Netwar!

I argue in the same way online except for one detail: when arguing online, quoting parts of posts makes it possible to argue different points, whereas offline I can only focus on one thing at a time. Breaking down posts seems convenient to me.

It would be wrong to assume I act the exact same way in *real life*. But then to generalize real life is also wrong. I act different depending on the situation I am. For example: I will not argue the same with my parents as I do with friends. My relationship with both is different.

I don't think people in general argue impolitely. I think we miss facial expression. We don'thave a direct give and take situation. So yeah I guess sometimes I do resort to rather outspoken language.

Ah hell I don't know. It is difficult to present a *realistic* persona of yourself online, I guess. But then can we do that in real life as well?

general argue impolitely all that much online. That's what I meant to say. Now back to regular programming "Flame Too Hot Too Handle"

Tom E: in general your question is a really good one. But I disagree re. 'breaking down into bits'. That is a perfectly suitable way of carrying on a ('written') discussion.

I think the level of detail you're afforded -- basically because the other person can't interrupt you -- is both the blessing and the curse of it. I quite enjoy a detailed argument that actually traces points back to their roots, and am usually more than happy to write a paragraph to dissect each sentence of a previous post. But it's an awful inclination, I think, and more often than not you'll find one person doing that and the other person not, which is a sure recipe for annoyance and beside-the-point nitpicking.

The one thing I think net argument lacks is the Essential Challenge -- that point at which you've constructed a solid twofold argument and can say to the arguee: answer me, yes or no / pick one / take a definitive stance on this issue.

For me the anonymity of the 'net is different, as I don't know who I'm talking to, I censor what I say and try and avoid serious arguements. I don't want to hurt the feelings of strangers, or have my feelings hurt by strangers. It is hard to interpret posts sometimes.

So, I guess the anonymity of the internet will always allow some people to make a shift in the opposite direction and be rude, offensive and brash. It would be nice to have a place where there was a code of politeness, but as we see from the censorship posts, netiquette brings it's own pitfalls.

I can't really see any solution to the problems Tom describes, other than saying that I agree with what he says.

What I'm talking about PF is the tendency of that kind of conversation to fractalise - a post which contains a coherent argument is broken down, and the little fragments take on a life of their own. Now on one hand this is good because it allows for closer argument and development. But this is often at the expense of the wider point being made, and certainly at the expense of the - um - rhetorical elegance, maybe, of the original post. (Or am I the only person who thinks that ideally arguments should be well-written as well as right?)

So the relationship of parts of the argument to one another might be lost, and also - this being a public argument - the ability of outsiders to follow the debate also, in my view, suffers.

the ability of outsiders to follow the debate also, in my view, suffers.

I don't quite get this.

I think emoticons are quite handy. If I don't use them in my remarks, I often get mistaken as being rude/argumentative.

So, Tom, what you're against is the tendency of a thread about, say, the Latin American economy to devolve into a flaming war over the semantics of the word "luminous," based on someone mid-thread not liking the tone of someone else who used said word?

I'm not going to argue politely with someone who is being a bigot. Flat out.

Damn it. Nitsuh always gets to things before I do, so I'm constantly forced to say things like, "Yes, well put, wonderful point, I must agree w/ my colleague Nitsuh, BLAH BLAH BLAH." Bastard.

When I speak I'm always correcting myself mid-sentence or qualifying things, both of which can be very tedious when written so I tend not to do it on the net. Also, when having a conversation your memory is much more imperfect, so concepts tend to be refined naturally as two people go along. With writing everything is preserved, so someone can go back and say "See! You contradict yourself here! HA HA!" when you would gladly go back and change what you said if you could.

Btw, in my experience (which includes the "Lollies tour" thread) the discussions on IL* are far more civil than most I've encountered online.

Tom E: Of course I think that things should be well-written! But to be honest, this is not necessarily the place for that principle (though it MIGHT be in some hands, I suppose).

I still don't quite agree with you. I don't think I see much distinction between 'arguing vs broad point' and 'picking at small sub-point' - as long as you do both in good faith (whatever that is), you should presumably end up at the same place. But it may be that you and I are talking from different experiences. My e-mails, let alone my ILM posts, often go line by line.

