Bless $BLOG_OWNER, May his passing cleanse the world
June 1, 2015 12:49 PM Subscribe
"Spend enough time in any community or social circle – whether online or in person – and you’ll inevitably hear people complaining about the group being too insular, too much of a circle jerk or just plain unwilling to listen to people who disagree with them. You may especially notice this when forums have active moderation or websites and YouTube accounts turn off the ability to post comments. Now, on occasion, you will find a group or community that is unwelcoming to divergent voices… but more often than not, the problem isn’t that people are unwilling to hear an opposing opinion, but rather a case of “we don’t like assholes in the clubhouse.”--How To Share Your Unpopular Opinion (Without Being An Asshole)
Ryan North had a pretty nice takedown on his Tumblr this morning, explaining to an asshole, in very clear language, exactly why he is acting like an asshole.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 1:00 PM on June 1, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 1:00 PM on June 1, 2015 [12 favorites]
that's a stupid article and you are a bad person for posting it.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 1:02 PM on June 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 1:02 PM on June 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm one lazy-assed fucker and I just glanced over there, did a quick estimated word count and decided to wait for the TL;DR from someone more patient than I.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:04 PM on June 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:04 PM on June 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon: "that's a stupid article and you are a bad person for posting it."
<picks up phone, listens for 5 seconds, hangs up>
"YEAH, WE'RE GETTIN' THE BAND BACK TOGETHER!"
posted by boo_radley at 1:05 PM on June 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
<picks up phone, listens for 5 seconds, hangs up>
"YEAH, WE'RE GETTIN' THE BAND BACK TOGETHER!"
posted by boo_radley at 1:05 PM on June 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
"You'd have me keep these terrible opinions to myself?"
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:08 PM on June 1, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:08 PM on June 1, 2015 [11 favorites]
I'm one lazy-assed fucker and I just glanced over there, did a quick estimated word count and decided to wait for the TL;DR from someone more patient than I.
"You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole."
posted by MonkeyToes at 1:09 PM on June 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
"You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole."
posted by MonkeyToes at 1:09 PM on June 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
An artistic rendering of me expressing an unpopular opinion online.
Everyone else is just being a jerk.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:09 PM on June 1, 2015 [15 favorites]
Everyone else is just being a jerk.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:09 PM on June 1, 2015 [15 favorites]
This does, of course, beg the question about why one needs to share one's unpopular opinions on the Internet...
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:09 PM on June 1, 2015
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:09 PM on June 1, 2015
INT. MY MANSION - DUSK
A study in subdued luxury. A tall, handsome figure enters — it's ME.
ME
I have ninety minutes and lots of unpopular opinions, so let's get started. posted by Iridic at 1:14 PM on June 1, 2015 [21 favorites]
The important thing to do is always precede your opinion with, "I know this will be an unpopular opinion among you lot, but ..." so that no matter what, you still have something to be correct about.
posted by RobotHero at 1:15 PM on June 1, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by RobotHero at 1:15 PM on June 1, 2015 [18 favorites]
every person has a set of views which they consider too offensive to consider in any way other than to censor them, one group of friends can have opinions which they all share and consider unremarkable enough to even mention but will gravely offend another group of people, any sufficiently mass media will take an combination of what is considered to be an offensive opinion to determine the bounds of what is an acceptable opinion which no one actually agrees with but everyone has reason to enforce.
here's to you, metafilter!
posted by ennui.bz at 1:19 PM on June 1, 2015
here's to you, metafilter!
posted by ennui.bz at 1:19 PM on June 1, 2015
Yay! The term JAQing off is spreading!
“I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.” – Randall Munroe
Hee.
posted by halifix at 1:19 PM on June 1, 2015 [35 favorites]
“I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.” – Randall Munroe
Hee.
posted by halifix at 1:19 PM on June 1, 2015 [35 favorites]
It seems like a significant part of being thought an asshole, though, is the very act of expressing an opinion that the main body doesn't want to encounter. On the other hand, as long as you are perceived as being on the side of truth and justice, and fueled by righteous wrath, you can get away with some pretty asshole-ish behavior.
posted by Longtime Listener at 1:26 PM on June 1, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Longtime Listener at 1:26 PM on June 1, 2015 [13 favorites]
METAFILTER: most other people here are more thoughtful of their opinions than I am of my own.
posted by philip-random at 1:28 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by philip-random at 1:28 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
It seems like a significant part of being thought an asshole, though, is the very act of expressing an opinion that the main body doesn't want to encounter.
I think you need to correct your observation for the confounders in this article. That "very act" is so frequently accompanied by stuff like outsiders barging in and dropping opinions into communities where they have no existing relationship of trust, or into conversations where the opinions aren't really relevant, or mixed with caricatures of the beliefs of the people they are addressing, that it's hard to get a good sample of how much of the rejection can be attributed to not wanting to encounter an unpopular opinion.
posted by straight at 1:33 PM on June 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think you need to correct your observation for the confounders in this article. That "very act" is so frequently accompanied by stuff like outsiders barging in and dropping opinions into communities where they have no existing relationship of trust, or into conversations where the opinions aren't really relevant, or mixed with caricatures of the beliefs of the people they are addressing, that it's hard to get a good sample of how much of the rejection can be attributed to not wanting to encounter an unpopular opinion.
posted by straight at 1:33 PM on June 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
I mean, the other thing is that it can be really easy to feel piled on when 10 people give their own versions of arguments against the position one person is supporting. I know it can be really tempting to bow out of a conversation just because I don't have the time to engage in a considered debate with that many different people at once, even if both sides are pretty respectful and are actually listening. I don't know what a good solution to that might be.
posted by Zalzidrax at 1:38 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Zalzidrax at 1:38 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
“I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.” – Randall Munroe
I like this, but not so much that I can't see it has limits.
