Oh crap - someone do a more-inside cut for me please!

It helps to remember that there's an actual flesh-and-blood human being on the other end of the conversation.

I think people sometimes unconsciously assume that they're arguing with disembodied paragraphs generated by the computer itself. Not so.

I don't know, based on my experience with far too many people in real life, I think I'd prefer to think of some of the 'people' on-line as Computer-Generated-Asshats.

It'd also make it hurt less when a long-time on-line friend suddenly up and dies.

From someone who started pushing buttons on Compuserve forums in the mid-80s, your best response is to move on to a different friendlier thread. The only way anyone influenced my opinions was to sharpen my arguments for the next time I encountered any particular pet issue.* That popcorn meme exists for a reason.

* That reminds me of when AOL gave its members access to newsgroups back in 1998. After politely following AOL's TOS for all that time, those poor people were like lambs ready for slaughter since they still had to follow their TOS and could not retaliate in kind to those of us more accustomed to pushing freedom of speech to its limits. Almost as much fun as the great IRC wars or the war between alt.tasteless and rec.pets.cats.

The question is far too big, dear heart.

Some people are purposely offensive; some people are misunderstood; some people are misunderstanding; some people are willfully misunderstanding; some people are trying to game the board/community; some people are blinded because of personal issues; some people are just in a kick-the-dog-angry mood and head for the nearest flammable thread to shed some aggression.

Some people, as Ardiril indicates, like to stir things up purely for their own amusement. Some people are limited/ignorant and can't grasp complex concepts. Some people are terrible at explaining themselves. Some people are carrying grudges because of their own life experiences; some people are carrying grudges against other posters. Some people have had one cocktail too many; some people haven't had enough coffee. Some people are in physical pain; some people are mentally unstable; some people want to feel superior to someone; some people are self-righteous; some people are parroting what their leader has told them. Some people are heartsick about a related issue and super touchy; some people are afraid of the unfamiliar; some people are just showing off.

There's really no way to communicate as an individual that will satisfy this variety. You can make a statement and then dilute it with three paragraphs of qualifying information, yet still miss the mark for some of the aggrieved, not to mention - almost nobody will read all that fine print, plus the fact that...

some people (many people) will only skim and react means the thread will keep breaking down into a game of broken telephone,

+

some people just want to joke around,

=

everything will turn convoluted, surreal and absurd.

and thus,

The best you can do is just try to check yourself to avoid (as much as possible) being a representative of any of those categories of "Some People," and try to communicate as clearly as possible. Focus on clarity.

Honing your own position/explanation/argument and how you present it (important!) not only makes you more lucid and aware of what you understand for yourself, but also perhaps more understanding of what others are trying to say.

There used to be a catch phrase (now it would be called a meme) that no one ever had their mind changed about anything by arguing on the internet. That being the case, it's good to think about what your goal is when entering the fray. If it's support you want, post for your tribe.

Not helpful: going to a thread on a hot topic and trying to argue that the world would be a better place without that thread and all the GRAR it's bound to create.

Maybe helpful: trying to reframe the whole debate, to see the bigger picture. Even better if you can back it up with a few references. It might not make anyone in the thread change their mind (like Obscure Reference said, this is probably impossible), but it just may make some of the lurkers/readers realize how insignificant or absurd the whole argument is.

Taz's comment is as close to a "Desiderata" for the web as you'd be likely to need.

If only she could create a web community where that philosophy was....

Wait a minute! (Oops, immunity for comedy? Ta.)

Great comment by taz. "Focus on clarity." Also, I'd add "Endeavor to stay respectful in tone," and "When you begin to feel the grip of profound personal hurt/insult/involvement, take a break."

no one ever had their mind changed about anything by arguing on the internet.

I don't think that's true; I've certainly changed my mind, or developed my viewpoint further, about a lot of things through arguments on the internet. It's actually one of the reasons I love MeFi and also MeCha so much: they actually help me grow. It's not likely that someone being moslty just insulting or aggressive or trollish is going to change my mind, but someone whose argument is strong, persuasive, and persistently unassailable, or whose voice is compelling or whose personal experience is enlightening can change my mind. Sometimes that's not even a very calm or polite process, but it happens.

