Thread: How Internet Fighting Works Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029196
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Probably my favourite ever cartoon.

Is there truth in it?

More generally, does the internet polarise debates and make us angry and exasperated? We're quick to spot how our opponents get their distorted views from echo-chambers, but does online communication do the same to everyone?

If so, how can we deal with this?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Spot on, if you asked me.

I think in the last year I have participated in more Purg discussions than I ever had in my entire Ship's history, and it embarrasses me to notice how many times I have been annoyed at someone who,in review, was basically agreeing with me. As the graphic shows, that minority loud faction can appear a lot bigger than it is sometimes.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I don't think it's just online communication that suffers from this, but the media do generally make things worse, because it's in their interest to focus on extreme views.

In real life, at the risk of going cheesy for a minute, it is said that the Suffering Servant didn't raise his voice or cry out in the streets, but that the common people heard him gladly.

Sure, the loud shouters often frame the debate - badly - but get out there among the people that don't have a voice and you can have some much better conversations.

Also, in my experience, the population of people with strongly held ideas does not overlap exactly with those who are closed-minded or exclusivist. The trick is to find someone with strongly held opposing views to yours who is willing to interact with you with respect (assuming you of course are willing to do the same!).

For maxium win, you then get involved in back-door diplomacy via such people to try and affect the loud-mouthed extremists on either side (Thirteen Days was my inspiration for implementing this, fairly successfully, in real life once).

And on the Ship we have Hell as an excellent way of improving the signal-to-noise ratio.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The net does give a voice to people with extreme voices. It also gives them a opportunity to "engage" with debates in various forum.

I know that I try to avoid discussions that I see as futile. I think, as online discussion has developed, those of us who might be considered less extreme (and most shipmates who last the course are in that category) have learnt not to bother, which does tend to leave the important discussions to people who have a view to get across.

They have always existed, always held strong views, always been assholes. Its just that the net has given them a wider voice, and they so like the sound of their own voice.

I think Eutycus is right, that the media have also jumped on this and help present the extreme views, because they make better entertainment. They do, but they don't actually represent the widely held views, as the cartoon indicates.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It also works like this.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
At the risk of sounding old, I think the internet is changing how people fight in real life. What I'm noticing now among the young people I deal with is that many of them have absolutely no clue what to do when they have a disagreement with someone. It doesn't matter whether it's a disagreement about China's takeover of Hong Kong or a noisy party at 3 am. The first thing they do is post a rant on the listserv. A few days later they complain to the administration, and claim they're too terrified to confront the person directly, even with support. And for the rest of the year, they sit at a different dinner table and try to "recruit" others to their side.

I think the ease with which we can walk away from a fight on the internet, coupled with the fact that we can tell ourselves it doesn't matter anyway doesn't serve us well in meatspace. Out here, we are stuck with each other, and we do have to figure out how to get along, agree to disagree, compromise, whatever.

(The above does not apply to dealing with creepy web-stalkers or criminal acts. Those are not resolvable conflicts.)
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
I remember noticing in Uni that in student politics the worst enemies of the Socialist Worker Society was not the Conservatives but the Revolutionary Communists*.

I seen the same dynamic online quite a lot. There's a spat on Twitter right now about male feminists (and whether there can be such a thing). I actually have sympathy with both "sides" in this but can't help feeling it's sad when you treat someone who basically wants to be an ally as if they were an enemy because they don't quite agree 100% (or use the right language sometimes it seems).

Of course I'm waiting - vainly - for people to notice that Twitter is a terrible medium for serious debate.

(*not an original observation but I hadn't seen Life of Brian yet)
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Splitter.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
It seems to me there are a number of linked mechanisms in polarising groups.

First, there are the ones which cause the polarisation. It's likely that there are slightly more people of one opinion than another in the first place. This creates instability - the minority feel a bit less welcome (since most people prefer to avoid friction), so some of them drift away. This makes the minority smaller, so they face more opposition, and a few more leave, and so on.

Once you've got a polarised group, other mechanisms reinforce the them/us mentality:

I've witnessed this behaviour amongst conservatives previously and thought "WTF?? Extremists!". But I'm coming to the conclusion that it's actually about group dynamics online, affects the whole political spectrum, and that I'm as guilty as anyone. We're evolving groups who routinely consider their adversaries to be literally insane and/or evil.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I've always thought that dealing with the written rather than spoken word, and also asynchronously, can add to the propensity for things to kick off.

In a Real Life discussion you probably know most if not all of the people you're talking to, they probably know something of you, there's all of the non-verbal communication plus tone of voice available to all parties, and there's probably also a stronger social imperative to keep it civil.

Online our ability to read-in our own preconceptions or emotions into what we're reading is magnified, and then more so by the greater distance in space, time and knowledge from/of our interlocutors. We have less to go on, and therefore assume more. We also have fewer inhibitions about "coming on strong" in response.

It's not just in forums - I've witnessed email discussions amongst a small group of people go nuclear when if it had happened at a regular get-together around a table it wouldn't even have started, because the initial misunderstanding wouldn't have occurred.

And that's before you factor in deliberate wind-up merchants, etc. etc.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Snags - yes, totally. One of my first encounters with this was on usenet. An argument between a bunch of middle-aged historians had reached such fever pitch they were arranging to meet in NY for a punch-up.

Soror Magna's observation that some young people are losing the ability to handle conflict in real life as a result is interesting.