People invoking the freedom of speech are sometimes appealing to the ideal of an open marketplace of ideas rather than their civil freedoms.
Sometimes they're doing it as a way of avoiding engaging with other norms and values of a given venue; sometimes they're doing it because the social policing involved is arguably getting more about winning/shutting the discussion down than a give-and-take. Sometimes the line between both is thin.
posted by weston at 1:40 PM on June 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
I like this, but not so much that I can't see it has limits.
People invoking the freedom of speech are sometimes appealing to the ideal of an open marketplace of ideas rather than their civil freedoms.
Sometimes they're doing it as a way of avoiding engaging with other norms and values of a given venue; sometimes they're doing it because the social policing involved is arguably getting more about winning/shutting the discussion down than a give-and-take. Sometimes the line between both is thin.
posted by weston at 1:40 PM on June 1, 2015 [5 favorites]
I know it can be really tempting to bow out of a conversation just because I don't have the time to engage in a considered debate [...] I don't know what a good solution to that might be.
To be honest, finding another community.
Not all communities are a good fit for all people. I expect that most people on Metafilter would not be a fit for Red State. That is fine, and is not an insult to either Metafilter or Red State. If your opinions are several standard deviations away from the norm in your community and you feel a need to express your opinion and you feel a need to defend your opinion... than you probably have the wrong community.
It's reasonable to try to stretch the boundaries of the community. However, if the ratio is 10:1 against you, you are probably outside the boundaries of the community. That's not bad. The internet is a vast land, and you can find something better for yourself.
posted by saeculorum at 1:41 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
To be honest, finding another community.
Not all communities are a good fit for all people. I expect that most people on Metafilter would not be a fit for Red State. That is fine, and is not an insult to either Metafilter or Red State. If your opinions are several standard deviations away from the norm in your community and you feel a need to express your opinion and you feel a need to defend your opinion... than you probably have the wrong community.
It's reasonable to try to stretch the boundaries of the community. However, if the ratio is 10:1 against you, you are probably outside the boundaries of the community. That's not bad. The internet is a vast land, and you can find something better for yourself.
posted by saeculorum at 1:41 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
One of the tricky parts of this is that the line between "arguing" and "fighting for hierarchical position" is not clean.
It's easy to find this on MetaFilter - people will passionately argue for a cause they believe in and really, really want to convince others, but while doing so they are also venting and trying to establish dominance over the person or people they disagree with. Often we're oblivious to that second part, and the person you're arguing with can't help but hear that part louder than the rest. Which side of the line it falls on is open to interpretation.
The line between "standing up for myself" and 'being an asshole" is much hazier than we'd like to pretend. Because every single asshole you've ever met -- every single one -- will explain that their assholish behaviors are really instances of them Taking a Stand for Themselves at Long Last. Then again, you can't paralyze yourself and never speak up for fear of being an asshole. Sometimes you gotta risk it.
It's a fucking tangle, is what it is.
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 1:41 PM on June 1, 2015 [17 favorites]
It's easy to find this on MetaFilter - people will passionately argue for a cause they believe in and really, really want to convince others, but while doing so they are also venting and trying to establish dominance over the person or people they disagree with. Often we're oblivious to that second part, and the person you're arguing with can't help but hear that part louder than the rest. Which side of the line it falls on is open to interpretation.
The line between "standing up for myself" and 'being an asshole" is much hazier than we'd like to pretend. Because every single asshole you've ever met -- every single one -- will explain that their assholish behaviors are really instances of them Taking a Stand for Themselves at Long Last. Then again, you can't paralyze yourself and never speak up for fear of being an asshole. Sometimes you gotta risk it.
It's a fucking tangle, is what it is.
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 1:41 PM on June 1, 2015 [17 favorites]
It seems like a significant part of being thought an asshole, though, is the very act of expressing an opinion that the main body doesn't want to encounter.
I think that it's easy to assume that manners can always massage away conflict. Up to a point and in certain fora they can - where there's a formal or informal agreement that certain topics can be discussed from a range of acceptable standpoints as long as you're polite. In some places that range is pretty broad.
But of course, there are certain issues at the other end of the spectrum, where no matter how nice and polite you are, you're still an asshole by the standards of the community you're addressing. It's not acceptable here to advocate for bell-curve-variety opinions on race, for instance. It's not acceptable to make rape threats or tell rape jokes. You can be as genteel as you like in doing so, and you're still an asshole.
The question really boils down to "how do we establish what is acceptable for debate and what isn't", and that's always going to be a fundamentally political question. To what degree is argument helpful and interesting? To what degree does argument [in certain styles or about certain subjects] reinforce loathsome and harmful beliefs? Who gets to argue about who? That is, can I argue de haut en bas about people different from myself, holding forth about the Black experience as a white person even if I say things that are stupid and painful for other members of the community?
