Arguing on the internet / Arguing in real life

[Doreen Peri]

Do you enjoy a good argument?

What's the difference between an argument and a debate?

What do you get out of it when you argue/debate?

Do you find that more people argue on the internet than in your real life?

Are you more likely to participate in arguments/debates on the internet than in real life?

What makes for a fair argument/debate?

Are these stupid questions?

I see many more arguments on the internet than I do in real life and I wonder whether people argue as much in their real life as they do on the net.

I hate arguing myself. Sometimes I do it, though. Especially when the other person is dead wrong! LOL!

[stilltrucking]

Arguements are easy

Debates are too much dam work.

[Lightning Rod]

sure, I love arguing
ya wanna fight about it?

[Arcadia]

arguing...? argumentar?, discutir?... I don´t know the meaning of the word for you.
I think internet let me argumentar in sometimes a more bizarre, indirect or free way than in life-life. None of you are my boss, or the Ministry of Education,etc. And I don´t need to continue seeing your face after that.
And about discutir...it depends... I´m not good in the middle of high ammounts of conflict, I can do it but I can´t say I enjoy it.

[hester_prynne]

Good question!
To me, arguing means yelling and not listening to each other, name calling, put-downs, anger, having to be right, causing defensiveness in others.
It's unproductive for sure. It always makes me hate myself, not to mention the self doubt.
Bleah.

Debating to me on the other hand, is hearing and respecting what each person in the discussion has to say and remaining friendly and open.
It means asking "is that what you meant" and it means not degrading anyone by tone or with impatience, accusations, know it allness etc. It's level. It doesn't hurt feelings, it's direction pulls towards mutual satisfaction, even if the resolve is agreeing to disagree.
I prefer this kind of exchange very much and strive for it at all times.
It's truly wonderful when it happens, when differences are tolerated, explored and respected, rather than bullied.
H

[Doreen Peri]

Arguing is too easy, 'truckin.' I agree with that 100%! I'm not knowledgeable about anything to debate anything. My philosophy is when in doubt, run like hell!

Lrod - put up yer dukes!

Arcadia - I agree that the internet makes it easier for people to argue. I don't know why that is. I'm not good in the middle of conflicts either. I do enjoy a good debate if I know what I'm talking about but whether there's anything I know about well enough to debate is debatable.

Hest - that was so very well stated! Perfectly stated! I love that

....

I wonder why people argue on the internet so much. I think it's the media myself. All we have are typed words on here. It's so cold and inhuman sometimes. I don't think people would say things to each other in person like they do on the net. Is it the anonymity of it? or what?

[judih]

doreen, i can't answer your poll because none of the options says it for me.

In school, i learned 'debating' and that has a very formal format, presentation and rebuttal. No one interrupts, no one speaks out of turn and in the end, there is a judge deciding who's presented the strongest case for a particular side of a given topic. Formal discussion pro and con, rituallized time limits, and then final judgment.

So, no, i don't 'debate'.
Argument requires an ego invested passion, one tries to make oneself heard in a company of an other or others who try to make themselves heard.
Who wins? Sometimes, one side agrees to listen and asks questions and there can be some resolution, some growth, some new found understanding. Quite often, those involved insist that their point of view is the right one and the argument ends because of lack of further interest or time constraints.

Example: In our teachers' room, one teacher suggested that a student said something that, in her opinion, was fascist and unacceptable. She stormed at the student, berating him and refusing to let him express his viewpoint. She told us the story. Another teacher announced that it is our job to teach students how to think. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Those two were convinced they were right. They had to educate the student.
I listened and said that our job was to help our students learn how to use the language, a foreign language, to express themselves. That is our job. And as such, who gave me the right to veto thought or censor opinion?

They were convinced i was nuts. I saw them as narrow minded and presumptious. They had to teach another human being what to think. I felt that freedom of speech was more important than any teacher imposing her or his opinions. (As long as no verbal violence was involved, of course which would infringe on others' rights).

This, then, was an argument. Not bloody or fierce, but active since all parties involved were convinced they were on the side of right.

Was it important? Yes! Things like that reveal who we are. And that for me is a valuable exchange.

Would i have done it on the internet? I doubt it. On the net there are too many misunderstandings and the effort to communicate can quickly lead to more division rather than synthesis.

I need more clues than simple words. I want to see a face turn red. I want to see if a person comes up for air. I want to see if a person is actually listening to another, or if the words come out as a steady rant. I like to know the speed of speech, the tone and the hand and body language.

Once i thought that the net was a reasonable substitute for sharing vibes. It is to a great extent, but i see now that in a situation of argument, it can be a cold and flat medium, leaving out far too many details, and forcing me to guess at far too many elements. It's not accurate. So, it's not satisfying.