This cartoon helps. It sometimes helps me to remember that there are going to be people out there who I think are just wrong: always were, always will be. Firas recently reminded me of a statement I made some time ago about how, somewhere, right now, some asshat is sitting in a bar saying something unbelievably wrongheaded. The fact that I can't hear him doesn't make him less wrong in my view. But I don't have to get upset about it, because we're not interacting. Letting go enough to let other people be wrong (again, in my view) and just moving on to another focus is something I've been working on. Focus on getting better at telling apart the situations in which you are making progress, getting somewhere, from the situations in which you're arousing ire and beating your head against a wall.

Dee Xtrovert changed my mind about preparedness with this epic comment.

What she "did right", I guess, was have the personal experience to know exactly what she was talking about.

"When you begin to feel the grip of profound personal hurt/insult/involvement, take a break."

I would disagree with this, somewhat. I think what has changed my mind about several issues is seeing people express how completely pissed off they are and how much they really need things to change. The tone argument tends to put obstacles in the path of some things that very much need to change.

I have a little spiel I use with clients about the difference between anger and rage: Rage is destructive, the desire to totally tear down someone else, while anger can be constructive, an awareness that one's boundaries have been violated and a desire to work together with the other person to solve the problem.

Rage (personal attacks, etc.) in online discussions is obviously not helpful, but I think a lot of rightful, justified anger gets dismissed unfairly. Just because something makes you uncomfortable does not necessarily make the other person wrong or over the top; that discomfort may be coming from an internal realization that you've fucked up, now or in the past.

So as far as I can tell, what sets the stage for meaningful conversation about triggery topics are (a) people who are willing to be honest and open about what's wrong, (b) people who are willing to be honest and open about their own mistakes, and (c) moderation, or at least a site culture, that keeps out knee-jerk dismissiveness. Without those things, chaos seems to ensue pretty quickly, because people with actual points will tend to realize quickly when they're being dismissed or belittled and self-protectively shut down, leaving the field open for people without actual points.

I've been trying to read more blogs lately on disability and racism, and I do find myself on the knee-jerk "This is really not a problem, calm down" side of things. What's helped is realizing that it's not my call to make, and stepping back when I want to play peace-maker. The desire to make everything ok can be just as destructive as the desire to tear shit up sometimes; telling people who are upset that they shouldn't be upset most often fans the flames (and justifiably so, because it's just another way of telling people that they're wrong). Stepping back also gives me the chance to hear what other people are saying and to challenge my internal reaction in private, before getting publicly invested in a contrarian stance.

Oh, and a blanket rule of no sarcasm when one is upset or arguing helps. It just leads to confusion and/or escalating asshattery online most of the time.

Okay I've seen GRAR used quite frequently in the last 4-5 days but not ever before that. Is this a new thing?

Also, what everyone else said.

It's not that new, but it's reaching an annoying crest of faddishness.

After all this, I think I can add one more bit: you don't need to have the last word. If you feel you have stated your opinion sufficiently (and that should be your objective with your first foray into a thread), then the onus on those who follow is to rebut your argument. Most replies will be thinly veiled insults with no real substance; you can ignore those. As well, you can ignore those that are feeble or mainstream arguments. However, if someone does manage to decimate your argument, decide if the issue is important enough to continue. You have already stated your piece to the best of your ability at the moment, and others will judge the victor.

I have often seen superior arguments that counter my own opinion and I have been somewhat free about publicly conceding to the victor. However, I did not change my mind, but looked for the holes in both sides for when, as I said before, that topic rises once again. It inevitably will.

I've been trying to read more blogs lately on disability and racism, and I do find myself on the knee-jerk "This is really not a problem, calm down" side of things.

Sigh. That should have been: "I *sometimes* find myself on the knee-jerk...side of things." I didn't mean to sound like I was completely dismissing all disability and anti-racism discussion.

Rage is destructive...anger can be constructive, an awareness that one's boundaries have been violated and a desire to work together with the other person to solve the problem.

I guess my anger just isn't that...organized? Sometimes I really do feel angry with someone over an issue that's about justice, or acceptance, and might really want this experience to be resolved constructively, but when you're faced with overwhelming negative response, or just a lack of progress or good faith, or you realize you're getting your tail pulled, or reacting to a pattern, it's easy to overestimate the importance of this anger in the context of what is often a relationship with a relative stranger. I don't think it's really irrational, destructive "rage" when I just become completely fed up and irritated with myself or someone else's behavior online, but I do think it's enough cause to do something else, even when it seems like an important issue is at stake. It helps me to realize that all the important battles of life are going to be fought, or won, on the internet, and that because of the medium, sometimes these arguments can appear to have a power and force that they don't actually have in real life. it can be helpful to ask "Who am I talking to? What am I trying to prove here, to whome, and why? Is it worth this investment of emotional energy?"