That stuff can't be massaged away by being nice, and I don't think it should be. I think it's both a bad idea and unrealistic to imagine an "ideal internet" where anyone can express anything they want with no pushback as long as they are polite and have standing in a community.
posted by Frowner at 1:49 PM on June 1, 2015 [11 favorites]
I think that it's easy to assume that manners can always massage away conflict. Up to a point and in certain fora they can - where there's a formal or informal agreement that certain topics can be discussed from a range of acceptable standpoints as long as you're polite. In some places that range is pretty broad.
But of course, there are certain issues at the other end of the spectrum, where no matter how nice and polite you are, you're still an asshole by the standards of the community you're addressing. It's not acceptable here to advocate for bell-curve-variety opinions on race, for instance. It's not acceptable to make rape threats or tell rape jokes. You can be as genteel as you like in doing so, and you're still an asshole.
The question really boils down to "how do we establish what is acceptable for debate and what isn't", and that's always going to be a fundamentally political question. To what degree is argument helpful and interesting? To what degree does argument [in certain styles or about certain subjects] reinforce loathsome and harmful beliefs? Who gets to argue about who? That is, can I argue de haut en bas about people different from myself, holding forth about the Black experience as a white person even if I say things that are stupid and painful for other members of the community?
That stuff can't be massaged away by being nice, and I don't think it should be. I think it's both a bad idea and unrealistic to imagine an "ideal internet" where anyone can express anything they want with no pushback as long as they are polite and have standing in a community.
posted by Frowner at 1:49 PM on June 1, 2015 [11 favorites]
It's reasonable to try to stretch the boundaries of the community. However, if the ratio is 10:1 against you, you are probably outside the boundaries of the community. That's not bad. The internet is a vast land, and you can find something better for yourself.
There are infinitely many things to argue about. In any community, every single person is going to have one thing or another where their opinion is outside the community norms. Nevermind that balkanizing everything is not a good solution.
posted by Zalzidrax at 2:10 PM on June 1, 2015
There are infinitely many things to argue about. In any community, every single person is going to have one thing or another where their opinion is outside the community norms. Nevermind that balkanizing everything is not a good solution.
posted by Zalzidrax at 2:10 PM on June 1, 2015
"It's not acceptable to make rape threats or tell rape jokes. You can be as genteel as you like in doing so, and you're still an asshole."
This is a tangent to your general point, but highlights something that I think is a consistent sticking point: The assumption of limited context combined with universally stated norms.
The assumption that there's no context in which rape jokes can be acceptable (or funny) isn't supportable: See Amy Shumer's Football Town Nights. I don't think that Shumer is an asshole; I don't think that pointing these out makes me an asshole.
I do think that there are people who would call Shumer an asshole, which brings me to the broader point and one that I think aligns with your reaction against niceness — I don't think that "asshole" is as substantive a point as the Love Nerd implies, and frankly, I got over being afraid of being an asshole years ago, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse.
But then, "Here are some ways to avoid looking like an asshole predicated on specific contexts and topics" is a bit abstruse for a "You can get laid without being a PUA" general audience blog.
posted by klangklangston at 2:11 PM on June 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is a tangent to your general point, but highlights something that I think is a consistent sticking point: The assumption of limited context combined with universally stated norms.
The assumption that there's no context in which rape jokes can be acceptable (or funny) isn't supportable: See Amy Shumer's Football Town Nights. I don't think that Shumer is an asshole; I don't think that pointing these out makes me an asshole.
I do think that there are people who would call Shumer an asshole, which brings me to the broader point and one that I think aligns with your reaction against niceness — I don't think that "asshole" is as substantive a point as the Love Nerd implies, and frankly, I got over being afraid of being an asshole years ago, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse.
But then, "Here are some ways to avoid looking like an asshole predicated on specific contexts and topics" is a bit abstruse for a "You can get laid without being a PUA" general audience blog.
posted by klangklangston at 2:11 PM on June 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
If you’ve found that you’re regularly getting excluded from conversations or kicked out of forums for the apparent crime of not agreeing with everyone, then it may be that the problem isn’t what you have to say, but how you’re saying it.
If this "tone argument" had been leveled against someone discussing social-justice issues in an obnoxious way, then MeFi would be gnawing this author's head off right now.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 2:12 PM on June 1, 2015 [10 favorites]
If this "tone argument" had been leveled against someone discussing social-justice issues in an obnoxious way, then MeFi would be gnawing this author's head off right now.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 2:12 PM on June 1, 2015 [10 favorites]
"Expressing a contrary opinion" is necessary, but not sufficient, to be correctly labeled an asshole. The article addresses the specific things that get you labeled an asshole.
All too often, though, those behaviors don't get you labeled an asshole when your opinion is a popular one.
I know you're not denying that, but I think the article glosses over it. Everyone could do with some of that advice, regardless of the popularity of their opinions.
posted by ernielundquist at 2:15 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
All too often, though, those behaviors don't get you labeled an asshole when your opinion is a popular one.
I know you're not denying that, but I think the article glosses over it. Everyone could do with some of that advice, regardless of the popularity of their opinions.
posted by ernielundquist at 2:15 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you fall in with the majority, you don't need a record of trust. If you buck the tide, you'll quickly use up your accrued goodwill. Saying something irrelevant won't likely hurt you if it doesn't contradict the consensus. Manners won't get you off the hook if people don't want to buy what you are selling. Being caustic will score points if the audience digs you.
