An Argument vs. A Discussion...

[trish]

I know people you come here to actually masturbate.

[runningdownthatdream]

I disagree. I think there were times when you could engage in a discussion with people and they were MUCH MORE willing to listen and understand your point of view... especially in a written format. And it is almost incredible to believe that we're a more "polite" society than we used to be.

I type long entries... I know that I do this and people tell me about it all the time. Take an entry of mine though and READ IT ALOUD. I should take you all of 20-30 seconds. So basically we are to the point where we cannot abide to read something that cannot be digested in one or two lines, yet we carry on conversations with people where one party will talk for 2-3 minutes. That is lazy at best.

Having a discussion has little to do with being polite, educated, or industrious. It has everything to do with being willing to take the time to understand what the other person is saying and refute it directly. Then having the other person take your points and refute them directly.

Impolite people can have discussions. Uneducated people can have discussions. Lazy people can have discussions. We're now people though, who don't have the time, capacity, or willingness to have a discussion in a written format.

And, while we're on the subject of being polite... when was the last time you heard these words...?

"Oh... good point! I hadn't thought about it that way."
"You know what... you're right. I have to rethink this a bit and flesh out my thought process."
"I'm sorry I said that."

I don't believe we're a more polite society at all. In fact the ability to air one's opinion - no matter how erroneous - is one of the factors that has led to society being more IMpolite. Nor am i suggesting that one needs to be polite, educated, or industrious to engage in a discussion - I was just addressing your earlier point - which you make here again - that there were times past when people were more willing to listen and learn, etc. I don't think such times existed - perhaps the circles you moved among in days past were like that but generally human nature is what it is. You may be thinking that people are more argumentative now simply because your circle of acquaintances has broadened or there are simply way more people from disparate environments now a part of your life - for example as your internet presence has grown so too has the number of people you interact with.

I agree with you that our society is more hurried now - there isn't enough time to engage in the mundane things that seem to interest people (such as watching sports or playing online games or posting endless tripe on innumerable blogs or twittering) so when they do engage in a real conversation they really have no time to actually think about what they're discussing.

As for the points you made about acknowledging when others make good points, etc well I'm proud to say i do it all the time. I try really hard to reject dogma and am always open to new ideas.

[trish]

It's often said that online discussions devolve because of anonymity. You lose friends in this context it doesn't matter so much. Losing friends in the real time world can be more consequential. I'm not sure I agree, but that's sort of how the "argument" goes.

[GroobyKrissy]

I agree about the hard science versus opinion distinction. Though I still think good argumentation is a way to make progress toward a consensus view. But not when it turns uncivil. Another good way to move closer on issues that are more opinion/experiential than science related is story telling. Just exchanging experiences can make a for an enjoyable and often enlightening evening. Though again, my life is pretty dull, I do better at arguing than telling stories. But probably stories and novels have done more to progress social justice in the world than all the argumentation of politicians and philosophers...and I'm willing to argue that point.

At what point though, do you think that becomes manipulation? Sad stories are great but they are highly subjective and for every sad story on one side, there are two for the other. This falls into the realm of politics a lot, don't you think?

One side drags out poor grandma losing her insurance... the other drags out poor grandpa who just got his hip replaced for free.

I do love hearing stories though. People live such interesting and fascinating lives. Truth stranger than fiction and all that.

[GroobyKrissy]

It's often said that online discussions devolve because of anonymity. You lose friends in this context it doesn't matter so much. Losing friends in the real time world can be more consequential. I'm not sure I agree, but that's sort of how the "argument" goes.

And... bingo. I think that is a huge point, indeed.

[trish]

At what point though, do you think that becomes manipulation? Sad stories are great but they are highly subjective and for every sad story on one side, there are two for the other. This falls into the realm of politics a lot, don't you think?

One side drags out poor grandma losing her insurance... the other drags out poor grandpa who just got his hip replaced for free.

I do love hearing stories though. People live such interesting and fascinating lives. Truth stranger than fiction and all that.

Yes, there is always the problem of sorting out the truth. I suppose I'm merely saying stories are effective. A novel can be propaganda or an honest portrayal of life. If the reader pre-inclined to be persuaded by the propaganda may not be able to distinguish the difference. We might be that reader. We can only listen, think and criticize our own processes honestly.

[dderek123]

I don't think you can always "agree to disagree". Sometimes the point is so significant it is a, "if you can't concede that your point is unsupported and therefore invalid - we can't continue the discussion". Which I guess is, in a way, agreeing to disagree.

Perhaps I should just start stating that. I guess I get stuck when I feel that the point I am making is outlined so logically that it cannot possibly be wrong. Obviously, some people don't, can't, or just won't see it that way and I should start realizing that sooner.

Yep totally hear you on that one. This will sound insensitive but in a discussion I've found myself feeling that I don't really care if the other person doesn't agree with me. I'll add my 2 cents and if the other person is just being a stubborn and not adding anything to the discussion I'll just move on. If I don't do that we'll just end up talking around and around in circles. Then both of us will eventually feel frustrated and the discussion turns into something else.

I really enjoy having a fruitful discussion on something interesting. Like when you, me and Miranda were talking about gaming a while ago. I really enjoyed that. But if I feel like some anonymous person on the internet is wrong about something I'll just shrug my shoulders and move on.

[bluesoul]

It's often said that online discussions devolve because of anonymity. You lose friends in this context it doesn't matter so much. Losing friends in the real time world can be more consequential. I'm not sure I agree, but that's sort of how the "argument" goes.

i honestly don't agree with this. anonymous has managed to work pretty well when it wanted to like in the project chanology or vs the steubenville ohio rape case and this is even despite having an actual hierarchy or any form of leadership with members choosing how or if they're even anonymous

[ladd3rfr3ak]

Yet another thread to have an argument.

[GroobyKrissy]

i honestly don't agree with this. anonymous has managed to work pretty well when it wanted to like in the project chanology or vs the steubenville ohio rape case and this is even despite having an actual hierarchy or any form of leadership with members choosing how or if they're even anonymous

Oh, I would agree with the premise that anonymity furthers the breakdown of polite conversation 100%.

being anonymous really just provides for unaccountability. I think it has already been mentioned here that given unaccountability, humanity does, largely, devolve.

You can see this played out time and time again when people who are good at snooping track someone down who left a rude FB post, Twitter post, or etc. and call them out. When faced with the revealing of who they are, they typically will back down, back track, or "clarify" their comment.

Didn't some famous person actually do this on Twitter a while ago and show up on the guy's doorstep and the guy who wrote the nasty comment basically had to get the smelling salts out?