WHICH OBVIOUSLY MAKES FOR UNBEATABLE COMEDY VALUE ESP. RE REFERENCES TO EARLY 80S FOOTBALLERS / FORGOTTEN LATE 80S BANDS ETC

Well, it depends. If you pick out a small point and make a point out of it, is it because you are arguing semantics? Is it a small fraction of a post that has little to do with that small point and you're running with it? Is it you picking apart someone's typo or misspeak for one sentence in a 800 line post? Is it a complete misunderstanding of the humor and/or tone used in the post? Was the "small point" actually a point being made in the post amongst others? So on and so forth. The answer to that would completely change my answer based on circumstance.

Which is exactly how I argue in real life. My real problem with the Internet is two fold: 1) the anonymity afforded certain people the ability to behave differently than they would in the exact same situation in real life, which can be both good and bad (ie someone becomes less shy and more vocal versus someone becoming downright beligerent when they wouldn't be in real life) 2) people never know how you're saying something, and if you don't like to use smileys much then you're well screwed.

The solutions? Don't have one really. Personally, the reason why I put up with the harrassment I get re: pictures online, which I've brought up before around here, is BECAUSE it makes me a nonanonymous entity. You all know what I look like. You know vast specifics about me. Several of you have met me and I'm willing to meet up with virtually anyone who comes to a meet. I am not an anonymous entity and as such I basically act the way I do in real life, except wordier because no one can interrupt me here. Whether or not that personality is good is not for me to necessarily decide but it is what it is, complete with flying off the handle occasionally. But the point is I'd do the same thing under the same circumstances in real life, althoug I believe in real life it'd be muted some by other people's reactions and interjections and the fact that you could all see my tone as well. As for # 2...Well, you just have to hope people get ya, otherwise oh well :)

In real life when I make make points 1, 2 and 3, I have always forgotten no.3 by the time I get to it, or discovered that it is actually just point 2 after all. There is a good numeroligcal reason for this obviously, which is the source of deep schism between Tom and the pinefox. Tom divides all argts into 2 points; pinefox into three or more. This divide cannot be bridged.

Kerry -- I, for one, was not referencing the monoculture thread.

I never say anything to anyone online that I wouldn't say to their face. My body is pumped full of honesty hormones, and that's been proven by science by the way.

Yeah, I try not to argue. I entertain questions and I ask a lot of questions, many of them are leading questions meant to cause the other person to prove my point. I lay traps, basically. This is only when I really think I understand a situation in a way someone else does not. When someone interrupts my line of reasoning to jump to conclusions about what I'm saying, I throw it back at them. Usually, at this point, there's a lot of, "yeah, but that's not what you said" and this is usually due to a misinterpretation or assumption. I'll argue for a while about this, but there is only so far an exchange can even go once it's reached this point. People become stubborn and vain in their desire to prove you wrong, whether or not this pursuit is relevant or necessary.

Bottom line: when it starts to really feel like an argument I just bail completely because it is not fun or educational. NOTE: I am not referring to the "semantic debate" definition of argument, but the "I just refuse to acknowledge your point because I'm mad" sort where anything you say can and will be used against you if I can figure out a way to do it, regardless of whether or not things were misinterpreted or could be misconstrued. I've had a few of these with my boss where he ends up saying, "Yeah, but that's what you said" and I'll say, "Oh, I see what you're saying. No, what I meant was this..." and he'll say, "But that's not what you said" and I'll say, "Yeah, I guess you didn't understand me, because I meant it this way..." and he'll say, "Gotcha." And, really, we've gotten nowhere. We've just settled an argument about something I said that was completely irrelevant to the initial discussion. Inevitably, when we get back to the discussion, he is still in disagreement with me, but for other reasons. The "what you said/ what you meant" sidetrack was just a manipulative tactic to throw me off. Usually, when this happens, I eventually "win" the argument, but I only bother because it's my job.

It really annoys me when people decide that since they're on the Internet they can't argue politely.

Maybe other people are already being polite, and you're just being an anal-retentive bastard. Ever think of that?

Maybe I'm wrong

You are. Idiot.

but there seems to be a kind of particularly aggressive mode of discussion some people fall into

Did it ever occur to you that you're being aggressive by posting the question? Obviously you've never considered the implications posed by Foucault's theory of social discourse. But then what did I expect from this kind of message board? Hmph.

often connected with breaking down broad posts into itty-bitty quotes

Why do you use the term "itty-bitty" here? Do you think we're all children?

Sometimes - often actually - I think that it turns serious discussion online into a waste of time.

If you think a post is a waste of time, maybe you should just ignore it. Duh.

Am I right?

No. You deluded fool.

Is the question here.

Helloooooooo. That's a sentence fragment!