You can always add a new line of harmony to the chorus, but expect to be called an asshole if you sing a different tune.
posted by Longtime Listener at 2:22 PM on June 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
You can always add a new line of harmony to the chorus, but expect to be called an asshole if you sing a different tune.
posted by Longtime Listener at 2:22 PM on June 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
This means that no matter how strongly you may be disagree with the other person, losing your cool or insulting them (or the community at large) is an effective way of losing the argument. This has less to do with the “U mad bro” school of arguments, and everything to do with pure practicality.I think this does need an expansion on the "U mad bro" aside and/or the caveat:
While getting angry can be an efffective way to look like an asshole, if they're angry and you're calm, that doesn't always prove that you're not being an asshole.
posted by RobotHero at 2:26 PM on June 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
People invoking the freedom of speech are sometimes appealing to the ideal of an open marketplace of ideas rather than their civil freedoms.
If I'm going to get into the "open marketplace of ideas", I'm going to do so with ideas that are going to make money in the "open marketplace of media content".
I've said before and I'll say AGAIN that I feel "Freedom of Speech" is overrated to the point where abuse of the First Amendment causes more harm than abuse of the Second Amendment. (And I'll say it again, if 'they' let me.) Here's an example from the Supreme Court today (NOT the hijab case, the "legal to threaten if you don't mean it" case).
Which is why I only make my internet comments in well-moderated forums like this one (and won't be offended if this comment is deleted).
Then again, my all-time favorite quote from Groucho Marx is "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member".
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:32 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
If I'm going to get into the "open marketplace of ideas", I'm going to do so with ideas that are going to make money in the "open marketplace of media content".
I've said before and I'll say AGAIN that I feel "Freedom of Speech" is overrated to the point where abuse of the First Amendment causes more harm than abuse of the Second Amendment. (And I'll say it again, if 'they' let me.) Here's an example from the Supreme Court today (NOT the hijab case, the "legal to threaten if you don't mean it" case).
Which is why I only make my internet comments in well-moderated forums like this one (and won't be offended if this comment is deleted).
Then again, my all-time favorite quote from Groucho Marx is "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member".
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:32 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
Okay, we get it, you believe our most cherished and important right as enumerated in the Constitution is overrated.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:34 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by entropicamericana at 2:34 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Freedom of speech" means the government doesn't get to suppress your weird rock-worshipping cult just because it's weird and worships rocks (which are dumb). "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean every asshole has to listen to every other asshole like it's a version of the Human Centipede except it's ears instead of mouths that are stitched to the person in front.
posted by turbid dahlia at 2:37 PM on June 1, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by turbid dahlia at 2:37 PM on June 1, 2015 [16 favorites]
Metafilter: {determiner} {adjective} {noun} sucks.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:43 PM on June 1, 2015
posted by blue_beetle at 2:43 PM on June 1, 2015
blue_beetle, I might just go give that the Cheap Bots Done Quick treatment.
posted by cortex at 2:45 PM on June 1, 2015
posted by cortex at 2:45 PM on June 1, 2015
our most cherished and important right as enumerated in the Constitution
What's this "we" stuff?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:46 PM on June 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
What's this "we" stuff?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:46 PM on June 1, 2015 [2 favorites]
I never said it did, but thank you for the strawman.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:46 PM on June 1, 2015
posted by entropicamericana at 2:46 PM on June 1, 2015
Good article, however it doesn't cover pour encourager les autres. Sometimes the way to change more minds is not to change the opinion of the jerk, but to make an example of them. The jerk being a jerk, and being shown to be a jerk, is necessary so that the audience is encouraged to recoil away from the jerk's jerkish opinion.
Shaming is a powerful tool for enforcement of group norms. Many people who have been unfairly on the sharp end of it come (in my view incorrectly) to the conclusion that shaming per se is bad. I suggest that it is the norms, not the shaming, in which good or bad resides. To pick just one example, racial prejudice is a bad opinion, not merely in my opinion but in practical and provable fact; and those who hold that opinion ought to be shamed for it. Seeing racists berated and mocked discourages people from being racists.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:52 PM on June 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
Shaming is a powerful tool for enforcement of group norms. Many people who have been unfairly on the sharp end of it come (in my view incorrectly) to the conclusion that shaming per se is bad. I suggest that it is the norms, not the shaming, in which good or bad resides. To pick just one example, racial prejudice is a bad opinion, not merely in my opinion but in practical and provable fact; and those who hold that opinion ought to be shamed for it. Seeing racists berated and mocked discourages people from being racists.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:52 PM on June 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
I suggest that it is the norms, not the shaming, in which good or bad resides.... and should the norms in fact happen to be bad, what means should be available for challenging them?
If the plan is to shame the hell out of anybody who challenges a norm once it gets to a certain level of acceptance, you'd better hope that a bad norm never reaches such a level. Human history does not encourage optimism in this regard.
posted by Hizonner at 3:10 PM on June 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
Honestly, though, that kind of abstraction just ends up feeling empty to me. I have no problem shaming people about some norms — it's incredibly effective to shame people into hewing the norm that e.g. racist jokes aren't acceptable — but in a place where the norm would endorse racist jokes, shaming people who challenge that would be immoral.
