Is internet debate indicative of how people interact now?

[jjjjusta]

In my personal experience, bars, clubs & parties are no-fly zones for "debate." You have to be able to see your wife's friends again at the next one, or you don't want to get curb-stomped on your way out, or so on.

The internet was supposed to level this playing field and lower the stakes, allowing for a new discourse.

Didn't quite happen, did it? To me, it seems like ~90% of internet clashes I find myself in, from forums to Twitter to Reddit to Facebook, are not even conversations, let alone debates.

To me:

1) People don't read the entirety of what's posted.

2) People pattern-match. They find phrases that act as triggers and use those phrases as sorting mechanisms -- "Ah, that's the kind of person that says X" -- and then they give the stock answer they hold on to for persons X.

3) Context, history & and intent are considered irrelevant. Bringing them up can be considered offensive, which can create a derail, which works via point 2.


For my money, I can't see how I'm wrong about this constituting the majority of us proles' internet usage. Feel free to correct me if I've missed some online gem. If you can direct me there, incidentally, I'd be grateful.

But assuming I'm *not* wrong, here's my question:

How is this not the single worst problem we have? Of course it affects how we act IRL. In fact, since internet debate has replaced the mythic coffee-house/collegiate/salon conversation -- is there anywhere in the world where people think critically, speak respectfully, and consider opposition viewpoints with empathy?

How is this not a crisis?

 

[Tigers!]

In my personal experience, bars, clubs & parties are no-fly zones for "debate." You have to be able to see your wife's friends again at the next one, or you don't want to get curb-stomped on your way out, or so on.

The internet was supposed to level this playing field and lower the stakes, allowing for a new discourse.

Didn't quite happen, did it? To me, it seems like ~90% of internet clashes I find myself in, from forums to Twitter to Reddit to Facebook, are not even conversations, let alone debates.

To me:

1) People don't read the entirety of what's posted.

2) People pattern-match. They find phrases that act as triggers and use those phrases as sorting mechanisms -- "Ah, that's the kind of person that says X" -- and then they give the stock answer they hold on to for persons X.

3) Context, history & and intent are considered irrelevant. Bringing them up can be considered offensive, which can create a derail, which works via point 2.


For my money, I can't see how I'm wrong about this constituting the majority of us proles' internet usage. Feel free to correct me if I've missed some online gem. If you can direct me there, incidentally, I'd be grateful.

But assuming I'm *not* wrong, here's my question:

How is this not the single worst problem we have? Of course it affects how we act IRL. In fact, since internet debate has replaced the mythic coffee-house/collegiate/salon conversation -- is there anywhere in the world where people think critically, speak respectfully, and consider opposition viewpoints with empathy?

How is this not a crisis?

welcome jjjusta, if not already welcomed.

You do make a good point. The anonymity of the web seems to have coarsen the discourse and lowered the standard. Yet going back would be so difficult.

 

[another1]

jjjusta there is a crisis in how quickly the internet (and technology itself) have changed us. I don't think our minds were ready for that quick of a change. Now, the reality of this dyer situation is of course being exploited in the most of terrible ways. Hopefully rapid technological change can also even out what is indeed a crisis.

Technology could provide positive things, like better weapons to control those who can't handle the mental devastation, better ways to teach children in schools (lovely thought), better surveillance to keep things happy and safe... The list goes on. My money is in the optimist jar when it comes to things like this, and I believe it will all come out in the wash.

As for debating, I don't like debate rules. Luckily I rarely see them followed - anywhere. Points 1-3 you made are fine examples as to why. My main personal debate lately: Should I stop using the internet altogether

An answering machine and a few business cards could assure that I don't dematerialize into mist, never to be seen or heard from again.

 

[Elixir]

The anonymity of the web seems to have coarsen the discourse and lowered the standard. Yet going back would be so difficult.

