On Google+, Amber Yust linked to this post by Kate Heddleston: Argument Cultures and Unregulated Aggression. As I started reading, I kept thinking about other forms of broken interactions online. I’ve seen Kristian Köhntopp defend Linus Torvalds’ style on Google+ (Code of Conflict, Fuck the Community) and Martin Seeger defend civility in the comments. I’ve seen annoying comments in my discussions of role-playing game on Google+. I’ve seen aggravating comments in my discussions of politics on Facebook. Sometimes I wonder whether my own comments cause similar discomfort to others.
Argument Cultures and Unregulated Aggression
Identifying problems and avoiding them:
The single most important issue is a lack of *charitable reading* – that is, when we read things that irritate us, we jump to unwarranted conclusions. The simplest of these is that the author of what we just read is an idiot. And from there, everything else follows. We might leave a comment revealing our opinion of the idiot author, for example. This is not going to end well.
When reading an annoying posts, I try to read it again in a jovial voice. Perhaps the author is laughing or winking while they say the words they wrote?
Sometimes, [Occam's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor "Wikipedia") comes to mind. We read some idiotic words online. Here are two hypotheses that we might posit: 1. the author is an idiot, or 2. the author is a joker. The first hypothesis usually leads to a large number of questions such as: “why aren’t all posts by this author idiotic?” Or, “why aren’t all the people that comment on this author’s posts idiots?” Or, “how can they have a partner?” Or, “how can they have a job?” Clearly, *even if this post is idiotic,* this person must be likable under different circumstances. A climate change denier can still be a good grandfather.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Some possible explanations I usually try to think of:
I think the important part of “and that’s OK” is that *it offers us a way out.* This conversation doesn’t need to continue. We don’t need to engage. There is no *last word* to be had.
This doesn’t mean that I have to accept all the garbage people throw around, but it offers a counter move that is oblique.
*me*: talking about a topic...
*somebody*: exaggerates my point and takes it down
*me*: ?
Exaggerating a point to take it down is taking down a straw man. I don’t enjoy polemic debates. If nobody is ready to learn, then there should be no debate. There might be a point to having two people unwilling to learn debate a topic for an audience willing to learn – politicians are usually unwilling to learn in a debate. They still debate a topic because they’re convinced that their audience is willing to learn. If neither of the two people talking nor their audience is willing to learn, then the debate should stop. There’s no point.
My preferred reaction in these situations:
We’re *changing the topic.* We’re no longer talking about the topic I originally wanted to talk about.
Alternatively, the discussion ends, there.
Sadly, this may not be enough. If people persistently annoy you, you need to change your social circles. Unfriend them, uncircle them, block them. If you don’t, then you’re setting up an asshole filter – all the nice people will go away, unwilling to engage, and you’re left with the idiots. That is, the people that might be nice and friendly when you talk to them in person, but when when they leave comments on your posts, they are aggravating and you seem to be unable to change this pattern.
☯
#Philosophy
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
Here is something similar I wrote on Google+, recently:
The phenomenon I see most often is *uncharitable reading*. People assuming the worst or simply ignoring that people reading words are humans, just like them. My personal reaction is to leave such conversations, uncircle such people, not because they are “haters” or something like that, because that would be falling into the same trap. Simply because they can’t articulate their positions, can’t express their emotional state, can’t generate the empathy they need, can’t make themselves made understood, appear unreachable to the powers of language I can muster. There’s no point in shouting, and so – thinking of myself as *reasonable people* – I guess we do shake our heads quietly and move on.
– Alex Schroeder 2015-11-18 06:41 UTC
---
Something I wrote on Mastodon, recently:
A skill many of us sadly lack is charitable reading: the mindset that whatever we are reading right now was probably written with the best intentions and finding a voice in our head that adequately colors the text with mirth or irony or whatever it needs to be a positive thing. We sometimes use emojis to help readers make that bridge but we can’t always do it. And emojis don’t always prevent a misunderstanding. Specially by uncharitable readers. 😡 Just kidding. I meant 😄 of course. 😁
– Alex Schroeder 2018-05-26 19:48 UTC
---
I see there is a Wikipedia page about just this: Principle of charity.
– Alex Schroeder 2018-06-09 10:22 UTC