Arguing on the Internet is like.....

[lostinidlewonder]

What do you think it is like? I mean most of us here have first hand experience of what useless arguments are like on pianostreet, there are even some currently running at this moment of posting.

If you are not part of the argument and you try to understand both sides of the story, often you will realize that neither really has a point and both are talking another language to one another thinking that they are actually having a constructive discussion. Talking past one another is a wonderful technique people use in internet arguments.



Sometimes when you try to look at both sides of the story both really are short sighted in their views or lacking in normal thinking standards. So no matter which ones wins both are winning something that is really functioning at a lesser level.

[Bob]

It's like... what you make of it.. dude.  An' stuff.

[ted]

Yes, that's why I can't be bothered arguing any more. Mind you, I never argued much at the best of times because I'm not very good at debating anything. I usually think of an appropriate riposte three weeks after the event.

The peculiar thing is that I have been in gatherings where people of widely diverging taste, musical outlook and philosophy have been present and we all voice very strong opinions. But the sort of bad-tempered nonsense we see on the internet just doesn't occur in real-life discussions. We all have a chuckle and a few drinks and marvel at the diversity of our experience. If someone talked and acted in person in the aggressive internet manner I think he or she would be considered slightly loopy.

It is certainly a peculiar phenomenon and I do not  profess to understand why it happens.

[keyboardclass]

Anybody else find that last picture/comment in poor taste?

Here's my favourite:

[jesc]

But the sort of bad-tempered nonsense we see on the internet just doesn't occur in real-life discussions.

True. Let's just hope that the spread of the digital age will not evolve to the point that people will behave in real life like they do on the internet. (Maybe that will be one of the signs that the end of the world is near lol)

That's just me being cynical and thinking of worse things to happen in the future...

BTW cute little girl on the second pic

[pianisten1989]

I've tried to join a few of them (and, unfortunately, been one of the two sides in a few), but is god damn impossible! You somehow get sucked into it if you respond.
Well, hopefully this whole thing ends soon, so pianostreet can get back to normal, cause this sucks...

Here's another one btw

[naumdar]

It's really one of the downsides to the wonderful world of the internet - do you allow misinformation at its best and belligerent idiocy at its worst to go unanswered or do you risk getting sucked in to an uncivil exchange with people who have no regard for being polite?

It can really ruin your day - it's the kind of the thing that for me, sticks in the back of my mind.

I really try to avoid it. I just absolutely hate rudeness.

Take the depression thread that was recently posted - all it takes is one rude response from someone who disagrees with a suggestion/answer and the battle begins, it is really unpleasant.

Just accept a difference opinion, present your own politely and be civil. I do not understand why this is so difficult for so many people.
I really think it has something to do with the possiblity that some people turn to interaction online because they are isolated for one reason or another, or cut off from people with their interests.

Myself, I happen to be pretty busy with work and the many interests I have and I have few contacts with classical musicians anymore. I'm here to gain some exposure and inspiration to keep me practicing with everything I have going on.

What's scary are the people who spend longer on the forums than they do behind the keys. I've unforunately met people like that on several forums pertaining to the subject.

It's like some people live to argue on the internet.

My advice is to avoid rude people and in general, avoid people who write like they speak. That sounds condescending and a little elitist, but I'm really not going to gain a lot from talking to people who aren't going to take the time to write descently. I'm talking about this type of exchange:

naumdar says:
I've never been in love with Beethoven.

U like weird French composers no one listens to and u don't like Beethoven? Really? R u fkn serious? 

That's a cue to move on.

[keyboardclass]

people who aren't going to take the time to write descently.

[naumdar]

hah! Ok - you got me there, decently.

I should have added, that there is a middle ground between people who speak like they type and then people who give you hell for incorrect spelling.

I will concede there is something hilarious about the context of a spelling error when complaining about the way others type.

[keyboardclass]

Hey, no sweat. 