Do you argue differently online,

That all depends on the definition of the word "argue" doesn't it? I mean, you posted a question and I'm responding. I'd say I'm answering, not arguing.

and how does the structure

I object to the use of the word "structure" here. I think it's perjorative and phallic.

distance, anonymity, quotable posts, searchable archives, public access, instancy of response - affect the way you discuss things?

Generally it makes rational discussion a nightmare. Instant Messenger is the only sane way to discuss anything.

You are. Idiot.

That fucking cracked me up.

I don't try to win arguments on the 'net -- I try to open my mind, learn stuff, step in when I disagree with something, et cet. But as a contribution to a discourse not to convince someone of anything. This is partic. true since we're mainly talking about taste and I find the whole idea of arguing someone out of taste stupid.

'Dissecting' microscopic points prevents laziness and glibness. Also makes the threads go on longer, and why shouldn't they all stretch out to infinity?

Also, why is there SO MUCH concern about 'how' people express themselves on the interweb as opposed to 'what' they express? There'd be much less meta-hairsplitting if people were here to learn stuff, not try to win arguments or validate themselves at any cost.

Dave Q on Netwar thread: 'Dissecting' microscopic points prevents laziness and glibness

Dave Q on Monoculture thread: Fuck all this hairsplitting.

seem to recall the notion from other thread somewhere that dave q was planning to fill the world with his cloned offpsring? has he been subtly preparing us for fact that he already started, some years back? basic sci-fi plot re identical replicants (cf closing scene Rossum's Universal Robots): replication fails, and they start to disagree... (thus becoming "human" after all)

I envision Dave Q starting flamewar with himself.

Arguments are not for the winning, and I think this coupled with the idea that rguments ar distinct from discussions and a bad thing cause a lot of decent threads to devolve into flamewars. I personally dislike emoticons (I'm a luddite) but I certainly like to think that if I am disagreeing with someone vehemently that I do not use language which is aggressive and will try and defuse the tension built up.

On the semantics of an argument I think it is very important that there is at least an attempt to have a shared idea of the terminology used - else the argument isn't going anywhere. Equally I am very suspicious of anyone who says that terms or even the general thrust of what they are saying is self explainatory - this smacks of laziness. If someone is using terminology which has a given meaning (the Aryan discussion here) then if they are using it incorrectly then damn straight I'll pick them up on it. It would not be moral of me not to - they might go out and have that argument in real life and get bopped on the nose.

Still, I just tend to get involved in threads about whether movies with the word Yellow in the title are any good or not.

Ha ha. Sorry, I realized that contradiction as soon as I posted it. Doh!
I think I just reacted too quickly to seeing an interesting thread diverted into a seemingly endless argument about the meaning of the word 'Aryan', while some other (to my mind) more volatile statements went unexamined.

Please, look in the dictionary regarding "aryan". It has several definitions and culture is not merely another word for "race". This was the reason I used it. If someone would bop me on the nose for using it, they would be ignorant, not to mention stupid.

not always a consolation

Please, look in the dictionary regarding "aryan". It has several definitions and culture is not merely another word for "race". This was the reason I used it. If someone would bop me on the nose for using it, they would be ignorant, not to mention stupid.

And yes, flaming them out for it for posts upon posts was certainly a much better idea than simply explaining it politely the first time it came up and then waiting for the reply.

Everyone else already explained it, including Kerry herself. Eventually, I had to go back and overexplain it. If I had to try to explain all the points I made, it would have been one very long post that I couldn't write at work without getting busted by my boss that nobody would read because it is so damn long and nobody would respond to because it would be "talking at" rather than "talking to". It is more interesting to have a discussion, especially if you can get people to see things they automatically reject, than it is to give a lecture nobody wants to hear, in my opinion. I also thought my point was self-evident and even the harping on the subject didn't disprove my point. It was merely a sidetrack, I guess, from someone who was personally offended and trying to turn my words against me. Gee, I wonder why someone would get offended by what I said. It seems like only a person who felt guilty would lash out like that, but I might be wrong. I wasn't trying to accuse anyone who goes to parades of being a racist and I think that's obvious.

I love the way this thread has actually turned into NETWAR! itself.

I think that was inevitable.

Well, when you start a thread basically calling out a discussion by two people on another thread... ;)

NS: You are almost inexcusably defensive. Generally I find when people are so it's because they made a minor mistake, be it just in usage or whatever, and realize they were confusing but won't admit it. So there, you silly man.