In other words, the anger reaction can sometimes be disproportionate to the importance of the discussion, even if it meets that definition of healthy anger that wants to resolve stuff. Unfortunately, we can't always have the mutually satisfying resolution that we'd like to, sometimes for reasons we can't control.

"I didn't mean to sound like I was completely dismissing all disability and anti-racism discussion."

What gets my goat about those blogs is how often raising awareness is pushed aside with "It's not my job to educate."

It helps me to realize that all the important battles of life are going to be fought, or won, on the internet,

Heh. NOT all. Not all.

Oy. Afternoon coffee time.

I guess my anger just isn't that...organized? Sometimes I really do feel angry with someone over an issue that's about justice, or acceptance, and might really want this experience to be resolved constructively, but when you're faced with overwhelming negative response, or just a lack of progress or good faith, or you realize you're getting your tail pulled, or reacting to a pattern, it's easy to overestimate the importance of this anger in the context of what is often a relationship with a relative stranger. I don't think it's really irrational, destructive "rage" when I just become completely fed up and irritated with myself or someone else's behavior online, but I do think it's enough cause to do something else, even when it seems like an important issue is at stake.

I agree with that, Miko; if the other person is not showing any indication of listening, and in fact continues to violate boundaries, then disengaging makes total sense. But in that case I would say it's the other person's continued violation of you that leads to the totally rational decision to stop, not that your anger is so over-the-top that you should be stopped (does that make sense?).

I just really hate the paradigm in which people with no emotional investment or personal experience with an issue are seen as objective experts, and people who have actual emotional reactions to things that affect their own lives are somehow hysterical; I think focusing on the anger as a problem, rather than on the dismissive poking, reinforces that.

Hey guys - thanks for your thoughts on this stuff. I find it pretty helpful to read other perspectives on this.

I just really hate the paradigm in which people with no emotional investment or personal experience with an issue are seen as objective experts, and people who have actual emotional reactions to things that affect their own lives are somehow hysterical;

Oh yes; I totally agree with that!

"I just really hate the paradigm in which people with no emotional investment or personal experience with an issue are seen as objective experts, and people who have actual emotional reactions to things that affect their own lives are somehow hysterical"

That is really an easy effect to achieve. People who have an investment in an issue often use adjectives, adverbs and other modifiers to make a distinct point. While this works in ordinary conversation, in text it indicates heightened emotion even to the point of detachment from reality. This is why fiction classes teach moderation in the use of modifiers.

Conversely, those without an investment often drop modifiers (except weasel words, a different topic entirely) because their statements then read like facts that require no qualification. You will often find in forums like Metafilter that the arguments are not so much about an issue, but more so about the semantics of the original comment. The target is often the choice of adjective or adverb or the wording of a descriptive clause. In negating one part of a comment, the antagonist performs the illusion that much of the remainder of the comment is also false. The true troll uses this tactic to raise the emotional pitch while buying time to research and draft an effective concluding rebuttal.

-luv m ;-P

Ardiril, I think those without an investment also tend to be those protecting (and benefiting from) the status quo, and so they gain legitimacy by spouting "what everyone knows" as if it were proven and unalterable fact, rather than just current practice. So they draw on the power of people's intellectual laziness, basically.

I had an informative therapy session the other day with an 11-year-old. She's having all sorts of awful thoughts about herself, and I had spent the past two sessions arguing with her about her conclusions ("You're not a bad person, everyone does the stuff you do, doing that stuff does not make you a bad person...") and during those sessions she got more and more hyperbolic about what an awful human being she was. With the guidance of some co-workers, in the last session I switched to more active-listening type things ("So you think you're bad? Tell me more about that. When do you feel bad? What makes you think of yourself as bad?" etc.), and the hyperbole dropped away to zero.

It turns out that when you dismiss people's legitimate feelings, they tend to turn up the volume in order to be heard. When you listen to people, they feel understood and are more willing to converse, rather than lecture or go into dramatics to make their point.