I recognize that's what you're arguing, that the potential harms in the methods are important to consider, but I don't think that you can effectively make that argument without considering the underlying norms themselves. Otherwise, it's just a tautology of bad things are bad when they're bad, but good things are good when they're good.
posted by klangklangston at 3:20 PM on June 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
I recognize that's what you're arguing, that the potential harms in the methods are important to consider, but I don't think that you can effectively make that argument without considering the underlying norms themselves. Otherwise, it's just a tautology of bad things are bad when they're bad, but good things are good when they're good.
posted by klangklangston at 3:20 PM on June 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Freedom of speech" means the government doesn't get to suppress your weird rock-worshipping cult just because it's weird and worships rocks (which are dumb). "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean every asshole has to listen to every other asshole like it's a version of the Human Centipede except it's ears instead of mouths that are stitched to the person in front.
An important point, especially as you'll often hear the "freedom of speech" rallying cry raised on forums in the user's perceived fight again "censorship" which, again, has everything to do with government and nothing to do with what happens to your in-your-face dose of THE TRUTH on a privately-run website.
If there's one common thread I've seen in someone being able to voice an unpopular opinion without coming across like an asshole is couching that expression in not just respect for but also understanding of the majority opinion (which ties in with the "address the actual argument" advice in the article). Like, if you come across as having nothing but disdain for the prevailing take in a given community on a given subject, and/or characterize that take as something other than what it is, you are destined to fail. Show that you know what people's positions actually are, and show respectful disagreement, and you are more likely to be engaged with fairly.
That said, just accept that some opinions are just always going to be met with some pretty fierce resistance regardless of how you choose to put them forward. This will save you a lot of headaches that come from trying to convince people that they are just being unfair and are only strongly disagreeing with you because their bodies are not ready for your take on a subject.
Related to that, I have never bought into the scolding of "pile ons". Yes, multiple people are disagreeing with the same one point, some of these people even expressing the same counterargument just rephrased in different ways. It's not the end of the world, and some of those counterarguments - even the rephrasings - can illustrate effective criticisms taken from different angles against said point; sometimes from POVs I hadn't considered before. Surely there's times when the responses to a minority position are just spinning their wheels past a certain point, but to me, anyway, that's a lot better than some silencing complaint that is one step away from complaining about "groupthink".
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:12 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
An important point, especially as you'll often hear the "freedom of speech" rallying cry raised on forums in the user's perceived fight again "censorship" which, again, has everything to do with government and nothing to do with what happens to your in-your-face dose of THE TRUTH on a privately-run website.
If there's one common thread I've seen in someone being able to voice an unpopular opinion without coming across like an asshole is couching that expression in not just respect for but also understanding of the majority opinion (which ties in with the "address the actual argument" advice in the article). Like, if you come across as having nothing but disdain for the prevailing take in a given community on a given subject, and/or characterize that take as something other than what it is, you are destined to fail. Show that you know what people's positions actually are, and show respectful disagreement, and you are more likely to be engaged with fairly.
That said, just accept that some opinions are just always going to be met with some pretty fierce resistance regardless of how you choose to put them forward. This will save you a lot of headaches that come from trying to convince people that they are just being unfair and are only strongly disagreeing with you because their bodies are not ready for your take on a subject.
Related to that, I have never bought into the scolding of "pile ons". Yes, multiple people are disagreeing with the same one point, some of these people even expressing the same counterargument just rephrased in different ways. It's not the end of the world, and some of those counterarguments - even the rephrasings - can illustrate effective criticisms taken from different angles against said point; sometimes from POVs I hadn't considered before. Surely there's times when the responses to a minority position are just spinning their wheels past a certain point, but to me, anyway, that's a lot better than some silencing complaint that is one step away from complaining about "groupthink".
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:12 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you’ve found that you’re regularly getting excluded from conversations or kicked out of forums for the apparent crime of not agreeing with everyone, then it may be that the problem isn’t what you have to say, but how you’re saying it.This doesn't ring true to me. In most cases, people are not offended by someone's assholish way of saying something but with what they are saying, because they consider having that opinion to be intrinsically assholish in the first place.
Also, equating "Freedom of Speech" with "The First Amendment" is an America-centric view. Legal protection of freedom of speech should be considered the absolute bare minimum of speech freedom, not the entirety of it, and its more general meaning is the practical social freedom to speak your mind without serious social repercussions. In particular, I find it obnoxious when people hide behind the argument that "freedom of speech only refers to government censorship" when discussing cases where people are fired from their jobs for expressing certain political opinions, or when certain views are systematically excluded by large corporate media near-monopolies. While people certainly have the right to exclude voices from privately hosted conversations, I think they should be more honest and just admit that freedom of speech is a value that they believe sometimes has to be weighed against other goods.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 7:28 PM on June 1, 2015 [4 favorites]
One of the biggest problems with pile-ons, IMO, is that narratives tend to snowball. And it's especially bad with a flat commenting format, because that can distance the criticism from the thing it's criticizing. So someone can take something out of context, or try to paraphrase it, and most people reading that won't bother to go back and see the comment they're referring to, but instead will start building on the previous paraphrase or characterization.