[mnaz]

Well yes... recent events suggest that I apparently do in fact like to argue... even though I hate to argue. No I mean it. I really do hate it.

One good thing about the internet as an argument medium: One can take time to compose and read over and edit each response prior to posting... well, in theory at least....

[Doreen Peri]

well the one thing I didn't want to do is start an argument with this post...

thanks to all for your responses..

judih.. that was very right on target and interesting bigtime

mnaz ... yeah i guess the topic had something to do with the recent interchanges but honestly, i didn't read it all....


........

just saying that it appears to me that this is an ongoing thing.. the internet is a really good vehicle for people to let loose and say what they think ... and that can be a good thing!.. because you can edit before you say it, it's got its pluses in that respect. Hell, I SAY something and I can't take it back once I say it and also, I don't really think that long about it before I say it!

I guess my question is... do people edit? Or do they just blurt out more easily on the internet what they want to say without editing it in their head?

Or something.

....

hey y'all.. i'm not playing the 'admin' person here .. i'm not any kind of owner of the frickin board or anything.. it's NOT about what has happened on this board in various different scenerios between various different people..

i mean, we've been here for 5 years almost.. so there's been a LOT of arguments...
...

my post here isn't about any one of those arguments in particular or even about THIS site... (studioeight)... it's about ALL the sites i've traveled and all the arguments and debates I've seen...

.....
in theory, at least, as mnaz said, this medium gives the opportunity to edit...

but my theory is this...



people edit their thoughts before they speak MORE often than they edit the text they post.

Do you think I"m right?

And if so... Why is that?

[judih]

Now that question depends wholly on which crowd you hang out with. Pre-speech censorship varies from temperament to temperament and societal norms.

Some people around here let it blast out far more than the people i knew back in Toronto. I know far more liberated souls around here. There, and maybe it was the weather, people buttoned up!

If a person feels more liberated on the net, then that's where you'll see the real personality unveiled. Good that it exists. What happens when one person lets it roar is that another person can react to that authentic statement. For once, perhaps, there is a real sharing of thought. It's not all nice outside or inside of us. We need a place to truly express what we think and feel.

This is good. We can't pretend all the time.
As mnaz said - this is a lab, another format of playing out who we are and we can learn or not learn. (by 'we', i mean 'i') We can choose to listen to what we find out, or shut it out. The net gives us more scope to find out we think differently about things. We're all raised within different sets of values. We each have our inbred prejudices, our chauvinism, our liberation from taught diatribe. We each have our set of givens that we can either parade without question or examine for discrepancies.

But you know what? If someone attacks me, i react. That's when the pause, reflect element of the net is good. In reaction, i can wound. In reaction, i can misinterpret, or project or surmise or do any number of brain connections that have everything to do with me and little to do with what was being said. So the 'edit' button can be a friend. In life, i don't have that. If someone throws an insult at me, i have no choice but to give a fast response. Or, i can employ my net lessons and use inner 'brakes' to restrain my 'fight or flight' response.

[Doreen Peri]

But you know what? If someone attacks me, i react. That's when the pause, reflect element of the net is good. In reaction, i can wound. In reaction, i can misinterpret, or project or surmise or do any number of brain connections that have everything to do with me and little to do with what was being said. So the 'edit' button can be a friend. In life, i don't have that. If someone throws an insult at me, i have no choice but to give a fast response. Or, i can employ my net lessons and use inner 'brakes' to restrain my 'fight or flight' response

Yeah ok.. I see that, judih.. I KNOW this should be the case with the net.. and I know that many people use it that way. They wait. The read. They re-read. They write. They edit what they write and then they post.

This has a big advantage over in-person because you can think it out, rethink it, write it, re-write it, etc.

But my theory is that is that people don't use it like that. I think they use the internet in a way where they can just plain out vent – say what they want without editing. Even if they have the edit button, they don't use it for the most part.

My theory is that they speak before thinking on the internet... just as much as they'd think before speaking in person.

I hear what you're saying about different people in different physical locations/ communities. I agree and know that this is the case. Are people in the city are more open to speaking their minds than people in a country setting? I don't know. It seems like that could be the case (or the reverse) but you're right, "that question depends wholly on the which crowd you hang out with." That's the bottom line, really.

I remember my ex- had some friends who it was almost painful for me to be around. Not that they weren't very NICE people and polite people and gentle and kind and friendly people. They were just so reserved that I felt uncomfortable around them. They didn't smile much and they weren't all that vivacious. They were simply.... there. They didn't offend me at all, but I wasn't comfortable enough to be relaxed around them. I guess I was sorta bored... and maybe my antics.. my theatrics, my personality, my energy.. put them off similarly. I'm pretty sure that was probably the case. It DOES have a lot to do with who you hang out with when figuring out whether you can feel comfortable speaking out or whether it's better to shuddup.