The distressing thing to me is the ease with which isolated echo chambers are created on the web, enforcing and reinforcing a wide variety of disparate worldviews. They range from uber-conservative religious science denial enclaves to radical anarchist ideologue sites, from neo-con fake news sites to liberal alarmist sites feasting on the copious supply of Cheato's lies and insanity to the exclusion of all else.
The internet has devolved already into a mechanism dedicated to feeding every kind of confirmation bias there is... I came to this site as it appeared to be somewhat of an exception, but even here there is so much talking past others that I wonder if it's even viable to attempt to create any real information flow between the echo chambers to which we each have consigned ourselves.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, this is a real problem. There are few fora where I have managed to find intelligent and respectful dialogue with opposing ideas, where it is kept about the topic and not the posters, but they do exist. This place is about a quarter of the way there, and has backslid from what it used to be, but it is still better than many others.

I find it an interesting contrast to real life. We seem to have dumped most of rude "debate" into the internet, where people are anonymous and feel emboldened, while becoming super sensitive and guarded in real life. Compare forchan to college camous safe spaces or Trumpian ultrathinskin.

 

[credoconsolans]

The anonymity of the web seems to have coarsen the discourse and lowered the standard. Yet going back would be so difficult.

The distressing thing to me is the ease with which isolated echo chambers are created on the web, enforcing and reinforcing a wide variety of disparate worldviews. They range from uber-conservative religious science denial enclaves to radical anarchist ideologue sites, from neo-con fake news sites to liberal alarmist sites feasting on the copious supply of Cheato's lies and insanity to the exclusion of all else.
The internet has devolved already into a mechanism dedicated to feeding every kind of confirmation bias there is... I came to this site as it appeared to be somewhat of an exception, but even here there is so much talking past others that I wonder if it's even viable to attempt to create any real information flow between the echo chambers to which we each have consigned ourselves.

That's exactly what happened.

Before, the religious nuts and political radicals were surrounded by normal people and could only rant and rave on the street or to their barbers and no harm done.

The internet has given them access to all the like-minded nuts all over the world and simply strengthened their belief in their own bone-headed ideologies and they've become a political force.

 

[fast]

Yes, this is a real problem. There are few fora where I have managed to find intelligent and respectful dialogue with opposing ideas, where it is kept about the topic and not the posters, but they do exist. This place is about a quarter of the way there, and has backslid from what it used to be, but it is still better than many others.

I find it an interesting contrast to real life. We seem to have dumped most of rude "debate" into the internet, where people are anonymous and feel emboldened, while becoming super sensitive and guarded in real life. Compare forchan to college camous safe spaces or Trumpian ultrathinskin.

Backslid? At times, maybe, but overall, there seems to be enough of posters still around from days before to help maintain a semblance of restraint. I know I'm being positive and that's not like me, but you guys are okay in some ways even when you're kitten killers in other ways

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Definitely better than many other online forums, bit backslid from yesteryear, yes.

I think society as a whole has backslid from a decade or so ago, or maybe that's just selective memory....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Definitely better than many other online forums, bit backslid from yesteryear, yes.

I think society as a whole has backslid from a decade or so ago, or maybe that's just selective memory....

Backslid, mainly in the sense that we lost some good posters, for various reasons over the years. This board is 17ish years old, which is a bazillion in human years.

 

[couch_sloth]

Definitely better than many other online forums, bit backslid from yesteryear, yes.

I think society as a whole has backslid from a decade or so ago, or maybe that's just selective memory....

Do you think the forum rules on goading, harassment and insults aren't as strictly enforced as they use to be?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Definitely better than many other online forums, bit backslid from yesteryear, yes.

I think society as a whole has backslid from a decade or so ago, or maybe that's just selective memory....

Do you think the forum rules on goading, harassment and insults aren't as strictly enforced as they use to be?

The rules themselves, I don't know. Enforcement of them, yes. It has become far more ideologically slanted than it was back then. I think that is true of public discourse in general, due in large part to internet conclaves and echo chambers.

 

[untermensche]

Who is the person who can't restrain themselves?

The one who hurls insults?

Or the one who for some reason feels the need to respond to them?

Or the one who can't just ignore them and move on?

Human sensitivities arising from faceless anonymous communication should be restrained.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In my personal experience, bars, clubs & parties are no-fly zones for "debate." You have to be able to see your wife's friends again at the next one, or you don't want to get curb-stomped on your way out, or so on.