A really big pile-on can often result in some pretty dramatic crowdsourced narratives, with everyone adding their own flourishes.
And really, a lot of times, ganging up on outsiders is almost a bonding exercise.
posted by ernielundquist at 7:33 PM on June 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
A really big pile-on can often result in some pretty dramatic crowdsourced narratives, with everyone adding their own flourishes.
And really, a lot of times, ganging up on outsiders is almost a bonding exercise.
posted by ernielundquist at 7:33 PM on June 1, 2015 [3 favorites]
I agree with Aya's comment up to the last paragraph -- I buy into the scolding of pile-ons.
If nothing else, I think pile-ons can be a waste of space, tantamount to a derail. Sure, sometimes you see an outrageous comment and jump to the comment box to get in your snappy comeback -- I've done this plenty of times -- but it doesn't hurt to scroll down and notice that five other people have already expressed their own variations on the theme. Somewhere between three and five righteous smackdowns ought to be enough for any given dumbass comment; after that it starts to seem a bit ugly, or at the very least, kind of repetitive -- enough to fuel complaints about "groupthink" from the pilee-on. Even if it's a lot better than silencing, and even if (like everything else so far) it's not the end of the world, I don't think it's really contributing much the thread at that point, whether or not you have a new point of view to add to the mix.
Sorry to argue at such length, but I do think pile-ons are worth avoiding when possible.
posted by uosuaq at 7:35 PM on June 1, 2015
If nothing else, I think pile-ons can be a waste of space, tantamount to a derail. Sure, sometimes you see an outrageous comment and jump to the comment box to get in your snappy comeback -- I've done this plenty of times -- but it doesn't hurt to scroll down and notice that five other people have already expressed their own variations on the theme. Somewhere between three and five righteous smackdowns ought to be enough for any given dumbass comment; after that it starts to seem a bit ugly, or at the very least, kind of repetitive -- enough to fuel complaints about "groupthink" from the pilee-on. Even if it's a lot better than silencing, and even if (like everything else so far) it's not the end of the world, I don't think it's really contributing much the thread at that point, whether or not you have a new point of view to add to the mix.
Sorry to argue at such length, but I do think pile-ons are worth avoiding when possible.
posted by uosuaq at 7:35 PM on June 1, 2015
it doesn't hurt to scroll down and notice that five other people have already expressed their own variations on the theme.
I already addressed the point about repetition; yes it's to be avoided. But it doesn't hurt to offer a fresh perspective on a particular matter. I'm personally pretty tired of randos policing a thread by scolding others to stop responding to a point because their magical number of required responses have been met.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:57 PM on June 1, 2015
I already addressed the point about repetition; yes it's to be avoided. But it doesn't hurt to offer a fresh perspective on a particular matter. I'm personally pretty tired of randos policing a thread by scolding others to stop responding to a point because their magical number of required responses have been met.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:57 PM on June 1, 2015
If that's the most assholish message Ryan North has ever received he's living a pretty happy life. That interaction read more like oversensitive creator than asshole consumer to me.
posted by sevenyearlurk at 8:19 PM on June 1, 2015
posted by sevenyearlurk at 8:19 PM on June 1, 2015
This doesn't ring true to me. In most cases, people are not offended by someone's assholish way of saying something but with what they are saying, because they consider having that opinion to be intrinsically assholish in the first place.
In my experience, it seems to be the opposite, but either or both of us could be victims of the availability bias on this.
posted by straight at 8:58 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
In my experience, it seems to be the opposite, but either or both of us could be victims of the availability bias on this.
posted by straight at 8:58 PM on June 1, 2015 [1 favorite]
I came, I saw, I brought the teal deer.
1) Does This Argument Need To Happen?
--a) Are you posturing for dominance?
--b) People can exist without being available to you
2) Focus on the Debate, Not The Debator
--a) Arguments are about changing minds; fights are about dominance
--b) Insults / poor arguments often reinforce "false" beliefs
3) Debate The Real Opinion, Not The One In Your Head
--a) Learn to recognize and exclude strawmen
4) Want Respect? Participate In The Community (Without Arguing)
--a) Communities are built on relationships
--b) You have a history
5) Silence Isn’t The Same As Winning
--a) You aren't guaranteed an audience.
----i) This is not a violation of your rights.
A lot of it seems to boils down to "make your best argument for why you believe what you do, and let the rest go." I've been doing that for a while, now, and it tends to serve me well.
posted by Deoridhe at 9:20 PM on June 1, 2015 [10 favorites]
1) Does This Argument Need To Happen?
--a) Are you posturing for dominance?
--b) People can exist without being available to you
2) Focus on the Debate, Not The Debator
--a) Arguments are about changing minds; fights are about dominance
--b) Insults / poor arguments often reinforce "false" beliefs
3) Debate The Real Opinion, Not The One In Your Head
--a) Learn to recognize and exclude strawmen
4) Want Respect? Participate In The Community (Without Arguing)
--a) Communities are built on relationships
--b) You have a history
5) Silence Isn’t The Same As Winning
--a) You aren't guaranteed an audience.
----i) This is not a violation of your rights.
A lot of it seems to boils down to "make your best argument for why you believe what you do, and let the rest go." I've been doing that for a while, now, and it tends to serve me well.
posted by Deoridhe at 9:20 PM on June 1, 2015 [10 favorites]
In most cases, people are not offended by someone's assholish way of saying something but with what they are saying, because they consider having that opinion to be intrinsically assholish in the first place.