Er, I didn't know there was a threshold for excusability of defensiveness. Perhaps there is also one for judging others by one's own past experiences? Silly, indeed.

I have to stick up for Nude Spock a bit here - even though it's a bit of a lame excuse, I can sympathize with people posting less-than- immaculately-sculpted-arguments at times (speaking of the WORDING, not the substance) due to constantly being interrupted by the office Gestapo. What's even more pathetic (and indicative of why there will never be working-class revolution :)) is that while the boss knows I surf all day and doesn't care, it's the CO-WORKERS who give me all the shit. Pathetic.

FWIW I also sympathize with NS's argument a bit, I mean, I can't even tolerate it when people brag about what TOWN they're from.

No, Dave, you misunderstand my point (though perhaps not the point of others). I have absolutely zero problem with his argument - if that's how he feels, that's what he should express and it's his right to do it, just as it's Kerry's right to disagree. My point is that his response to Kerry's objection to the term "Aryan" was to immediately go into name calling instead of just explaining himself. It was a ridiculous overreaction and immediately upped Kerry's defensiveness and turned the whole thing into a flamewar where neither's opinions got noticed and neither expressed themselves that well between all the "you're a moron" / "you're full of bullshit" shouting. That's my problem - you don't reply to "The term Aryan offends me" with "That's because you're a fucking moron" (sorry, this is paraphrasing), you reply explaining yourself in my opinion.

That is what I mean by "inexcusably defensive". That and the fact that he won't just let it go already, come on man.

It was merely a sidetrack, I guess, from someone who was personally offended and trying to turn my words against me. Gee, I wonder why someone would get offended by what I said. It seems like only a person who felt guilty would lash out like that, but I might be wrong.

I tried to explain to you why I was offended. It's a long story, but it has to do with going to a WASPy college and running into WASPy circles with folks who equate ethnic pride with racism itself and who are condescending to anyone who is the slightest bit "ethnic". I feel guilty about nothing - would you stop with the insinuations? I don't want to continue this, so will you please just GIVE IT UP?

I don't want to continue this, so will you please just GIVE IT UP?

The best way to not continue is to just stop replying. If he has nothing to bitch about, he can't keep bitching about it. Think of it this way: everything that has to be said on the issue has been said, everyone who's read it has already made up their minds about both sides motives and arguments. Any more dialog on the issue is just mental masturbation and who needs that, right?

Why am I trying to mediate this? Isn't that DG's job? Dude.

I think this is a very good question. When I reread my own posts (here or elsewhere) I am always surprised at how aggressive I sound. But I haven't been posting for long so maybe it comes with practice. And I'm always tempted to add a smiley face or whatever to indicate my generally rather passive mood, but I would hope that I was able to indicate my mood with the words on their own. On the other hand, sometimes people are too god damn nice to each other on the net. Has anyone ever noticed the high percentage of placatory, soothing posts on various threads about the place to ensure that offence isn't taken?

By the way: :-q ...is my favourite emoticon: someone trying to lick his nose while wearing a tie in a high wind.

OH brother. Kerry's first post to me:

Oh, for Christ's sake. I'm Irish *and* Italian, and I don't care for white-ethnic bashing one bit. If you were a white ethnic, you might see things differently. WASPs tend to look down on them and project all the sins of the white race upon them: racism, ignorance, whatever. Let's face it - what it really amounts to is class bigotry, since these ethnic clusters tend to be *working-class*. And I grew up in a pan-ethnic area with immigrants and first and second generation types and *none* of what I'm reading sounds familiar at all. -- Kerry (dymaxia@ripco.com), August 15, 2001. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Post was directed at Nude Spock's above, not anyone else. BTW, Spock - if it's not okay and quasi-fascist for white ethnics to express their heritage, why is it any more okay for those with darker skin? Excuse me for not being Protestant and assimilated enough for you. -- Kerry (dymaxia@ripco.com), August 15, 2001.

End topic.

By the way: :-q ...is my favourite emoticon: someone trying to lick his nose while wearing a tie in a high wind.

That's rather complex, I must say.

My two favorites:

[:O) - Ringo Starr

{:{o - a mommoni

What's a mommoni?

Has anyone ever noticed the high percentage of placatory, soothing posts on various threads about the place to ensure that offence isn't taken?

Yes. It's a good thing, I think. It's something I appreciate about this forum.

What's a mommoni?

Long Island Italian slang for momma's boy.

fuckyasalll