Is There Any Point In Discussing Serious Subjects Over The Internet.

[Silverblade]

It seems to me as though there isn't. Its been my observation that after a while internet forums come to be dominated by posters who hold mostly similar views on serious topics of conversation. Something seems to happen to people when they log on to the internet so that while in real life the point of serious discussion (politics, religion, philosophy, history, etc) is to be exposed to and consider ideas you've never encountered before, online the point of discussion is to impose your "correct" views on other people. Whereas in real life discussion is an exchange, on the internet discussion is a contest. The result of this is that while a forum may start out with posters who have a wide variety of ideas, after some time people with one set of ideas will drive away all the people who have ideas that contradict their own. After this point if someone posts an idea that goes against the views already held by the site's posters on a particular topic then the result will be furious universal rejection, whereas if someone posts an idea that supports the site's already established views there is universal support. All the forum is at this point is a bunch of people who hold the same views agreeing with one another, there is no introduction of new ideas into the community and so its member can make no intellectual progress. Not only that but after a thread has been going for awhile and received several posts few people have the patience to read everything that has been posted so far and often just read either the opening post and/or the most recent posts in the thread (if those), and either end up repeating ideas that have already been discussed in the thread or the discussion goes off on a tangent and wanders far away from the original topic. In addition to this problem there is also the fact that in ordinary face to face conversation we use a number of non verbal cues that can not be effectively replicated in pure text conversation. Thus people reading a post will often jump to incorrect conclusion about what ideas the poster is actually trying to communicate or the tone he is using. For example the reader might imagine that the poster is using a sarcastic and scornful tone and be angered whereas really the poster wasn't trying to be anything of the sort. This is why it seems to me that for the most part the internet is really only suitable for lighter topics such as What's Your Favorite Videogame?, or Post Pictures of Cute Animals, or the ever popular Which Cartoon Characters Do You Want To Have Sex With? ^^

 

[manic_depressive13]

Yeah, that hasn't been my experience with "real life" discussions at all. Whether the discussion is an exchange or a contest depends very much on who you're arguing with. Echo chambers, people rehashing points, going off on tangents, misreading tone- all that happens offline too. Honestly I don't find arguing on the internet all that different to arguing anywhere else, except that there are often more people involved which naturally complicates things.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I find it's pretty enjoyable 1on1. People tend to be more receptive and more honest this way.

 

[dyre]

On some sites, like Quora, you can get into a discussion with someone who is actually a subject matter expert, not just some guy who uses Wikipedia a lot. [footnote]granted, a lot of people on that site DO seem to be just wikipedia users, but often you'll see people who have academic and professional qualifications[/footnote]

It's not as common on this site but occasionally you do find people who really know their stuff on certain subjects. Obviously you could find people like that in real life too but for most people, their real life exchanges are made with people who don't really know anything at all. Hell, even Wikipedia users are better than those people, because at least they have (access to) basic knowledge on the subject, so you get less of that "well, my aunt's boyfriend's cat ate a GMO cheeseburger and now it's obese!" anecdotal bullshit.

Of course, if you look in the right places IRL, you'll find good discussions as well. I had a grand time discussing US foreign policy with other history nerds in college. You can find places on the internet with history nerds as well, but they're often watered down by dilettantes.

 

[Erttheking]

There is...I just haven't found it yet.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

So...this is a serious discussion about the inherent flaws of serious discussions online?

Well in keeping with those flaws, I hereby universally declare that the success of serious discussions hinges on the topic at hand, the forum its on and the posters therein!

 

[Barbas]

Yes, always. It simply depends on how you discuss it, which depends on how much respect you have for what you're discussing. If it's important to you, then you know that being snide, sarcastic or insulting to the people you talk to is going to end up effectively isolating you and alienating your peers. If, on the other hand, you simply don't care enough to practice restraint, you'll never get the best out of the internet because you don't really deserve to. You ultimately get as much out of it as you put into it.

The situation you've described is an unpleasant one, but here the mods do their best to ensure that no opinion or ideology manages to push all the others off the site. Some people you talk to will still be needlessly provocative or hostile, particularly if you disagree with their world view, but if you wanted to have a serious conversation then would you really do it with people who act like that? Of course not. I think that the best you can do is explain yourself in a clear a reasonable manner and know when to cut a conversation short. Let them get in a parting shot if they care to; I tend not to read 'em anyway, because if getting the last word matters that much to someone, I don't think I'd be getting much from talking to them.

I'd say that here you have a pretty wide variety of views, which is good. When people complain that they're being silenced or ganged up on, the vast majority of the cases I've seen are hyperbole and the root of the complaint is in disagreement rather than harassment. My admittedly short time as a mod has given me the impression that the problem isn't really with the site's rules but with the behaviour of a minority of posters. The forums have been around for years and I doubt the staff are suddenly going to decide to cave in to any one group's demands. I think the relatively diverse range of opinions on the site are evidence enough that trying to game the system to get others banned over disagreement doesn't work. Eventually those who can't stand looking at someone else's opinion simply melt away from the forums entirely and either find likeminded people in user groups or leave the site entirely. Then new people come in. Life goes on.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The quality of a discussion will invariably be decided by the nature of its participants. All conversational mediums contain hurdles to effective communication, but they can be overcome with a modicum of patience and a willingness to engage and listen.

