This may be cheating since I’m not actually pitting anybody, but I figured if anybody could tell me about good flame wars, it’d be pitters. I’m looking to write a piece dissecting one or more flame wars that arose over a political topic in order to examine where it went wrong rhetoric-wise, and perhaps interview those involved to attempt to come to some kind of understanding. I’m particularly interested in flame wars (or even just very very heated, unproductive discussions) that happen on Facebook or Twitter between people who either know each other or are friends of friends with somebody they fight with. I think the social dimension adds an extra level of interest to this whole phenomenon. What I want to get at is trying to find more productive ways of talking to people about our positions, especially those we personally know, because they are the ones we will likely most influence.
Honestly, I think you’re doomed to failure. Every friend-of-a-friend flamewar I’ve been in, and damn near every political discussion that’s ended in a “flame war”, has done so because one or both sides picked a position and just decided they weren’t going to move from it regardless of facts or data offered. So unless your entire piece is “people are stubborn once they decide what they think is right”…
This isn’t Facebook or Twitter (mainly LJ and blogs, but often between people who knew each other or knew of each other in SFF fandom), but you might do a web search for Racefail and start from there. That wasn’t strictly political, but it might still fall within your general terms because dealing with race does overlap with politics. And it certainly does fill your requirement of the social context – a lot of LJ defriending, etc., happened as a result of this.
Anyway, I read a very small amount of what’s out there, but boy howdy was there a lot of rhetorical failure you could mine. A lot of people talking past each other; a lot of people utterly refusing to understand where the other side was coming from… it was quite appalling, really.
If you want more of this kind of stuff, let me know.
I once tried to explain to a friend of a friend on facebook that not everyone in the United States believed in God and that there was no reason to get upset about the removal of “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance" since it was not written into the pledge by the author originally.
She was appalled that I would write such a thing and refused to acknowledge the truth of any of my verifiably true statements.
A sample:
Her (after giving her information on christian/non-christian/atheist ~agnostic numbers in america): LoL, there are hardly any people in America who don’t believe in God.
Me: OK, so if you believe that is true, then you think its fine to disregard peoples feelings if they are in the minority?
Her: This is whats wrong with kids today…you take God out of everything and the whole country goes downhill. (Somewhere in there she also insisted I was an atheist.)
A FOAF - who I did know in my own right, but only by agency of the friend - sent this whinging email to everyone he knew complaining that New South Wales is a police state, why should he be picked on like this, yatta yatta yatta. He’d been picked up for speeding twice in one drive through the countryside, and for him this was unbearable statist interference in his right to drive as he wished. It didn’t help that he’d lived in Germany recently where there are places you can go as fast as you like.
I replied fairly contemptuously along the lines of what a precious little flower he must be, as a libertarian he needed to accept the consequences of his own decisions, entitled little princeling, etc, and how in a genuine police state people like him would actually be the ones who got away with what he did.
Well you’d think I’d raped his precious car-car. For years since he’d send me press clippings (that is to say, links to news stories) every time the local police misbehaved in some way, as if these sporadic anecdotes proved his position. I’d point out that the very fact these incidents came to light and the police involved were subject to punishment and the rule of law in general proved his claim false - the very definition of a police state surely is that the police can do what they want without fear of consequence. The worst thing about it is that he’s a scientist - literally a rocket scientist - and yet was totally oblivious to his own irrationality on the matter. It didn’t help when I said that if he applied this kind of thinking to his work it’s no wonder that so many satellites fail to launch …
The last exchange when I told him his pathetic grasp of argumentation techniques meant he was too easy, boring, and not worthy of my magnificent intellect, saw the end of it.