SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the argument-for-the-sake-of-argument dept.
To Swedish blogger John Nerst, online flame wars reveal a fundamental shift in how people debate public issues. Nerst and a nascent movement of other commentators online believe that the dynamics of today's debates—especially the misunderstandings and bad-faith arguments that lead to the online flame wars—deserve to be studied on their own terms. "More and less sophisticated arguments and argumenters are mixed and with plenty of idea exchange between them," Nerst explained in an email. "Add anonymity, and knowing people's intentions becomes harder, knowing what they mean becomes harder." Treating other people's views with charity becomes harder, too, he said.
Inspired by this rapid disruption to the way disagreement used to work, Nerst, who describes himself as a "thirty-something sociotechnical systems engineer with math, philosophy, history, computer science, economics, law, psychology, geography and social science under a shapeless academic belt," first laid out what he calls "erisology," or the study of disagreement itself. Here's how he defines it:
Erisology is the study of disagreement, specifically the study of unsuccessful disagreement. An unsuccessful disagreement is an exchange where people are no closer in understanding at the end than they were at the beginning, meaning the exchange has been mostly about talking past each other and/or hurling insults. A really unsuccessful one is where people actually push each other apart, and this seems disturbingly common.
[...] political scientists who study disagreement, unsurprisingly, disagree. Though Nerst has claimed that "no one needs to be convinced" of the needlessly adversarial quality of online discourse, Syracuse University political scientist Emily Thorson isn't buying it. "I actually do need to be convinced about this," she said in an email, "or at least about the larger implication that 'uncivil online discourse' is a problem so critical that we need to invent a new discipline to solve it. I'd argue that much of the dysfunction we see in online interactions is just a symptom of much larger and older social problems, including but not limited to racism and misogyny.
So, old political scientists think they've already identified the root cause of "bad behavior" and that online argument isn't a significant factor, or at least that's the argument they put forth in their e-mail vs the younger blogger... Dismissive, much ;-)
(Score: 1) by AlwaysNever on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:08PM (6 children)
"Including but not limited to racism and misogyny", says she the scholar. In other words, western men are guilty, one again. Get used to it, and don't give a fuck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:26PM (5 children)
You are so right. All this talk of racism and misogyny are just tropes to punish *all* men. No one has *ever* engaged in anything of the sort.
Enslaved Africans, Jim Crow, Segregation, Redlining. There was no racism there. It was all about doing what's best for an inferior group of humans, right? In fact, those of African descent in the US should be *thanking* those of European descent for taking such good care of them, right?
No political franchise for women, firing pregnant women, illegal abortion, illegal birth control, disallowing women from controlling their own finances, denying women access to medical and law schools, ignoring domestic abuse as "family issues," dismissive attitudes toward claims of sexual assault and harassment. That wasn't misogyny, right? It was just protecting women from their own unrealistic ideas about their capabilities and purpose in life, right? Women should be *thanking* men for being so good to them. In fact, women should suck any man's cock on demand in gratitude for all those wonderful things, right?
I'm so glad you brought this up. Especially in this thread. Am I serious? Am I trolling? Or am I just being sarcastic to point up the bankruptcy of your "argument?"
Does an argument need to be fawning and pleasant to be valid? Does being sarcastic amount to being nasty and closed-minded?
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:17PM (4 children)
Did he say that sort of thing has never happened?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:21PM
No. I did. I always use quote tags when quoting someone else.
Is there anything else I can clarify for you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:23PM (2 children)
Same AC here. I'd add that it was an interpretation of the implication inherent in GP's statement.
Also, if fit nicely into the sarcastic tone and added significantly to the point I was trying to get across.
Once again, if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, I'd be happy to do so!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @07:11AM (1 child)
Hardly. It's a straw man, specifically a motte-and-bailey doctrine. Your entire post is invalid because you started ex falso.
Specifically:
- it includes all men, past and present, in condeming the sins of our fathers
- it absolves all women, past and present, from any complicity in these sins
Neither are correct nor helpful for reasoned debate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 19 2019, @06:10PM
Actually, what GP said was:
I guess I was a little over broad. I should have said:
That matches GP's statement and implication. Better now?