All this to say, I guess, that I think you're describing a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario.

"I think those without an investment also tend to be those protecting (and benefiting from) the status quo"

Oh yes, by all means. In fact, that type was my favorite target.

"I think you're describing a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario."

Absolutely. As you have no doubt noticed many of those 100+ threads devolve into abstractions and circular arguments. Also, you have been around MeFi long enough to have probably noticed that under a veil of sincerity often lurks a troll, and the more senior trolls (Need I name names? No, I didn't think so.) know every manner of wordplay and can switch tactics to suit the situation, wording their comments just so to make the zing while avoiding (barely) the wrath of cortex or jessamyn.

"they draw on the power of people's intellectual laziness"

That, quite succinctly, is MeFi's biggest weakness with its comments.

I have gotten quite frustrated of late with the other place. I would like it to be a place for fun and relaxation and being myself, and even though I am not personally getting called out the climate there seems to be more and more moving towards "sanitized for everyone's protection", nerfed such that nobody could ever be offended by anything.

And because of the enlightened age we are living in, it is the complainers that seem to always hold the high ground, because they are fighting the righteous fight against racism / sexism / homophobia / trans non-acceptance / whatever.

The box keeps shrinking, and it makes me feel old and sad.

Today with my two gay co-workers we spent a fair bit of time bullshitting about gerbling, all having a good laugh at the insanity of that 80s meme... and we told some old school fag jokes to each other and it was a lot of fun.

I guess in real life you can more easily sell yourself as a good-natured fellow human and friend, and then it is easier for everyone to let their hair down and let things hang out. Online, and in a huge public forum, it seems to me that it is too easy for thin-skinned people to jump to take offence - indeed, I get the feeling that some people actually enjoy being righteously indignant and eagerly seek out opportunities to be so.

I think of the righteously indignant opportunity seekers as drug addicts who get a high from the chemicals their body generates from a good GRAR.

Occhiblu:Sigh. That should have been: "I *sometimes* find myself

See, even in here we need disclaimers. Or feel we do.

re: no one's had their mind changed,
You're right. I've now changed my mind as to whether people change their minds. It would have made a better paradox, though, to change in the opposite direction.

It turns out that when you dismiss people's legitimate feelings, they tend to turn up the volume in order to be heard.

True, true.

Meatbomb, that's too bad about your feelings about MeFi. I'm not sure about that argument that things are too santized, though. It almost sounds like an argument where we'd have to accept a few put-downs and a little rude language in order to have a good-quality discussion. I'd like to think that people have enough intelligence and imagination to have lively, interesting, robust discussion without needing to include bias and epithet and insult - if we can't, doesn't that sort of reveal a paucity of ideas? I don't like the idea that I'd have to live in a world of ha-ha gender bias, or whatever other kind of bias or contempt, in order to also have lively discussion and fun. That doesn't strike me as right.

I've been struggling with MetaFilter over the last year, too - not because I believe it's getting worse, or anything, but because there's a certain bias toward disagreement inherent in the format. On the one hand, that's exactly why I like it: it's diagreement that makes the long, hot, threads in which minds do get changed sometimes, and since they are sparky and entertaining, the disagreement can lend the site energy. But it can be a negative energy, and the MeFi devotion to accuracy and tolerance for challenge and debate sometimes gets persnickety and pedantic. It's hard to just bandy about, discuss, share ideas/memories, be ourselves, when you know that by commenting you're putting yourself out there to be reacted to. Some threads and topics lend themselves better to that than others.

Over the past year I've actually commented a lot less, even when I think there's something important to say, in part because I just don't want to get invested in the first place and have a long and possibly stressful interchange. I don't think it's really a problem of MeFi, just part of the nature of MeFi, which has both good and bad impacts (more good than bad, IMO) and it's likely me that's changing - work is more demanding, there are other pressing things to think about in life, etc.

So I think that everyone's feelings about MeFi will change over time, as their life changes, and as their feelings and opinions about themselves, society, relationships, justice, and other things change in real ways - and I don't know if we can put it down to changing site culture, so much as changing selves and changing real-world cultures.

See, even in here we need disclaimers. Or feel we do.

I didn't really mean that as a disclaimer. I reread what I wrote and realized I had left out a word, and leaving out the word changed the meaning of the sentence. The "sigh" was at myself, for my lack of typing ability.

