4 ms·

There's more than one kind of argument and the author's elision of that makes this kind of muddled: * "You vs Me" vs "Us vs the problem". In the latter, there

There's more than one kind of argument and the author's elision of that makes this kind of muddled: * "You vs Me" vs "Us vs the problem". In the latter, there's an objective Correct answer and each party would prefer to find it than to "win" the debate; in the former, the parties would rather "win" than discover new information that would change their mind. The article assumes that internet debates are of the latter variety, while in my experience they are 99% the former. * With/without audience. Without an audience, you are trying to convince the person you're arguing with, which forces you to address their strongest points; with an audience, you (usually) have no real hope of budging the person you're talking to, and are only interested in persuading some hypothetical listener, so you are incentivized to ignore their strongest points and pounce on the weakest ones. Again, the essay is written as if internet debaters are speaking to each other, when in reality they are overwhelmingly talking past each other and hoping to persuade the audience. Overall this reads like someone pontificating on whether it is politer in a bar fight to sucker-punch with the right or left hand. Perhaps of interest but not likely to affect any actual bar fights.

rilezg 5y ago
The blogger does say the norms they propose are for 'the genteel corridors of long-form internet writing', which, as you say, make up a tiny portion of all 'internet debates'. This sort of writing is always 'with audience', and it is telling that the word 'glory' appears twice in the blog-post. I think the blogger's missing forest is that it is nigh impossible to have an 'us vs the problem' debate unless 'you and me' both agree on the assumptions that frame the problem. If we do not first root out and address incongruous assumptions, we will forever talk past each other, no matter how many brass tacks we jump on, even if it seems to bystanders that we both speak the same language. As an aside, I believe that a person's assumptions/beliefs are inseparable from who that person is (you are what you eat). For me, it is silly to critique an idea without much consideration about what person/people communicated that idea and why they believe it (assuming they do). I often find that the truth is not as cut and dry as I assumed. If your goal is 'internet glory', then sure, that is a waste of time. You are better off gaming engagement algorithms. But, if I may ride a high horse, mutual understanding is a sweeter nectar.

rilezg 5y ago

The blogger does say the norms they propose are for 'the genteel corridors of long-form internet writing', which, as you say, make up a tiny portion of all 'internet debates'. This sort of writing is always 'with audience', and it is telling that the word 'glory' appears twice in the blog-post. I think the blogger's missing forest is that it is nigh impossible to have an 'us vs the problem' debate unless 'you and me' both agree on the assumptions that frame the problem. If we do not first root out and address incongruous assumptions, we will forever talk past each other, no matter how many brass tacks we jump on, even if it seems to bystanders that we both speak the same language. As an aside, I believe that a person's assumptions/beliefs are inseparable from who that person is (you are what you eat). For me, it is silly to critique an idea without much consideration about what person/people communicated that idea and why they believe it (assuming they do). I often find that the truth is not as cut and dry as I assumed. If your goal is 'internet glory', then sure, that is a waste of time. You are better off gaming engagement algorithms. But, if I may ride a high horse, mutual understanding is a sweeter nectar.