When we engage in discourse on social media our expectations contain many of the same standards used in social conversation. This is an unexamined assumption.
Conversation is in person, verbal, usually in public and is more closely tied to the passage of time (it requires an active attention span which is usually limited, it is not something than can be easily taken up later). Posts and comments are often anonymous, they are at a distance, and they are not tied to the passage of time in the same manner. It's perhaps more analogous to letter writing (if anyone remembers what that is). Things are written that one would never say in person.
When responses are read, many expect the same standards (but not all) from in person conversation - civility, honesty, a semblance of rationality. Perhaps the problem is not response itself - but the expectations of the reader. In person, it's harder to not hear what is said, but on social media, we can just stop reading. When we continue to read, aren't we granting the responder a modicum of attention (and therefore power over us)?
Not engaging with uncivil, dishonest, obviously irrational or ideologically entrenched responses might be more effective. It would also rob the uncivil of power and (hopefully) starve it. Choosing to engage as a challenge (intentionally and with self-control) rather than from anger is mentally healthier and probably more effectual.
10
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Sadly, and imo, we are now forced by this Pandemic to converse more and more via electronic media means since face to face conversations are becoming extremely limited by Social Distancing, wearing of face masks, risks of spreading infection, etc, etc.
So, as the old saying goes, " We have to try to make the most of a bad situation."
Triphid
Level 9
Aug 11, 2020
2
Another point - when conversing in person, the responses are generally immediate. On social media, you can take your time before you reply, giving you time to come up with "the perfect response", and perhaps appearing more quick-witted than you might be in person.
Fit50something
Level 7
Aug 11, 2020
2
Usually I proofread everything and rewrite. I have a horribly bad tendency to be extremely over-loquacious, using an overly excessive amount of qualifiers and qualification phrases to say and write things that could usually - almost always - be said with a far fewer words than I have extraneously included in each and every overly long, run-on sentence. 
Very thoughtful post, and I could do better heeding it. I find myself sometimes caught up in spirited disussion on a thread, only to find either someone takes personal offense to a general opinion I have expressed or just decides to insult me when my comment had nothing to do with them. I occasionally do as you suggested. Far more often I try to bury them rhetorically. I know it is rarely productive, and yet it is so tempting.
I do think that there is a middle ground, however fragile that might be, between no reply vs slinging mud. I don't respond to trolling with any hope of actually changing that person's mind. Instead I do it for the challenge and imagining someone else reading it may appreciate my position/effort. I don't expect that actually happens every single time, but even if just half the time, it seems worth it.
If we avoid any disagreement for fear of disrespect, we quickly cease to have an actual discussion forum. Instead, that might as well be a 12step testimonial smooze-fest or new age touchy-feely circle. Some important appeal of this forum is the chance for thought-provoking discussion.
Bottom line is this forum is generally a thoughtful place, much more so than many other forums. When I see someone seeming to revel in trashing someone on here, I tend to consider perhaps only two options: Let them be and try to ignore them, or defend the thread/poster/commenter who is being attacked, whether it is myself or someone else. I don't think name-calling helps anything, but coming to someone's defense who is being rudely denigrated still seems to me better than ignoring the abuse. Judgment call, I guess.
MikeInBatonRouge
Level 8
Aug 11, 2020
0
I agree.
If I do ever respond to someone who is degrading I generally take it as a challenge. Once I engaged with someone over an issue who kept insulting my responses and their ideas. They seemed to be responding from anger. Then they offhandedly called something I posted stupid without any reason. I replied with a very long, detailed textual analysis of their post and why it lacked validity on a semantic level. I did this knowing it would enrage them. And it did. They responded calling me an expletive which I then reported. They disappeared then, at least to me - which had been my goal. And I felt satisfied.
I felt justified in doing this by their combativeness to my responses. Not sure what happened to them but it felt good to see all their posts and responses disappear after I reported it.
And for the record, normally I just ignore people who are like this. Engaging takes more energy that I am normally willing to commit.
It wouldn't be called social media then, imagine having to read extensive boring diatribes. most people are civil, many people confound dissenting opinions as personal attacks and not only get defensive but engage in insults. When I post something that is not a fact but an opinion, I have to expect many who may opine differently. What happened to civil discourse?
Mofo1953
Level 9
Aug 11, 2020
1
Well, depends on who you talk with. I have people that I can talk about everything without taboos. Written language is very limited and that's why it leads many times to misunderstandings and sometimes avoidable verbal fights. That's why we see very easily nasty arguments on Facebook and social media.
