3 ms·

It's essentially pointless because people get too emotionally involved in ideological arguments on the internet, causing themselves to feel attacked when people

It's essentially pointless because people get too emotionally involved in ideological arguments on the internet, causing themselves to feel attacked when people disagree with them. When this happens, people shut down, stop thinking critically, only acknowledging what they already agree with. The debate then either devolves as people dig their heels in and begin name-calling, or abruptly stops as one side simply refuses to cede a point. When there is a ratings system attached to the thread, the side which agrees with the majority ideology will inevitably "win" as other debaters come out of the woodwork to downvote and post 50 variations of the same well-tread rebuttal. I've seen the pattern so much that I'm not sure I can consider even half those sorts of discussions as productive. It mostly doesn't matter what ideology is the "generally accepted" side, and which one is the "outsider"; the wooden debate pattern will be present. I think some people are just tired of seeing two people talking past each other just to puff chests.

dionidium 9y ago
This argument assumes that the point of person A responding to person B is for person A to convince person B, specifically, at that specific moment in time of the specific details of their specific argument. 1) That's not how persuasion works. 2) It's not how ideas or the stubborn humans who hold them work. 3) The point is not, in fact, to convince that one particular person at that one particular moment in time. If that's your goal, then I might suggest that a phone call would be more appropriate. These are public arguments. Read by the public. They're useful far beyond the participants. 4) Minds change over time, rarely in the moment. If your standard for success is immediate agreement, then you've established an unrealistic (and misguided) goal. You'll never get that. But, again, that's OK, because that's not what you should be shooting for in the first place. 5) Argument is as much for you as it is for the person you're trying to convince. Working through objections is good for you. You impoverish yourself when you take this away. 6) People seem to think it's a really strong argument to point out that people get mad or emotional during debates, but I have no idea why I'm supposed to care. So a faceless, nameless avatar that I'll never meet showed too much emotion in an online debate? I have no idea why anybody thinks that's worth mentioning in any context. It's definitely not a persuasive argument for nuking all debate. It's no wonder so many people have such a dim view of online argument, if your comment represents the conventional thinking on it (and it does).
- dionidium 9y ago
  Just to put a cap on this, if tptacek wants to avoid "a really long, pointless political argument," then he should close his browser and take a walk. We're not running out of bits on the internet. There's room for all of it. If these conversations bore or otherwise bother you, then don't participate. It's the suggestion that you know what's best for me, too, that bristles.
  - SeoxyS 9y ago
    This thread itself is a great example of how this conversation was _not_ pointless. Intellectually interesting points made on both sides about the point of debating.

dionidium 9y ago

This argument assumes that the point of person A responding to person B is for person A to convince person B, specifically, at that specific moment in time of the specific details of their specific argument. 1) That's not how persuasion works. 2) It's not how ideas or the stubborn humans who hold them work. 3) The point is not, in fact, to convince that one particular person at that one particular moment in time. If that's your goal, then I might suggest that a phone call would be more appropriate. These are public arguments. Read by the public. They're useful far beyond the participants. 4) Minds change over time, rarely in the moment. If your standard for success is immediate agreement, then you've established an unrealistic (and misguided) goal. You'll never get that. But, again, that's OK, because that's not what you should be shooting for in the first place. 5) Argument is as much for you as it is for the person you're trying to convince. Working through objections is good for you. You impoverish yourself when you take this away. 6) People seem to think it's a really strong argument to point out that people get mad or emotional during debates, but I have no idea why I'm supposed to care. So a faceless, nameless avatar that I'll never meet showed too much emotion in an online debate? I have no idea why anybody thinks that's worth mentioning in any context. It's definitely not a persuasive argument for nuking all debate. It's no wonder so many people have such a dim view of online argument, if your comment represents the conventional thinking on it (and it does).

dionidium 9y ago
Just to put a cap on this, if tptacek wants to avoid "a really long, pointless political argument," then he should close his browser and take a walk. We're not running out of bits on the internet. There's room for all of it. If these conversations bore or otherwise bother you, then don't participate. It's the suggestion that you know what's best for me, too, that bristles.
- SeoxyS 9y ago
  This thread itself is a great example of how this conversation was _not_ pointless. Intellectually interesting points made on both sides about the point of debating.