Arguing on the internet

[Calliope]

PS: Julia, in reference to your point about being called a moron; yes, the bristles tend to go up when that happens. But I have learned to apply that "grokking" principle especially in situations like those, when somebody tries to kill your argument by a "stupid" cliche. I can make allowance for that person's inability to be more articulate and persuasive. Often, I can also ignore his view because he obviously lacks the capacity to arrive at a rational assessment of the matter at hand. In short: I can "love my neighbour", yet still leave him.

Do I detect a gender bias here? (my bolds)

 

[trainspotter]

How to win any argument on the internet http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/how-win-any.php
1) NEVER DEFEND YOUR OWN POINTS.
2) CLAIM YOU WORK IN WHATEVER FIELD YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT.
3) IF LOSING AN ARGUMENT, FEIGN FRUSTRATION AND THEN CLAIM YOU'RE BLOCKING THE PERSON.
4) AT SOME POINT IN TIME, CLAIM THE OTHER PERSON IS A NAZI.

 

[moXJO]

Pffftt arguing on the internet

Lets remember what the internet is actually for people

 

[explod]

Do I detect a gender bias here? (my bolds)

Ohar big deal. The singular is the plural and the plural is the singular unless otherwise specified, and it wasnt'.

 

[pixel]

Ohar big deal. The singular is the plural and the plural is the singular unless otherwise specified, and it wasnt'.

: Thanks explod;

My initial reaction went somewhat in the direction of trainspotter's suggestion #4, probably mollified to "picky-picky". PC can definitely be overdone - and often is.
But considering some of the examples that the Alberta Law Society tries to eliminate - see EquityPolicies/gender - Calliope may have suffered more discomfort or even trauma, which left her "sensitised" to the odd semantic sloppiness. While I see no need to apologise for using the male pronoun in its gender-inclusive form, I can honestly state that I do not have a gender bias as the critique might have implied.

Actually, after some more due consideration and in the context of my example, I'm inclined to leave the pronouns as originally written: 40-odd years of married life have taught me that it would not only be futile, but also a health and wealth hazard, were I to try and "understand", let alone "love", a female neighbour. :

 

[Calliope]

explod,

Ohar big deal. The singular is the plural and the plural is the singular unless otherwise specified, and it wasnt'

Rubbish!

Calliope may have suffered more discomfort or even trauma, which left her* "sensitised" to the odd semantic sloppiness. While I see no need to apologise for using the male pronoun in its gender-inclusive form, I can honestly state that I do not have a gender bias as the critique might have implied.

Well you certainly got that all wrong. I was merely indulging my habit of pricking the egos of stuffed shirts. Your gender biases are of no interest to me.

*her should be him

 

[trainspotter]

Brings a whole new meaning when you are talking about manholes.

1) I reckon the reason that a lot of the arguments on the internet is due to the anonymity of the poster. In real life it would be doubtful that the person typing would say such things that get posted on a wall for everyone to read.

2) Human evolution has programmed us to respond to facial expressions, hand gestures, tonal variations of speech and other nonverbal gestures. In the forum world we are devoid of such emotional triggers and respond to how the written word is perceived by the reader.

3) Internet Syndrome - When people get deluded about their capabilities and over state their actual abilities. This causes the reader to question the poster and that's how the fight starts.

4) Competitiveness of certain people who do not like to be wrong or are incapable of seeing another persons point of view usually are the first to strike a blow. This is evident when the person proffering their POV is already armed with all the facts and has researched the topic to the nth degree. Some poor schlep asks a dopey question and then the fight starts.

5) Narcissism is the personality trait of egotism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others.

6) Munchausen by proxy - When the poster is actually looking to gain a response by writing something knowing full well that the people responding will rip it apart like a savage pack of internet piranhas.

7) Because sometimes it can be fun. Healthy debate defeats echo chambers and circlejerks. Nothing better than showing how clever you are by proving someone else is wrong when you systematically pull their argument apart piece by flaming piece.

Because people like this actually do exist ! You might just be arguing with one now.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I disagree with you posting a picture of Phillip Adams on a Stock Forum. nothing will dissuade me from this view. Nothing. Argue all you like.

gg

 

[SmellyTerror]

Both.

With this thread you are trying to salvage something from a previous discussion.

Actually, I thought the "previous discussion" involved me crushing the puny arguments of my opposition under my mighty rhetorical heel. I mean, they were reduced to calling me "grammatical". That's a win, in my book. Why would I need to "salvage" anything?

Genuinely thought this was a point worth making... (since it explains precisely how I'm better than everyone else. : )

And Smelly Terror's original post on this thread which offers insight into the writer not so clear when the irritation and crankiness is predominant.

For the record, I am rarely cranky here, though I might look it. You'll notice I'm rarely getting all worked up over an actual point of view, but rather a person's inability to understand mine or (often) another poster's. That's where I tend to get into long and (apparently) irritated argument - especially when I think someone is intentionally misrepresenting something (extremely bad faith) or simply not reading or comprehending what they're reading because they've already decided that they disagree with it.