Paddypereira
Level 7
Aug 11, 2020
1
Totally different but related, I miss the precision of math sometimes and find pronouns frustratingly imprecise.
. . . hmmm, I'm Choosing to engage
I would choose a different category than Politics . . .
Isn't it (subjectively) uncivil/rude to accuse someone of being (subjectively) uncivil/rude ?
"In person, it's harder to not hear what is said" -- Anyone here not 'heard' someone say to them "You are not hearing me" ? 
I don't think "a modicum of attention" "therefore" confers "power over us".
"Things are written that one would never say in person"
I routinely hear folks say they want honesty.
Are they being HONEST about that ?
Do they just want YOU/ME to be honest ?
FearlessFly
Level 9
Aug 11, 2020
1
@Fred_Snerd "That's being a friend" I have a very strict definition of friend -- someone I can say anything to and hear anything from without losing my temper or self-confidence. Perhaps no one totally meets that ideal.
I have heard a similar one -- someone who knows everything about me and still likes me anyway. I try to use the word 'friend' ONLY when it actually applies.
I'm not sure how to interpret your last question.
I'm dubious that folks online get that "intimate" (or expect it). Does that make honesty a continuum (rhetorical) ? If so, I don't hear acknowledgement of it.
@Fred_Snerd No, 'man'
Thanks for choosing to engage!
I struggled with the topic myself. What would you have chosen? I ended with Politics because this domain is where I typically hear complaints of incivility and perceive aggression.
I agree that it is uncivil/rude to accuse others of it. As for it being subjective, as we are all subjects I have never understood the appeal to "objectivity" as a refute except in data based arguments. Reality is the interface of the senses. Which subjects hold. At least for a materialist like myself. Objectivity is the consensus of subjects whose observations are in agreement. If you are suggesting that I was somehow being hypocritical by using "uncivil" - I was trying to use the same word that others have and would recognize, it was a matter of obliquely referring to an oft-repeated complaint. You could use another word (which may also subjective . . . )
As for "heard" I meant it in strictly the audio sense, other concepts being outside the purview of my intended meaning.
When someone has gotten your attention your will spend time considering what they have written. I was using "attention" as a stand-in for having taken some of your time. That is what I meant by exerting power - having at least given them the time. A person has absolutely no power over you if none of your time is spent considering them - i.e. they do not exist for you. And the contra-positive is that if you give them any time you are surrendering at least some power.
Lastly, I would never presume what people mean by "honesty" when they espouse it is something they want from you (although I am familiar with it). I would need reel data before I would come to a conclusion about anything colloquial.
@towkneed I appreciate your detailed response. I would have chosen General & Hellos or Community Senate (however, that is a smaller audience).
. . . 'subjects' vs. 'subjectivity' -- noun vs adjective -- quite different
Perhaps your attempt to play with those words were meant to (sort of) mirror my uses of 'heard' -- whatever.
"consensus of subjects whose observations are in agreement" -- I would call that being reasonable or compromising (in the ameliorative), not necessarily objective.
"uncivil" -- was intended generally (hoping to encourage folks to consider indiscriminate use of it) not directed at you
I would say that on sites where 'dating' is a possibility, I don't think it is meant to be colloquial, I think it is because they have (often ? ) encountered the LACK of it. 
Well said and I agree completely. Important elements of communication are absent in written internet posts.
When we are conversing in person non-verbal cues become important to understanding one another. A smile, a scowl, body language, voice inflection. These things help us to communicate our true meaning but are lost here on the web. Perhaps that is one reason why rudeness is so prevalent here.
I have noticed that even in person some degree of communication is impaired by the wearing of masks. As I approach another person it is difficult to discern whether I am being greeted with a smile or a scowl.
dumasarok
Level 7
Aug 11, 2020
2
I have noticed that with masks. It made me realize how much I use smiling as a cue. I get misinterpreted a lot more now. But I guess a lot of us do.
What a lovely post. Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts. I completely agree with you.
One of the main reasons I decided to become more active in this community, is that I was very disappointed with the atheists reddit channel, as I found present many of the negatives you mentioned on your post (especially the rather low attention span).
I think this community has many things to celebrate and be proud of
tsallinia
Level 6
Aug 11, 2020
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3036 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.