’re a slut/whore/fag/racial slur/religious insult” etc. Really people? This type of response carries very little weight in an actual debate do they not? What is the purpose of calling someone a name? Does it make you feel better or is it just because you can?
Moving along, another way we respond to others: Ad hominem. Saying that an author of an article or post lacks the authority to write about a topic is an ad hominem and might actually carry some weight in that it might be relevant.
Let’s level up shall we? How about responding to tone: The author’s tone, a respondent’s tone, our own tone. First off, tone is difficult to judge and how tone is assessed varies greatly. So many misunderstandings and hurt feelings, instances of being offended or simply being confused could be avoided if we all assumed a little less that others should know when we are kidding, teasing, joking or being sarcastic.
Next up is contradiction and hypocrisy. (Wikopedia): Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have, or applying a criticism to others that one does not apply to oneself. (Wikopedia): a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other. Here we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom in response to an argument by simply stating the opposing case with little or often times, no supporting evidence. Yet depending on the forum and the level of anonymity, does so with hypocrisy because although the responder may not 'practice what they preach' they sure do still know how to preach it.
This brings me to counterargument. Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning AND/OR evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing but unfortunately, it’s very common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two or more people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. As a reader, I've often noticed that these same persons even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble, they don’t even realize it.
How about refutation? The most convincing form of disagreement and also the rarest because it is by far the most work. To refute someone you have to quote them, find that “smoking gun”, a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken and then explain why it is mistaken. If you can’t find an actual quote to disagree with, you are arguing with the straw man now aren’t you? Oh, but the proverbial straw man is also an ad hominem.
And here’s another thought: while refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn’t necessarily imply refutation. Some respondents quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, only to follow with name calling and an argumentative tone without explaining why or offering any facts, just their opinion.
So is it our opinions only that we are concerned with? Is it about how we, you or I in particular, view the subject?
Hmm.. I guess that when we agree, there is a lot less to say than when we disagree wouldn’t you agree? 86 the bullshit and tell me what you think. Talk to me…
The web has turned writing into a bona fide conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web now allows readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, social and professional networking sites and in their own blog posts such as this one.
Most newspapers, and news channels (CNN, MSNBC etc.), Facebook, Twitter, MyLife as well as countless other forums and discussion boards are on line and offer readers the opportunity to comment. Many who respond to something in a forum either disagree with the forum (so why are they there in the first place?), someone else’s opinion/post/response or some particular within the forum. I’d say that's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. When you agree, apparently there's a lot less to say than when you disagree.
The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on. Does this mean that people are getting angrier or does it mean that the structural change in the way we communicate is simply expanding to the point that hidden behind the anonymity of a screen name or email account that we feel we can ‘let er rip’ so to speak?
I wonder often what is driving the increase in disagreement and, is it troublesome to anyone besides me that this increase in disagreement seems to make people even angrier, particularly on line where it is so much easier to type things that you would never say face to face to a person?
Is it a “what the hell” type of attitude way of thinking in that we “don’t even know this asshole” who is disagreeing with us so why not tell him/her how you really feel? Why do we become so judgmental and condescending so quickly when posting in anonymous forum and why do we react so quickly to post our own comments?
Is it any different on social networks like Facebook, MyLife, or the practically defunct MySpace? I dare say it is. On Facebook for instance, your ‘friends’ are people you actually know. Granted many of them are not people you run into or see on a regular basis however, there is a personal level of history with some, if not all of the folks in your friend list. How many times have you read someone else’s post when there were misspellings and other grammatical errors? How many times have you read someone else’s post when you have completely disagreed with something? HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN SHOUTED AT? Do you mention these things to your ‘friend’ or the ‘friend of your friend’ or are you a little more hesitant because on Facebook you are NOT anonymous and open yourself up for a reply, possible criticism, misunderstanding or (drum roll please…) being dropped from the friend list and/or blocked? Why do we agree to disagree in this forum and, for the most part, agree to disagree and move on when we don’t tend to do that with the cloak of anonymity that most other sites and forums offer?
I got to thinking about this and if we are all going to be disagreeing more, and it seems that we are, shouldn’t we be more careful and more courteous in how we do it? Even if it is on line? Shouldn’t there be some protocol that should be followed or acknowledged or should we all just get used to ranting, raving and criticism?
Most readers, also now writers, can discern the difference between name-calling, the aficionado, soap-box, grand-standing, bullying type post and a carefully reasoned refutation.
That being said, there are a lot of different ways we respond to others on line. Starting with what I personally believe to be the lowest form of debate: Name Calling. We’ve all seen comments such as “<screen name>, “You’re an asshole” or worse such as “<screen name>, you’re a slut/whore/fag/racial slur/religious insult” etc. Really people? This type of response carries very little weight in an actual debate do they not? What is the purpose of calling someone a name? Does it make you feel better or is it just because you can?
Moving along, another way we respond to others: Ad hominem. Saying that an author of an article or post lacks the authority to write about a topic is an ad hominem and might actually carry some weight in that it might be relevant.
Let’s level up shall we? How about responding to tone: The author’s tone, a respondent’s tone, our own tone. First off, tone is difficult to judge and how tone is assessed varies greatly. So many misunderstandings and hurt feelings, instances of being offended or simply being confused could be avoided if we all assumed a little less that others should know when we are kidding, teasing, joking or being sarcastic.
Next up is contradiction and hypocrisy. (Wikopedia): Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have, or applying a criticism to others that one does not apply to oneself. (Wikopedia): a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other. Here we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom in response to an argument by simply stating the opposing case with little or often times, no supporting evidence. Yet depending on the forum and the level of anonymity, does so with hypocrisy because although the responder may not 'practice what they preach' they sure do still know how to preach it.
This brings me to counterargument. Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning AND/OR evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing but unfortunately, it’s very common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two or more people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. As a reader, I've often noticed that these same persons even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble, they don’t even realize it.
How about refutation? The most convincing form of disagreement and also the rarest because it is by far the most work. To refute someone you have to quote them, find that “smoking gun”, a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken and then explain why it is mistaken. If you can’t find an actual quote to disagree with, you are arguing with the straw man now aren’t you? Oh, but the proverbial straw man is also an ad hominem.
And here’s another thought: while refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn’t necessarily imply refutation. Some respondents quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, only to follow with name calling and an argumentative tone without explaining why or offering any facts, just their opinion.
So is it our opinions only that we are concerned with? Is it about how we, you or I in particular, view the subject?
Hmm.. I guess that when we agree, there is a lot less to say than when we disagree wouldn’t you agree? 86 the bullshit and tell me what you think. Talk to me…
No comments:
Post a Comment