Online arguments...raise your hand if you've ever given in and let loose on someone on the internet. The anonymity of the internet provides users an opportunity to speak their mind without fear of reprisal, and it certainly leads to some entertaining interactions. Lets take a look at an online argument happening in the comments section of a YouTube video. Jimmy Dore is a YouTuber offering political commentary from a critical-left point of view. In one of his recent videos titled "Ukraine War Driving Rampant Censorship At Home," he explains the effects of the events in Ukraine on media and our ability to exercise free speech in the US. I chose this video/argument because of it's relevance to the last week's podcast subject as I believe it offers a good example of why censorship should not be a go-to tool.
In the comments sections someone noted: "Can you imagine if people would react the same way when the US carries out their numerous way more brutal wars? It would be awesome." Now, online arguments are not rare, especially in political forums, and I didn't have to look far to find what I expected. Users who disagree immediately resort to calling the show's host and the commenter "commies, stooges, idiots, etc." (NOTE: it is the top comment thread, unable to link an individual comment from YouTube).
This is my first point: everything you don't like is communism? It doesn't even make sense. Personal beliefs aside, can we stop with the straw-man name calling and address actual issues? This method is so rampant it is becoming frustrating even for me, someone who spends minimal time online in comment sections.
Secondly, the commenter then proceeds to call out statistics cited in the video as wrong and provides their own statistics without any proof or link to a source. It is easy to cite your sources online, are people really just supposed to take your word for it? Just google it, copy and past the link and put it under your reply. If you are just making up numbers to be a contrarian, maybe just address philosophy rather than statistics.
My third issue with this exchange is that instead of providing sources that this commenter is factually incorrect, his opponents take to calling him a troll and dismissing him as a paid AstroTurf agent of the DNC. Regardless of how much you might disagree with someone, you don't help your position at all by engaging in the same name calling, in fact, it only weakens your position. Why not instead offer objective evidence of their faults? When we do this, or worse yet, simply remove posts we think are incorrect, we also kill the opportunity for learning and exchange of true information.
I think that if we can do the following, online arguments can become less abrasive and more constructive.
1. Do not resort to personal attacks. Ad Hominem attacks are the most blatant signal that someone feels defeated in their argument. Instead, offer facts that support your claim, don't attack the person opposing you.
2. Back up your claims or don't make them. If you can't back up a point with evidence or someone else's expert opinion, maybe it isn't the strongest point to go with.
3. Do not respond to anger with anger. When someone is on the ropes in an argument, the last thing you want to do is sink to their level if they start attacking you or getting angry. This is the moment where that irrefutable fact you have backed up with sources is really needed.
4. Remember: trolls exist to disrupt conversation and stop constructive communication. Don't engage with nonsense and feed the fire if possible.
5. Be aware of Logical Fallacies. By knowing how arguments can be twisted and manipulated, you will be able to recognize when someone is being disingenuous. When we can see these attacks coming we will be better suited to respond appropriately.
Comments
Post a Comment