The internet was supposed to level this playing field and lower the stakes, allowing for a new discourse.

Didn't quite happen, did it? To me, it seems like ~90% of internet clashes I find myself in, from forums to Twitter to Reddit to Facebook, are not even conversations, let alone debates.

To me:

1) People don't read the entirety of what's posted.

2) People pattern-match. They find phrases that act as triggers and use those phrases as sorting mechanisms -- "Ah, that's the kind of person that says X" -- and then they give the stock answer they hold on to for persons X.

3) Context, history & and intent are considered irrelevant. Bringing them up can be considered offensive, which can create a derail, which works via point 2.


For my money, I can't see how I'm wrong about this constituting the majority of us proles' internet usage. Feel free to correct me if I've missed some online gem. If you can direct me there, incidentally, I'd be grateful.

But assuming I'm *not* wrong, here's my question:

How is this not the single worst problem we have? Of course it affects how we act IRL. In fact, since internet debate has replaced the mythic coffee-house/collegiate/salon conversation -- is there anywhere in the world where people think critically, speak respectfully, and consider opposition viewpoints with empathy?

How is this not a crisis?

I think you've identified something here. But I think it reveals what human communication was about all along. We mostly just want others to react to what we say. We want to be liked/upvoted. This is more important to being correct.

What the Internet allows for is just letting us be more human in our communication. That isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

[untermensche]

I think you've identified something here. But I think it reveals what human communication was about all along. We mostly just want others to react to what we say. We want to be liked/upvoted. This is more important to being correct.

What the Internet allows for is just letting us be more human in our communication. That isn't necessarily a good thing.

Some communication is seduction.

That can't be done over the internet.

Charisma does not translate over the internet.

Those who in life can use their personality or status or position to command can't do that on the internet and it causes many of them frustration.

 

[rousseau]

I don't know that this is indicative of how people act now, rather the internet just gives any old dumb, asshole a much bigger voice-box. Where before, a racist was confined to his buddy's basement over a case of beer, now they can troll and mock people over a much broader range.

Biologically, people don't change much in 50 000 years, let alone 30, so we're the same idiots we've always been, now how dumb we are is just much more noticeable.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I remember a line from communication theory I came across many moons ago, "all communication is manipulation".

Usually we manipulate to be more popular. Once we connect a statement to a basic human emotion to person talking wants to achieve it's pretty easy to pick apart.

 

[funinspace]

In my personal experience, bars, clubs & parties are no-fly zones for "debate." You have to be able to see your wife's friends again at the next one, or you don't want to get curb-stomped on your way out, or so on.

The internet was supposed to level this playing field and lower the stakes, allowing for a new discourse.

Didn't quite happen, did it? To me, it seems like ~90% of internet clashes I find myself in, from forums to Twitter to Reddit to Facebook, are not even conversations, let alone debates.

Well, I think that many of the internet places are pretty useless for debate/discussion, especially the completely un-moderated and big places off of new sites et.al. Personally, I pay them as much attention as I did the guy screaming his bible thumping on the corner at the college campus years ago. Twitter has a forum? If it does, then maybe. But otherwise, its 140 char limit pretty much makes it a useless medium for anything other than a shout out tool for “go look at this”. Personally, I think Twitter is dumber than dumb for what 95% of the people are doing with it. Facebook discussions seem to go in two directions (at least from what I see looking over my wife’s shoulder), one is friends sharing cutesy or funny stuff of life, then the other is moronic pushing of sophomoric dribble whether its personal boasting BS or pushing dumb political stuff. The chatter after a post often reminds me of Ed, Edd, n Eddy discussions.

To me:

1) People don't read the entirety of what's posted.

2) People pattern-match. They find phrases that act as triggers and use those phrases as sorting mechanisms -- "Ah, that's the kind of person that says X" -- and then they give the stock answer they hold on to for persons X.

3) Context, history & and intent are considered irrelevant. Bringing them up can be considered offensive, which can create a derail, which works via point 2.

