On Polarization, Moderation and Reasonability

[Ernil Menegil]

I can scarce be the only person in these forums who has given some thought to the way discussions tumble down the cliff into the proverbial Crack of Doom of bashing and intolerance, in these that are the fertile fields of the Interwebs, am I? So many threads, so many forums, so many blogs, so many youtube videos, so many comments, so many bloody people flinging rocks, slapping the butts of pans with spoons, and most of all, so much shouting and arguing. So little ... talking.

I am a firm believer in passionate, but reasonable stands. I even like the occasional debate, when promoted and moderated as such. Why is it, though, that I, and surely many others, can barely make a turn in a public forum without ramming, face first, in a pool of rampant aggression? Why is it that so many seem to feel the need for pet hatreds, when mutual understanding in even the most fracturing issues can be reached in a civil manner? Is that not the very principle of democratic discourse?

It has lead me to questioning myself on the reasons for this. The Internet can be a wonderful outlet for human experience and experiment, perhaps the most empowering tool since the printing press's invention, and there is a certain kind of anonymity that comes with faceless publication of any sort, yet certainly that cannot account for it. We are social creatures, after all, we have grown out of mutual support and kindness. Mayhaps my perceptions are skewed, I will admit before saying this, but I hardly see this sort of polarization in other demonstrably faceless and nameless media like books.

I wish, then, to begin a civil and courteous discussion on the matter of polarization in this that is our chosen medium of expression and beyond. What are your thoughts on the matter? How could we reach more peaceful and reasonable conversations in public forums? Is it an issue of civility, or lack thereof? A matter of empathic disconnect? That one fuckwad theory I read about in some image I fail to remember?

Captcha: Jump the gun. I hope not, Captcha, I hope not.

 

[King Aragorn]

It's quite simple, my good internet pub friend, it stems from the anonymity. To put it into perspective, AwesomeTroll827 is more likely to go around discussion throwing curse words and insults like no tomorrow, than Bob or Jack. They feel...safe, I suppose, behind the screen. Just like one might yell out sexist terms on his mic while playing a video game as QuickScoper87, but would sit silent on a public bus. It allows people to do what they may not be able to do in person.

Which kind of has a flip side, I suppose.

 

[Bertylicious]

Oh for...

Right, here's the thing: if I post something to say "Ha! true." or "that's funny!" then I'll get slapped with a low content post, quite rightly. So I won't say anything unless I can come up with a genius comment that makes the joke/position even funnier/stronger. I'm not very bright so I probably won't say anything.

If I disagree with something I can write a lengthly post about it because I already know what I'm going to say, I've just got to lob words at the page.

It's not to do with anonymity or the rottoness of people. There's no great mystery. It's just that people are like water or electricity or Jimmy Saville in that they follow the path of least resistance.

 

[Bertylicious]

I've always felt that people who behave in the ways you described, already demonstrate these behaviours and thought patterns in the real world to some degree.
It just becomes heightened and expanded upon, when it reaches the internet.
I'm with Aragorn on this, it's the anonymity.
Without any immediate dangers or threats, it's pretty damn easy to talk tough on the web.

is it, mate? Is the lack of anonymity the only thing that prevents you from acting like a nob in real life? Or is it more likely that you just aren't a nob?

 

[Sixcess]

Violent disagreement and hyperbole gets more replies.

OP: "I think [insert name here] is a really good film/game/tv show/whatever. One of the best. What do you think?

Me (ver 1): "I agree, it's really good. I especially like the bit where..."
Chance of being quoted/replied to - almost none. Short thread.

Me (ver 2): "I don't think so, but you're entitled to your opinion."
Chance of being quoted/replied to - still almost zero. Still a short thread.

Me (ver 3): "I don't think so, and here's why..."
Chance of being quoted/replied to - moderate, but unlikely to turn into a lengthy exchange of views. Thread will dwindle out by page 2 or 3.

Me (ver 4): "No. [insert name here] is one of the worst pieces of shit the medium has ever seen and everyone involved in making it should be castrated then burned at the stake. Anyone who likes it is a retard and their bad taste is making the entire world stupider by association."
Chance of being quoted/replied to - Very high, and if I reply in turn in the same tone I'll get more replies and before you know it you've got a 25 page thread about Anita Sarkeesian...

 

[DJjaffacake]

Couple of things:

1) You're thinking of GIFT, or the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, or more properly, the Online Disinhibition Effect. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect]

2) Argument to moderation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation] is a logical fallacy. Reasonableness should of course be the standard, not the exception, but moderation is a completely separate thing, and often a bad idea. You don't look for moderation in a debate about human rights, for example.

 

[jess_once]

I think it's possible to learn empathy from the web. It's a weird way to do that though.

 

[ninjaRiv]

It's obviously because we can't stop an argument with a punch so you just have to keep going.

 

[Darken12]

People just have a very, very hard time accepting opinions that are too divergent from their own or that challenge the way they see the world. This isn't a feature of the Information Age, this evident throughout human history (and I'd say that right now is the best era in history to have a diverging opinion). The thing is, people tend to assume that there is only one correct worldview, one objective truth, and only one valid opinion on any matter. Those who have it are Right and those who don't are Wrong. And, obviously, they are Right because nobody wants to be Wrong.

So instead of thinking "yup, my opinion, no matter how diametrically opposed to yours, is just as valid as yours" they go "No, you can't be Right! You don't think the way I do! And since there can only be one truth and I have it, you can't possibly be Right!"

Add in the GIFT theory and you have every tool at your disposal to engineer flame wars.