 

[1981]

I've participated in and followed countless internet discussions that weren't contests. But if the main argument is based on a misconception, there isn't much to discuss. For example, it's unlikely that someone who believes that the Earth is round(ish) would start believing it's flat because someone says so on the internet. There are still people who believe that, and we're just going to have to agree to disagree because there's nothing to be gained by discussing it with them.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Yeah, this isn't an internet thing. There's a reason they say you shouldn't bring up religion or politics at the diner table, it all just leads to fights.

Tough to turn your post around, there's also blame on post posting different opinions into whatever online culture they're in. Basically (aside from being an asshole, even in jest) there are 2 common mistakes made when trying to "introduce new ideas":

1) The idea may not be new. Let's take something I've argued about a fair bit in the past. Say you just read about the benefits of a flax income tax and find it really compelling. You want to pitch for it and get other people to support it as well so you take to a forum to trumpet it's virtues to the masses. The problem is the masses have heard everything you've said before and are still in their chosen (progressive tax) camp. Why that may be is in the second problem, but for now, you end up with an internet forum largely tired of people trying to convert them with the same topics again and again, often with the same talking points, and a poster that things people are "afraid of new ideas" because they have dissonance to the reality that people may have made an intelligently minded decision to reject the idea being postulated, and as such is not introducing a new idea, but regurgitating what the other side sees as tired crap. Now it's impossible to totally know what debates/arguments people online may have had, but at this point, it's probably safer to assume you aren't adding to things, and to either try and do so, or at least be prepared for the response

2) The idea is not laid out as a benefit to the people you are talking to. Some days I think there has been so much common sense lost in online conversation. To look at it you'd think we were taught the best way to get people on your side is to insult them, blame them, and belittle anything they value, all while acting like they're monsters if they don't agree with you and/ or give you what you want. I must have missed that chapter in How to Win Friends and Influence people. Even the base niceties like Please and Thank You are far too rare. We start like missionaries: not self motivated, but just forgetful that what we value is not what others do, so, to go back the the flat tax, you lay it our almost entirely in how you think it's great, assuming that will also bring others around, only to find those with different values and experiences aren't converted. At this point, most smart people would realize that they missed the mark and try to make a pitch that would appeal to those values and experiences, but smart doesn't happen, and yes, the anger flows, and you get any number of comments in ways from polite to nasty about how wrong you and what you think are and how you'd be so much better to completely accept the poster's view of reality at the expense of your own.

None of this is to say don't debate or argue these things, but you get an open mind you have to keep your target in your mind. It's like a job interview: it isn't about how awesome you and your ideas are, it's about how they'll benefit the person you're trying to convince.

 

[shrekfan246]

Survey says: No, not really.

Not for the reasons put up in the OP, though. Far from it. One of the big roadblocks to actual discussion is when you have two staunchly opposed groups who are vying for the same space and both refuse to grant a single inch. No one is going to convince anybody of anything, but they're all going to continue tilting at windmills all the same.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I've had some decent discussions on the Internet.

It's rare on forums but I've had really good ones that eventually changed my mind. (Not right away but they sunk in)

It's more common with online friends I think. Not jumping right to biting each others heads off on a disagreement is good and other times being able to elaborate with someone you're on the same page on can be enlightening.

 

[renegade7]

Anonymity. There are some things that just would not be talked about in real life without the guaranteed privacy of being behind a computer monitor. Sure, it might just be a chance for dickheads to screw with everyone 99% of the time, but it's the remaining 1% that matters.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Eh, while this place gets accused of being an echo chamber, I'm not seeing it. Lots of arguments never end with a clear consensus.

in any case, it's not just the person you are arguing with that's reading the thread. If you get into a shouting match, you aren't going to convince them, but if you argue your points well you might convince more neutral people who aren't getting so involved.

 

[springheeljack]

Honestly I don't think so I try and avoid internet debates or arguments as much as possible because it is just not worth it to me. I will have a debate with someone in person no problem but I will not do it with someone online. I just dont think it does anything or changes anything.

 

[Foolery]

Personally, internet debates require far too much much energy, time, and patience that I don't have or I'm not willing to spare. I'd rather do something else. My limited but, useful academic background constantly reminds me that citing your sources, both primary and peer-reviewed is essential if you want to be taken seriously. It's too easy to mislead and be an internet "authority" on a subject.

 

[freaper]

In addition to this problem there is also the fact that in ordinary face to face conversation we use a number of non verbal cues that can not be effectively replicated in pure text conversation. Thus people reading a post will often jump to incorrect conclusion about what ideas the poster is actually trying to communicate or the tone he is using.

This is my major gripe with any interaction that doesn't happen in person, even texting and phone calls to a lesser degree.

But I guess it depends, if you WANT to discuss certain topics, and you are of open mind, and the crowd you're with has the same disposition, you could probably entertain wonderful debates, but it's not easy to fulfil those essentials.