In my experience, the truth in aggregate is somewhere in the middle though it varies significantly from person to person, place to place, and topic to topic. One of the tricky parts of the (not uncommon) assumption that it's not the speaker's assholishness manner but the listener's intolerance of ideas that creates the speaker's bad reception is that, a lot of the time, the speaker simultaneously believes (probably truly much of the time!) that they are not an asshole, and expresses their preconceived expectation of a bad reception for their opinion or argument as needless assholery.
Alice expects Bob to be close-minded about x; Alice thinks Bob's expected close-mindedness sucks or in any case will make Bob a frustrating person to talk about x with; Alice decides for some reason to talk about x with Bob anyway, but expresses that expectation of a bad reception in how she talks about x in a way that is needlessly brusque or defensive or dismissive, which then understandably sets Bob on edge regardless of whether Bob would be receptive to a non-skunked rhetorical approach.
You can look at that and say, see, Alice can't talk to Bob about x because he's immediately on edge about it. You can look at it and say, man, Alice was being kind of an asshole about x, no wonder Bob was on edge. You can say both. The two ideas become confounded in a way that's hard to sort out thoroughly unless you already know both Alice and Bob really, really well, and when we're talking about lots of people conversing on the internet in an open-ish setting, that's not usually going to be the case.
But one thing that can be generally fairly said is that Alice is going to be looking at it in a way that's sympathetic to Alice, and Bob likewise to Bob. And if Alice is the one deciding to broach an opinion she already expects to be taken badly, then (a) she's unlikely to be doing so because she thinks it's correct that it be taken badly, and (b) she's a lot more likely to be on the lookout for Bob's bad reaction than she is for assholery in her own delivery.
One of the things I find most difficult as a moderator about sorting out head-butting between people is that it's very, very rare that only one person behaved at all badly and almost nearly as rare that either person feels like they were the one acting more badly. And that's true even in cases where one person was pretty plainly being significantly more of an asshole than the other. Nobody ever really wants to hear "you were kind of being an asshole too"; they certainly don't want to hear "you were being the significantly bigger asshole". With the thankfully pretty rare exception of loud-and-proud self-declared genuine assholes, that's not how people think of themselves. Which is why it's a lot harder than it'd otherwise be to grapple with the fact that people actually do act a bit like assholes sometimes. Because they don't think they do, or that they do as much as they do, or that people aren't the bigger assholes in response.
How that comes back around to group dynamics and in- vs. out- opinions is complicated as hell, because with bigger groups you don't get rid of the difficulties of overly charitable self-perception or preconceived distrust of someone's position or opinion; all you do is layer on some further, even more abstract sets of the same ideas. It's one thing to think person A has a bad attitude about x; you can hash it out with A or not, and that's pretty much between the two of you and how you feel like spending your time that day. But when you then associate your opinion of A's attitude about x with A's-favorite-website's notional attitude about x, and import your worst impressions of A to that larger group, that's even messier and even harder to unpack. And if the preconception that Alice or Bob has a bad attitude about x can prompt unreflected-upon assholery as a defensive mechanism, the preconception that everybody Alice or Bob hangs out with has a bad attitude about x can prompt a much greater degree of that sort of assholery. All more or less excused or denied on the basis that, well, it's that they can't tolerate x.
posted by cortex at 10:47 PM on June 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
In my experience, the truth in aggregate is somewhere in the middle though it varies significantly from person to person, place to place, and topic to topic. One of the tricky parts of the (not uncommon) assumption that it's not the speaker's assholishness manner but the listener's intolerance of ideas that creates the speaker's bad reception is that, a lot of the time, the speaker simultaneously believes (probably truly much of the time!) that they are not an asshole, and expresses their preconceived expectation of a bad reception for their opinion or argument as needless assholery.
Alice expects Bob to be close-minded about x; Alice thinks Bob's expected close-mindedness sucks or in any case will make Bob a frustrating person to talk about x with; Alice decides for some reason to talk about x with Bob anyway, but expresses that expectation of a bad reception in how she talks about x in a way that is needlessly brusque or defensive or dismissive, which then understandably sets Bob on edge regardless of whether Bob would be receptive to a non-skunked rhetorical approach.
You can look at that and say, see, Alice can't talk to Bob about x because he's immediately on edge about it. You can look at it and say, man, Alice was being kind of an asshole about x, no wonder Bob was on edge. You can say both. The two ideas become confounded in a way that's hard to sort out thoroughly unless you already know both Alice and Bob really, really well, and when we're talking about lots of people conversing on the internet in an open-ish setting, that's not usually going to be the case.
But one thing that can be generally fairly said is that Alice is going to be looking at it in a way that's sympathetic to Alice, and Bob likewise to Bob. And if Alice is the one deciding to broach an opinion she already expects to be taken badly, then (a) she's unlikely to be doing so because she thinks it's correct that it be taken badly, and (b) she's a lot more likely to be on the lookout for Bob's bad reaction than she is for assholery in her own delivery.