If a person attacks me, I react, too. We all do.

Somehow, though, I think we're more likely to tell someone FUCK OFF on the internet than we would be in person. Why? Because in reaction, they can't hit us or shoot us or run us over with their car or kill us on the internet, right?

In this respect, the internet is very freeing, isn't it? We can be less vulnerable to the possibility of personal attack (physically) and the possibility of losing life and limb, yanno? In person, these are very viable issues.

After typing all this... i'm rethinking the entire idea of arguing on the internet ... I'm thinking it's a GREAT thing just for the general princials of sanity and being true to ourselves. Hmmmm.. bring on the conflict, maybe?

[judih]

time and place has a huge factor on whether or not i want more or less conflict on the net or in life.
i guess it's like the jimboloco 'see-saw' analogy. He mentioned that sometimes life piles on so many negative rocks that one side of the see-saw is weighted down unbearably. What is needed is positive rocks to balance out the see-saw.

So in life, i need to keep a kind of balance. If i give out too much positive to others, i need some positive given back to me. If my outer life is in stasis, without much needed stimulation, i might start to create stimulation on the net - fresh blood, as it were. How i go about getting that stimulation is dependent on my skills.
It could be a huge flowing image-ination jam - and i become happy and shiny once more. Or it could be i need to get my teeth into someone's jugular and crunch down. That seems unfair. The jam is an acceptable forum for feeding off another's energy. The jugular crunch is not. It's me being sadistic. And aggressive and selfish. Unless the other person loves it!
That's a nice parasitic relationship. And long may they thrive - if both parties dig it, cool.

So, i'm saying that if we all agree that on-line conflicts exist for the clearing out of frustration, misunderstanding and in general for a need to be heard, let them be.
And yes, if you need it, go for it.

[stilltrucking]

I got a compulsive streak in me a mile wide.
It is the struggle for the last word
that brings me down

When I find myself replying to an arguement that matters little to me anymore. Except as trying to get the last word in. The struggle to "win" an arguement. All kinds of gender issues cloud my mind.

Been a good couple days for me, subconscious misery becomes conscious, the first step to letting it go.
I have become aware of my own negative feelings in reaction to another's negativity.

One more step along the Bodhi road,

At my age it is all about lightening up.
I am a late bloomer.

[Doreen Peri]

judih said

So, i'm saying that if we all agree that on-line conflicts exist for the clearing out of frustration, misunderstanding and in general for a need to be heard, let them be.

Yeah, I agree that it's probably the case. But sometimes I can't let them be. Why? Well the last thing I want to happen on my site is for it to deteriorate into berating name-calling matches. I used to go to a site occasionally that had threads like that. It was absolutely horrible. The only reason I went there is because LRod posted there. Why did he post there? Beats me. Why did I follow him there? Because he invited me and I was in love, maybe? I donno. I hated going there. I even posted something once there that going there was like going to an elementary school sandbox fight and worse... reminded me of some bars I was in in my 20's where you had to duck when the stools started flying. I don't like going to places like that. Believe me, my posts there didn't last very long. It was a real eye-opener as to what some places on the internet are like. This place won't ever be like that.

Soo..... let them be? Not if it turns into peresozo-style photos of heads on donkeys and the seemingly endless berating of Asher on the Freedom Hall spot where people just continually lashed out and threw mud at each other. Nah... can't leave stuff like that alone on this site. If that's what people want to do on the internet, they'll have to do it elsewhere. This is my home.

[judih]

yes, mindless ego-filled bashing of another is not what i was imagining when i called for a 'let it be' approach.

My hope is that sincere searching for how to best express our point of view can take place without personal attack. Something i say can make someone else leap to a conclusion regarding my intent. Argument can clarify the intent and get back to the issue.

Personal insult clouds such understanding - if my ego is hurt, i cannot think rationally till i settle down.

i also won't argue something of which i know nothing. i don't like arguing for the sake of arguing. That's not my style.
But if there's something about which i care deeply, i'll put it out and hope to find someone else willing to listen, not just to dismiss, which is often the way in real life where there are just too many distractions. How often do i begin a discussion with someone to have someone else interrupt with what, to them, is vitally urgent.

That's rhetorical.
On the net, it's easier.
There's a discussion. There's a knock on the door, i have to go. And 4 hours later, i can re-focus and resume the discussion. That is a luxury.

But yeah, name bashing is not something that's going to bring me back.

We all have our issues.
Probably the most important ones, however, i'd bring to the net, only after broaching the subject face-to-face to set the tone. AFter the basic trust is there, net is a wonderful medium.