Well stated. And hard conversations are, well, hard to have when you're engaging with someone whose mind is closed to hearing other arguments. Whenever this discussion comes up, somebody usually trots out the tired old advice "don't feed the trolls" by responding. But in a public online space, the response we give isn't directed just to that person we disagree with, but really to the world. And you really never do know who might be reading.
And yes, it's so true. Most of these spaces are open forums, so everyone, regardless of opinion, is going to see your response and have an opportunity to respond themselves.
'Don't feed the trolls' doesn't often apply in my experience. Trolls exist, but much of what I see are people sincerely arguing their points, though they may be doing it in a snarky, sarcastic, or angry way. They don't think of it as causing division. They simply feel, for varying reasons, that the point must be made. The road to hell, and all that.
Wow, very beautifully put. It's interesting to think that, on the one hand, we have more opportunities than ever before in history to engage with those who disagree with us. But at the same time, this online medium--devoid of the crucial cues of vocal intonations and facial expressions and gestures--has in many ways made such conversations immature and impossible to have. I've been reflecting on this lately, because I've had to shut down a tense conversation with someone of an opposing view that clearly wasn't going anywhere and was merely becoming a battle of egos. Many claim that you shouldn't do such a thing, or shouldn't even post something with the slightest bit of controversy to begin with if you don't want discussion. I've come to disagree, for exactly what I stated to begin with: text exchanges are not often conducive to productive arguments. Does that mean we should never share anything that could be controversial in any way? Does that mean that, if we do, we owe anyone a more thorough explanation of where we're coming from, even if that then gets into deeply personal information? Honestly, I'm still thinking through all of this.
I'm clearly processing something very specific to my own life here, but I appreciated reading your thoughts. Ultimately, I think your title and the adage it comes from is the benchmark we should go off of.
Yes, it's odd how the internet was supposed to work vs. how it actually works. We have access to more information than ever, but we don't utilize it well. We have discussions with more people, but they're usually fueled by anger and immaturity.
I've had conversations with friends which, if we'd had them on social media, might've resulted in us never speaking again. Instead, we had them in person and were able to talk through our differences, agreeing to disagree.
As to never publishing anything controversial, it occurred to me that someone might find this post controversial. There's always somebody. The internet is a chaos realm. But it's very different to write a piece that someone happens to find upsetting, rather than writing a piece where you're actively trying to stir people up or thoughtlessly responding out of your own anger.
Like you, I'm still puzzling through a lot of this. I believe many writers are publishing in good faith, and they have a right to voice their opinions. Each of us has to search our own hearts for our motivations.
Regarding explanations, I think a writer owes the reader their qualifications and references. Beyond that, very little and nothing deeply personal. But that's just my opinion.
I completely agree. There are just some conversations that need to be had in person, and perhaps the people trying to have them online need to make that realization before initiating--or even posting about the topic to begin with. I do think emotions and gut-reactions tend to drive a lot of what I've seen, at least. Unfortunately.
Thanks for your opinion about explanations too. I like that distinction.
Well stated. And hard conversations are, well, hard to have when you're engaging with someone whose mind is closed to hearing other arguments. Whenever this discussion comes up, somebody usually trots out the tired old advice "don't feed the trolls" by responding. But in a public online space, the response we give isn't directed just to that person we disagree with, but really to the world. And you really never do know who might be reading.
Thank you Jean for this thoughtful response.
And yes, it's so true. Most of these spaces are open forums, so everyone, regardless of opinion, is going to see your response and have an opportunity to respond themselves.
'Don't feed the trolls' doesn't often apply in my experience. Trolls exist, but much of what I see are people sincerely arguing their points, though they may be doing it in a snarky, sarcastic, or angry way. They don't think of it as causing division. They simply feel, for varying reasons, that the point must be made. The road to hell, and all that.
Jennifer, I'll just say a simple Amen to that. Well done. - Jim
Thank you, Jim. It's something everyone struggles with, myself especially. All I can do is try to do better.
Glad to have you reading.
Wow, very beautifully put. It's interesting to think that, on the one hand, we have more opportunities than ever before in history to engage with those who disagree with us. But at the same time, this online medium--devoid of the crucial cues of vocal intonations and facial expressions and gestures--has in many ways made such conversations immature and impossible to have. I've been reflecting on this lately, because I've had to shut down a tense conversation with someone of an opposing view that clearly wasn't going anywhere and was merely becoming a battle of egos. Many claim that you shouldn't do such a thing, or shouldn't even post something with the slightest bit of controversy to begin with if you don't want discussion. I've come to disagree, for exactly what I stated to begin with: text exchanges are not often conducive to productive arguments. Does that mean we should never share anything that could be controversial in any way? Does that mean that, if we do, we owe anyone a more thorough explanation of where we're coming from, even if that then gets into deeply personal information? Honestly, I'm still thinking through all of this.
I'm clearly processing something very specific to my own life here, but I appreciated reading your thoughts. Ultimately, I think your title and the adage it comes from is the benchmark we should go off of.
Thank you, Alex.
Yes, it's odd how the internet was supposed to work vs. how it actually works. We have access to more information than ever, but we don't utilize it well. We have discussions with more people, but they're usually fueled by anger and immaturity.
I've had conversations with friends which, if we'd had them on social media, might've resulted in us never speaking again. Instead, we had them in person and were able to talk through our differences, agreeing to disagree.
As to never publishing anything controversial, it occurred to me that someone might find this post controversial. There's always somebody. The internet is a chaos realm. But it's very different to write a piece that someone happens to find upsetting, rather than writing a piece where you're actively trying to stir people up or thoughtlessly responding out of your own anger.
Like you, I'm still puzzling through a lot of this. I believe many writers are publishing in good faith, and they have a right to voice their opinions. Each of us has to search our own hearts for our motivations.
Regarding explanations, I think a writer owes the reader their qualifications and references. Beyond that, very little and nothing deeply personal. But that's just my opinion.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response.
I completely agree. There are just some conversations that need to be had in person, and perhaps the people trying to have them online need to make that realization before initiating--or even posting about the topic to begin with. I do think emotions and gut-reactions tend to drive a lot of what I've seen, at least. Unfortunately.
Thanks for your opinion about explanations too. I like that distinction.
I always appreciate your thoughts!
Thank you! I appreciate yours!
Can you imagine how different things would be if we all committed to discussing our opinions in person before taking to the keyboard?
I can dream. :)