That is the purpose of this thread, since it’d be junior-modding to tell another poster how to write.
One thing I’ve had to do to maintain my sanity is accept that there are people who will never see my point of view and will persist in their wrongness throughout eternity. That way, I am really just providing information more than taking on responsibility for what other people believe.
Using my personal peeves, there will always be misogynists and there will always be people who buy into rape culture. But I am not singlehandedly responsible for educating them. I am just one voice among many.
It used to drive me absolutely apeshit that there were such wrongheaded people in the world. It felt like a threat to me. I thought about it in the shower. I thought about it before bed. You ever catch yourself arguing in an imaginary Internet conversation? I have. I had it bad.
And one day** I just woke up and said, “This is actually not my problem.” And let it go.
Another thing I would add for this thread is that I try to get something out of every interaction, and I try to be aware of where my own ignorance really lies and just learn from people I disagree with. Sometimes they will have something enlightening to say. Sometimes not so much.
I think I do get in trouble here sometimes because I’m always trying to start philosophical conversations and people may see it as picking on them. I really just like to explore ideas, especially to reflect critically on my own beliefs, but not everyone is like that. They might think that if I’m putting forward an argument, I am extremely attached to that argument, but often I’m just trying to test it out and see if it holds up.
**One day after years of therapy!
A variant of that I sometimes see is the person who cannot comprehend the distinction between someone (e.g. me) providing a prediction of what will happen and expressing a desire that that thing does actually happen.
In essence so much of what they listen to is advocacy that they forget there are any possible behaviors other than advocacy.
And to the degree they disagree with what they mistakenly think is being advocated, they get pretty confrontational. Because advocacy requires confrontation in their view.
Walkaway is the cure.
A really useful book for me was We Need to Talk, by Celeste Headley. It’s about having conversations, and the single most important thing I got from it is to stop thinking about what other people need to do better to understand me, and start thinking about what I need to do better to understand others. Worry less about people not listening to me, and worry more about listening to and understanding them better.
It’s very hard to do, but really worth it.
Habit #5 (of 7):
And, yeah: it’s a good one.
Other than the poster themselves, that is.
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/2XABBGZMWHISEW3DFVFSJDISZU.jpg)
As that famous New Yorker cartoon almost had it:
On the internet, nobody knows if you’re a dog. They all know if you’re a jerk.
“It’s just a message board, Jake.”
I keep wanting to (politely) call an individual poster’s attention to this thread, when they become unnecessarily confrontational in situations that don’t warrant it, but anything I can think of to say sounds like Great-Aunt Hester wagging her finger.
This was key for me in adjusting, after decades, to my job. “You know what, they seem actually to want a screwed-up, utterly unjust, system of favoritism and hypocrisy, and it’s no part of my job description to get them to acknowledge that and change it.”
The one I constantly need to work on myself is the one mentioned several times here already: walk away. Let stupidity be.
The one I hope I personally do okay with: acknowledge the correctness of the other POV which of course means accepting that my position was wrong. My own ever vaster ignorance being reduced is always job one. (Problem being of course that the more I know the more I know how little I know.)
But also agreed that “nonconfrontational” is perhaps not the goal? The goal is to be be confrontational in a manner that is productive, for yourself, for others reading, and for the poster being confronted as a hard to achieve goal, that may not be hit, but aiming for it accomplishes the other two usually I think.
That’s how I’ve survived on this board for the past 23 years - by walking away. No matter how the argument is going, no matter what I believe needs to be said, if I feel myself getting too angry, I bail. It’s just a message board. It’s not worth it.
You are 100% correct, but boy is it hard to do…
There’s some great advice I heard that I need to take more often.
Does it need to be said?
Does it need to be said by me?
Does it need to be said by me right now?
But if it needs to be said then if not you, who, and if not now, when?
Apologies to the sage.
Silence, even when the audience is small, is still sometimes a statement of some volume I think.
And other times is preferable. I wish I could better know which time was which!
Well, I think if nobody else is gonna say it, and it needs to be said, that factors into whether or not it has to be said by you.
Likewise, if now is not the right time, but you are the only one who will say it, that means figuring out when.
This requires a lot of wisdom.
Yeah but no choice but to work with what I got.
Stay polite, leave your own ego out of it, but slam the stupid whenever and wherever you see it.
It’s the least we can do.
Sincere applause for the OP: there’s far too much discussion about rules and regulations in ATMB, and far too little about best practices. Hats off to Pleonast.
I confess I prefer a certain level of confrontation: I’m probably overfond of it. But I think everyone should aspire to have the ability to be nonconfrontational. More methods of expression fight ignorance harder.
Condescension in general and accusations in particular seldom end well with the target. Internet forum battlers place their hopes in swaying onlookers. Bad faith is one of the great issues of the day when it is communicated to an audience of millions, here not so much.
It is. But I think back to some of my early political arguments, when I was a teenager. One of my co-workers was like this big ole Maoist Vanguardist guy, among less savory views. We argued politics a lot, and one of his favorite things to say was a variation of, “You know I’m right, you’re just arguing because you don’t want to admit it.”
And there was the sedevacantist priest I sat next to on a Greyhound who spent a day or so telling me the same thing about his bonkers version of Catholicism: I needed to let my ego go and admit the truth that the Catholic Church should never have stopped burning heritics.
What it comes down to is, I think people vastly overestimate the amount of bad faith arguing out there. The world is full of beliefs sincerely held by absolute morons.