Miko, I largely agree with you.

I think it comes down to interpretation and spin and a really quite large grey area. There are things people can say that can be taken neutrally or can be spun as sexism, and it tends to be the accuser / offendee who gets the support from the masses.

A simple example: Dilya is "my woman" and I am "her man". It is how we choose to refer to our relationship - the word "partner" is a contrived and ugly term (to my ear and hers) that we reject using when referring to our relationship.

There is nothing inherently sexist about the term, and yet when I do use it someone invariably chooses to react and call it out. I am not being a troll or a sexist when using the term.¹ But the people who decide that "partner" is good for them because it is gender neutral, marriage-status neutral, or whatever reason that they have adopted it - I get the feeling that it isn't just good for them, in their eyes: they want everyone else to do it like they do as well.

So the result? (I am not trying to cry victim, just explaining my inner dialogue) I am really conflicted now about using my own words or even to talk about my woman there anymore at all. If I speak authentically I am in some way a troll, and if I modify the way I speak to avoid derail and flak I have been successfully cowed and changed by people who have a political position about the use of language that I am radically opposed to.

So no, I don't mean we need "ha-ha gender bias, or whatever other kind of bias or contempt", but it is in all of these little edge cases that I really do see the "thought police" in action.

There are people in the world who are anal-retentive, fussy, picky, and sensitive. And the Venn diagram of these types and "drama queens", or people who get high on righteous indignation, overlap pretty strongly. So they tend to notice stuff that is well into the grey area and try to push the boundary of what is acceptable speech.

I worked with this guy once who was absolutely anal, about everything. He was a vegetarian, and whenever we went out we had to go to one of his restaurants. Once we ordered pizza into work, and he asked me what I wanted. "Get me one with as much meat as they have," I said.

"I am getting tomato and feta."

"Cool."

"Should I get a large tomato and feta? We can share."

"Get two large, I am hungry."

"Well, you know, if they are stacked together during the delivery, the smell of meat might get onto mine, let's just get tomato and feta. They also have a lovely basil and creme-"

"Look, if it is that big a problem just forget it, I will get something later."

And the fucking guy went for that option. He offered me some of his when it arrived, and I declined and stepped out to eat. It wasn't enough for this control freak that he was a vegetarian, but anyone within his sight had to be one too.

This (true story) is intended as a fable and a metaphor for how the debate about sexism / homophobia is evolving on some places on the Internet.

¹ Of course those who see me as wrong will explain at length that I am indeed sexist, and that I just do not realize that using the possessive form is a reference to an ownership / dominance relation, and I have dehumanized her, yada yada yada, and it is only a lack of proper education and self reflection and determination to fight against the male-constructed blah blah blah that prevents me from realizing my error...

Thanks for the explanation, Meatbomb...I guess it's just one of those things - where you (by which I mean we, all of us) have to make a choice about which matters more, using the language you would normally use but knowing you'll draw fire for it, or modifying the language and staying in that conversation by adapting to the local norms; having the meat on the pizza or having to go get your own lunch, dealing with the argumentative culture when commenting, or opting out and just reading instead of piping up...Or if you don't want to just adapt or opt out, then taking on the burden of raising the issue and trying to fight to established a more widely shared, new viewpoint on the issue. I'm not sure there's ever a perfect solution where a community is concerned. As individuals in groups, we always need to negotiate how we deal with norms, regardless of what kind of community we're in.

It goes back to what I was saying works for me about getting het up by stuff on the internet: it's only when the frustations of a given conversation, or maybe even a given community, become large enough to overwhelm the positives, that's when disengaging (temporarily, even) makes sense. I don't mean to belittle the feeling one can get when the experience of being part of a community changes - it's a little lonely.

I think it comes down to interpretation and spin and a really quite large grey area. There are things people can say that can be taken neutrally or can be spun as sexism...

...But the people who decide that "partner" is good for them because it is gender neutral, marriage-status neutral, or whatever reason that they have adopted it - I get the feeling that it isn't just good for them, in their eyes: they want everyone else to do it like they do as well.

You do realize that you're doing in the second quoted bit what you're annoyed with people for doing in the first? Is some of your frustration coming from the assumptions you're making about other people's motivations, in the same way that their frustration may be coming from assumptions they're making about yours?