And I'm totally with Kelly on the annoyance thing too. I *never* get angry in the real world. Well, maybe once a year. Online I quite often have to edit my posts to tone them down, and force myself to give someone the benefit of the doubt. [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 15. June 2015, 16:06: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
In a Real Life discussion you probably know most if not all of the people you're talking to, they probably know something of you, there's all of the non-verbal communication plus tone of voice available to all parties, and there's probably also a stronger social imperative to keep it civil.
I think this is very true. It seems like the language of the internet is snark, and we frequently forget that, in adult life, you don’t generally rag on people unless there is an established friendly relationship. Online, it is perfectly acceptable to mock perfect strangers, and if you are on a site that allows people to give thumb ups to posts, the crueler you are, the more positive responses you get. If you responded to someone walking down the street or at the next table at a coffee shop in a similar way, people would think you were a jerk.

I also think that we sometimes post things without thinking about the breadth of audience, or the likelihood that someone will respond to something that we intended as a one-off rant. A friend of mine who teaches at a university posted a rant to Facebook about getting hit up by the development office for a donation. He probably didn’t think about the fact that a few of his really good friends work in non-profit development, and that they were going to respond. It turned into a lengthy comment blow up, and probably landed him in a worse mood than he was in before he posted the rant.

Finally, you really cannot discount the shelter we feel when we are on our own. I have another friend who I have known since high school. He has always had anger issues, which made him a little unpopular in high school, but he has managed to learn quite a bit of social grace in the last 15 years, and is now a really well-liked guy. But when he gets online, all bets are off. The social graces disappear, and he can become a condescending jerk. It's a little scary how a little anonymity can bring out the worst in us.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I also think that we sometimes post things without thinking about the breadth of audience
Part of the trouble is that we can't easily predict the audience. You might think you're talking to 10 close friends on Twitter, but if one of them retweets it and it goes viral, you're screwed.

I've just read the excellent So You've Been Publicly Shamed. The author argues that public shaming was abandoned in the 18th century because it was so cruel and devastating; now we've re-invented it in an even harsher form.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
At the risk of sounding old, I think the internet is changing how people fight in real life. What I'm noticing now among the young people I deal with is that many of them have absolutely no clue what to do when they have a disagreement with someone. It doesn't matter whether it's a disagreement about China's takeover of Hong Kong or a noisy party at 3 am. The first thing they do is post a rant on the listserv. A few days later they complain to the administration, and claim they're too terrified to confront the person directly, even with support. And for the rest of the year, they sit at a different dinner table and try to "recruit" others to their side.
I've noticed the same thing, but I've always attributed it to helicopter parenting and people leading incredibly sheltered lives where they don't have to interact with people who so much as have a different viewpoint. The connection to internet fighting is an interesting point to consider - particularly when it comes to people who have never known life without the internet.

quote:
I think the ease with which we can walk away from a fight on the internet, coupled with the fact that we can tell ourselves it doesn't matter anyway doesn't serve us well in meatspace. Out here, we are stuck with each other, and we do have to figure out how to get along, agree to disagree, compromise, whatever.
What worries me is the (seeming) increasing numbers of people who appear to think they are justified in using any means necessary to get other to agree with them. Driving someone off a message board may not have a huge consequence for them, but some of the other things that are going on (SWATing, people losing jobs, etc.) are in a different category.
 
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
At the risk of sounding old, I think the internet is changing how people fight in real life. What I'm noticing now among the young people I deal with is that many of them have absolutely no clue what to do when they have a disagreement with someone. It doesn't matter whether it's a disagreement about China's takeover of Hong Kong or a noisy party at 3 am. The first thing they do is post a rant on the listserv. A few days later they complain to the administration, and claim they're too terrified to confront the person directly, even with support. And for the rest of the year, they sit at a different dinner table and try to "recruit" others to their side.
I've noticed the same thing, but I've always attributed it to helicopter parenting and people leading incredibly sheltered lives where they don't have to interact with people who so much as have a different viewpoint. The connection to internet fighting is an interesting point to consider - particularly when it comes to people who have never known life without the internet.
And there is no reason to think that there is a "single causation" at work here. The isolation can be attributed to a combination of factors: internet fighting; helicopter parents; unlimited home entertainment (why go to a movie??); unlimited home information (why go to a library??), etc. etc. Many things designed to make our lives "easier" also result in us not needing to socialize in person.

Hey, look at me. Sitting alone at home typing a comment on an internet board for people who I only know as names on a screen, rather than being outside getting to know my neighbors (assuming, arguendo, that they were outside, which they are not).
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
It seems that everyone in this thread is in agreement. [Smile] Is this a longing for the good old days of the cut direct?
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It seems that everyone in this thread is in agreement.
I disagree.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
At the risk of sounding old, I think the internet is changing how people fight in real life.
Changing how we communicate in every regard. It is turning people into perpetually needy teens with the attention span of a mayfly with ADD.
It, especially in combination with smartphones, reduces everything to short bits of easily digestible, but insubstantial nuggets with little nourishment.
Like a constantly rotating tapas bar at a Krishna temple.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Changing how we communicate in every regard. It is turning people into perpetually needy teens with the attention span of a mayfly with ADD.
Yes - I used to feel odd with my butterfly ways and non-existent attention span. No longer!!

(Actually, having ADD often means you pay too much attention, you tend to be super sensitive to noise, lights etc - which can be hugely distracting. You can also get 'stuck' in one mode and pay so much attention to one thing you forget to eat etc.)
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Reminds me of the quote about the swimming pool - where all the noise comes from the shallow end. Meanwhile, the proper dedicated swimmers just keep on swimming, ignoring the crazy shouters and splashers.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0