One of the things I find most difficult as a moderator about sorting out head-butting between people is that it's very, very rare that only one person behaved at all badly and almost nearly as rare that either person feels like they were the one acting more badly. And that's true even in cases where one person was pretty plainly being significantly more of an asshole than the other. Nobody ever really wants to hear "you were kind of being an asshole too"; they certainly don't want to hear "you were being the significantly bigger asshole". With the thankfully pretty rare exception of loud-and-proud self-declared genuine assholes, that's not how people think of themselves. Which is why it's a lot harder than it'd otherwise be to grapple with the fact that people actually do act a bit like assholes sometimes. Because they don't think they do, or that they do as much as they do, or that people aren't the bigger assholes in response.
How that comes back around to group dynamics and in- vs. out- opinions is complicated as hell, because with bigger groups you don't get rid of the difficulties of overly charitable self-perception or preconceived distrust of someone's position or opinion; all you do is layer on some further, even more abstract sets of the same ideas. It's one thing to think person A has a bad attitude about x; you can hash it out with A or not, and that's pretty much between the two of you and how you feel like spending your time that day. But when you then associate your opinion of A's attitude about x with A's-favorite-website's notional attitude about x, and import your worst impressions of A to that larger group, that's even messier and even harder to unpack. And if the preconception that Alice or Bob has a bad attitude about x can prompt unreflected-upon assholery as a defensive mechanism, the preconception that everybody Alice or Bob hangs out with has a bad attitude about x can prompt a much greater degree of that sort of assholery. All more or less excused or denied on the basis that, well, it's that they can't tolerate x.
posted by cortex at 10:47 PM on June 1, 2015 [6 favorites]
I have never bought into the scolding of "pile ons". Yes, multiple people are disagreeing with the same one point, some of these people even expressing the same counterargument just rephrased in different ways. It's not the end of the world, and some of those counterarguments - even the rephrasings - can illustrate effective criticisms taken from different angles against said point
I will admit I'm pretty far on the opposite end of this viewpoint. If you were to go through my Metatalk history you will find several comments where I am railing against the behavior where multiple people take turns telling someone with a minority view that their beliefs are repugnant, generally long after the point has been sufficiently made that the vast majority of people on the site disagree with the opinion.
Despite some of the more high-minded defenses of pile-ons, such as the oft-repeated claim that it can be multiple people expressing different angles of the same viewpoint, to me, in practice it generally always just looks like some variation of this.
In my less charitable moments, I start to suspect that some people who are regulars in any particular web community start to look at their usernames as something of a personal brand that requires regular maintenance and updating. When someone is the 75th person to respond to a single opposing viewpoint it starts to look less like another interesting take on the same subject and more like, "IT IS IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE HERE KNOWS MY OFFICIAL STANCE ON THIS ISSUE".
posted by The Gooch at 7:09 AM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
I will admit I'm pretty far on the opposite end of this viewpoint. If you were to go through my Metatalk history you will find several comments where I am railing against the behavior where multiple people take turns telling someone with a minority view that their beliefs are repugnant, generally long after the point has been sufficiently made that the vast majority of people on the site disagree with the opinion.
Despite some of the more high-minded defenses of pile-ons, such as the oft-repeated claim that it can be multiple people expressing different angles of the same viewpoint, to me, in practice it generally always just looks like some variation of this.
In my less charitable moments, I start to suspect that some people who are regulars in any particular web community start to look at their usernames as something of a personal brand that requires regular maintenance and updating. When someone is the 75th person to respond to a single opposing viewpoint it starts to look less like another interesting take on the same subject and more like, "IT IS IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE HERE KNOWS MY OFFICIAL STANCE ON THIS ISSUE".
posted by The Gooch at 7:09 AM on June 2, 2015 [1 favorite]
When someone is the 75th person to respond to a single opposing viewpoint it starts to look less like another interesting take on the same subject and more like, "IT IS IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE HERE KNOWS MY OFFICIAL STANCE ON THIS ISSUE".
We talked about this in one of the big Metatalk threads recently--not everyone approaches conversation as debate. If you find yourself in the minority view point, what looks like an echo chamber to you can be a discussion at a higher level of nuance than the conversation you're able to have if you don't agree about the base premises of the majority. The absence of an AGREE/DISAGREE framing doesn't mean there is no disagreement.
I do think it's tricky with pileons, because it's not really helpful unless you're abstracting the discussion away from the specific poster. But assuming everyone who pops in to say "I agree, and..." to the majority viewpoint is just maintaining a brand or posting out of obligation seems like a cynical and uncharitable take.
posted by almostmanda at 9:02 AM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
We talked about this in one of the big Metatalk threads recently--not everyone approaches conversation as debate. If you find yourself in the minority view point, what looks like an echo chamber to you can be a discussion at a higher level of nuance than the conversation you're able to have if you don't agree about the base premises of the majority. The absence of an AGREE/DISAGREE framing doesn't mean there is no disagreement.
I do think it's tricky with pileons, because it's not really helpful unless you're abstracting the discussion away from the specific poster. But assuming everyone who pops in to say "I agree, and..." to the majority viewpoint is just maintaining a brand or posting out of obligation seems like a cynical and uncharitable take.
posted by almostmanda at 9:02 AM on June 2, 2015 [2 favorites]
« Older #CallMeCaitlyn | here I come, taking the floor to recite a page of... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by saeculorum at 12:55 PM on June 1, 2015 [6 favorites]