This does happen quite a bit. But two things come to mind that can mitigate these issues. One, be generally respectful yourself; that doesn’t mean humor or sarcasm have to cloistered 100%. Two, choose your interactions and eventually choose to ignore those that won’t have a reasoned discussion. I consider myself a moderate libertarian, so I get quite a bit of straw thrown at me, as I am assumed to be anything from a neo-con, to a dyed in the wool Ayn Rand flake, to an anarchist, and even sometimes ‘one of them’ librals. It quickly becomes quite clear who actually wants to discuss something verses who just wants to sling monkey shit at their own strawmen.

For my money, I can't see how I'm wrong about this constituting the majority of us proles' internet usage. Feel free to correct me if I've missed some online gem. If you can direct me there, incidentally, I'd be grateful.

But assuming I'm *not* wrong, here's my question:

How is this not the single worst problem we have? Of course it affects how we act IRL. In fact, since internet debate has replaced the mythic coffee-house/collegiate/salon conversation -- is there anywhere in the world where people think critically, speak respectfully, and consider opposition viewpoints with empathy?

How is this not a crisis?

I’d say it is not a crisis, as when/where were/are the ‘good ol days’? Were there, are there, candid discussions of divisive issues at work, a church, bar, a family dinner out, et.al.? We had a place outside my college student union where groups could set up stuff on concrete tables along the walkway out to push their ideas. Lots of yelling and stupidity there, especially when both a Jewish group and Arab group were playing at the same time. I became well trained at ignoring the attempt to shove a flyer into my hands. The best places I can think of is if one has a decent group of friends that can handle frank discussion without flipping out. I’ve had this once and it lasted maybe about 5-7 years. But there were still limits to the discussion compared to this forum (or possibly other moderated sites). Organized debates can be a place to listen and gain insight, but the audience doesn’t really get to participate.

The internet does things that change the shape of interaction (not that I'm going to try and describe it all). People can certainly re-inforce group think, but hardly more so than the old way of reading specialized magazine that only agree with you. But it does allow people to gather and read other thoughts on specialized subjects that otherwise would be very hard to do. The internet allows people, if they so choose, to engage people from far away and get perspective that they never would in the old days. The internet is certainly reshaping news distribution, but again not necessarily all bad. Before the days of the telegraph, information was manipulated and knowledge of what happened outside one's town was extremely limited. Ben Franklin used pseudonyms to slander opponents. A US president started a war with Mexico, claiming that our soldiers were attacked, lying to Congress...I guess some things don't change

 

[rousseau]

I remember a line from communication theory I came across many moons ago, "all communication is manipulation".

Usually we manipulate to be more popular. Once we connect a statement to a basic human emotion to person talking wants to achieve it's pretty easy to pick apart.

I'd think you can generalise this even more and say something like 'human behaviour is self interested', 'communication is a behaviour', therefore 'communication is self-interested'.

I believe it's important not to get angsty about it, though. Effective communication is a means of building, maintaining relationships with other people. Just because it's worded to garner a specific emotional response, I don't think that's always a bad thing unless it's intentionally malicious.

 

[bilby]

I think you've identified something here. But I think it reveals what human communication was about all along. We mostly just want others to react to what we say. We want to be liked/upvoted. This is more important to being correct.

What the Internet allows for is just letting us be more human in our communication. That isn't necessarily a good thing.

Some communication is seduction.

That can't be done over the internet.

There are plenty of stories of Internet seduction. It's practically a cliché.

Charisma does not translate over the internet.

Those who in life can use their personality or status or position to command can't do that on the internet and it causes many of them frustration.

Sure. But many people who can't use their personality or status or position to command IRL, find that they do have that ability on the Internet.

Overall, I think it's a wash - The results are not better or worse per se, but a different group of people are empowered, while many of those who are traditionally empowered are deflated.

 

[Philos]

Folks,

I have found the internet a good training ground for keeping out of tiresome arguments in 3d. On the web we have time to see the patterns of trolling, snarking and flaming and can look at the process in print. We can see how much of it there is around and be ready for it.

In 3d, maybe in the pub or at a family gathering, snarks hit quickly, and often people respond in temper. Its never pretty.

I don't think that the internet has changed discourse, it has just revealed more of what was there all along. We can learn from that.

A.