See, for example, the "previous discussion" where one poster was getting increasingly angry and insulting because he repeatedly failed to see I was NOT insulting him, and repeatedly and blatantly failed to read what I was actually writing (indeed, that one actually started with him pointedly reading only the start of a post of mine, thus failing to see that the rest of the post contradicted all the conclusions he made).

Or another poster who was committing the pefectly human mistake of treating people from "the other tribe" as irrational cartoonish parodies of reality, and wouldn't actually accept that, yes, they're actually just as complex and nuanced as the people in allied tribes - even though it was simply a matter of looking up a definition. People decide they're right, and won't accept anything that might challenge that.

Lately, I've had a lot of people here arguing with me even when I thought I was agreeing with them. If people can get worked up to the point of argument and debate when the other person is trying to agree (however poorly communicated that was), then what chance is there when we are actually disagreeing?

There are some cool studies on how people treat contrary sources: ie, when something or someone challenges a point of view, it is an automatic human response to devalue that source. Isn't that cool?

And isn't it depressing, too?

----
Regarding the swear words (****): 1. note that the system imposes the asterixes - I write the actual naughty words; and 2. that's how I talk. In fact, that's how almost everyone I know talks. I think it's more honest for me to write the way I talk (yes, I do also repeatedly apologise for being a tedious wanker in conversation - I talk REALLY fast, and a little too loud, too), and I don't really understand how, even though pretty much everyone swears in spoken conversation, it's somehow more crass to do it in writing. /shrug

In any case, HOW something is written is just as irrelevant to the point as who they are, surely? "The sky is ****ing blue" is either true or not, "****ing" aside.

...and sometimes, swearing actually makes things clearer, I think. Why avoid a whole subset of words? They're not magic. They don't actually hurt anyone.

You are complete Wanker ..... appropriate smilies attached

Once Nurse Ratched gives you the pills everything wil be OK.

Thanks Train. I'll accept that in the spirit it was given.

(I do write like a wanker. I know that. It's just the clearest way I know to write). :

How to win any argument on the internet http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/how-win-any.php
1) NEVER DEFEND YOUR OWN POINTS.
2) CLAIM YOU WORK IN WHATEVER FIELD YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT.
3) IF LOSING AN ARGUMENT, FEIGN FRUSTRATION AND THEN CLAIM YOU'RE BLOCKING THE PERSON.
4) AT SOME POINT IN TIME, CLAIM THE OTHER PERSON IS A NAZI.

...and see? That's actually pretty relevant to the discussion.

Notice, I try to direct EVERYTHING back to actual points. I don't speculate about a person's political bias or affiliation - these are irrelevant. Even as I'm being called a ratbag left-wing imbecile (as I was recently) I don't resort to personal abuse. I don't object to, or make fun of, HOW people write, just WHAT they write.

I'll be sarcastic for humorous effect (hopefully) - I'm not trying to be a text-book - and I'll point out the conclusion that I see as necessary from a point the poster is making (if you say the world is made of marshmallow, I feel it's reasonable to point out that, on this point, you may be deluded). I'll abuse weak and sloppy arguments, because I think that's fun to write and entertaining to read - but ALWAYS with clear reasons why I think they're weak and sloppy arguments.

So that's what I'm sayin'. Argue the points.

 

[explod]

SmellyTerror. Or another poster who was committing the pefectly human mistake of treating people from "the other tribe" as irrational cartoonish parodies of reality, and wouldn't actually accept that, yes, they're actually just as complex and nuanced as the people in allied tribes - even though it was simply a matter of looking up a definition. People decide they're right, and won't accept anything that might challenge that.

"The other tribe" love it

Regarding the swear words (****): 1. note that the system imposes the asterixes - I write the actual naughty words; and 2. that's how I talk. In fact, that's how almost everyone I know talks. I think it's more honest for me to write the way I talk (yes, I do also repeatedly apologise for being a tedious wanker in conversation - I talk REALLY fast, and a little too loud, too), and I don't really understand how, even though pretty much everyone swears in spoken conversation, it's somehow more crass to do it in writing. /shrug

In any case, HOW something is written is just as irrelevant to the point as who they are, surely? "The sky is ****ing blue" is either true or not, "****ing" aside.

This is a very good point. Of course the context is important, a descriptive for sky is very different to a direct descriptive of someone you are talking too.

Having said that, a recent court decision went against police in Qld where expletives were directed at them. There have been other such decisions over the last forty years.

It comes down to accepted community standards. And that is not in isolation. A certain standard is set on ASF and after some time on here we learn the level. A group of 17 year old's skateboarding at the local park have a very different one (that forum belongs to that group in that circumstance). The problem araises when the 18 year old becomes interested in trading shares and logs onto ASF.

Words being defaulted out seems a perfect answer in my view. However soon as adjudication comes into the equation the fuse has been lit, we are all instinctively fighting little beasts and we just need to be more conscious of its negative outcomes.

Interesting.

 

[trainspotter]

It comes down to accepted community standards. And that is not in isolation. A certain standard is set on ASF and after some time on here we learn the level. A group of 17 year old's skateboarding at the local park have a very different one (that forum belongs to that group in that circumstance). The problem araises when the 18 year old becomes interested in trading shares and logs onto ASF.

This should be on the front page for everyone to read.