[littletune]

I think it's much better to be retarded than to be a person who thinks they're the best and the greatest and worth more than other people and beings!!!!!!!!!! Because it's just like the other way around: the people who think they're better than others are really the worst and not worth very much. And that's really bad cause there are really a lot of people like that and they make me sick!! And they make me hate people! I would for sure rather be a nice "retarded" person than the smartest person in the universe who thinks they're worth more than others!!!!!!!!! Disgusting people!!!! 

[pianowolfi]

Anybody else find that last picture/comment in poor taste?

Yes of course! It eventually shows how retarded those are who design such pictures/comments.

P.S. I am assuming we're talking about this one:



Certainly one of the most stupid and sad things I have come across on the internet.

[thalbergmad]

I would for sure rather be a nice "retarded" person than the smartest person in the universe who thinks they're worth more than others!!!!!!!!!

Wise words little one.

I have always enjoyed being retarded but nice.

Thal

[pianowolfi]

Wise words little one.

I have always enjoyed being retarded but nice.

Thal

Haha, that shows that you are in fact very intelligent, I think

[keyboardclass]

Haha, that shows that you are in fact very intelligent, I think

In that case I too am retarded!

[lostinidlewonder]

When I studied English literature we would often be subjected to politically incorrect images that where quite confronting. However you can look past that and interpret it on another level. Put someone who competes in the special olympics into the real olympics and they wont stand a chance, just as some people who argue stupid things on the internet if you put them up against the normal knowledge they will be crushed.

[thalbergmad]

Certainly one of the most stupid and sad things I have come across on the internet.

Concerning matters relating to the Olympics, allow me to introduce you to the funniest.

[pianowolfi]

Concerning matters relating to the Olympics, allow me to introduce you to the funniest.

haha that made me rofl  

hmmm, well perhaps it's a bit of a precipice...

where does the fun end and where does "political incorrectness" start? 

[countrymath]

In that case I too am retarded!

You're wrong!

Lets start  arguing

[ahinton]

You're wrong!

Lets start  arguing

But this thread isn't solely about arguing - it's about arguing on the internet and inviting comparatives for this practice. I'm not about to offer any such comparatives here, but I would nevertheless submit that arguing over the internet ought to be no different to arguing in any other context or by any other communicative means - but then, as someone who writes emails just as he would write "ordinary" letters, I suppose I would "argue" that, would I not?...

Best,

Alistair

[naumdar]

But this thread isn't solely about arguing - it's about arguing on the internet and inviting comparatives for this practice.

One thing that really bothers me, is when people sparse every line written and then write another one or two lines.

I'm not about to offer any such comparatives here, but I would nevertheless submit that arguing over the internet ought to be no different to arguing in any other context or by any other communicative means -

Sometimes it can be effective if someone is making organized points, but when its done sentence by sentence it comes across like mockery, especially when retorted by a smartass answer, and its a tactic that can't be done (thankfully) in normal discussion.

but then,

and then

as someone who writes emails

it's even more annoying when you cant' respond

just as he would write "ordinary" letters,

because now not only is your writing fragmented, but so is the response.

I suppose I would "argue" that, would I not?...

I'm sure you get the point Sorry to use cut up your post as an example. I wouldn't mind the arguing if it was in the form of indepenently constructed ideas just as you would in ordinary letters or even emails as you say.

[ahinton]

One thing that really bothers me, is when people sparse every line written and then write another one or two lines.

Your presumably intended parsing is all too sparse, it would seem...

Sometimes it can be effective if someone is making organized points, but when its done sentence by sentence it comes across like mockery

Firstly, can you tell the difference? (presumably not, even when there might be such a difference); secondly, don't forget that apostrophe in "its".

and then it's even more annoying when you cant' respond

Who can't respond? To waht - oh, and this time you have the requisite apostrophe, but in the wrong place, sadly...

because now not only is your writing fragmented, but so is the response.

My writing is not of itself fragmented, but if you choose to excerpt fragments therefrom, the results will of course risk seeming to be fragmented, but by you, not me.

I wouldn't mind the arguing if it was in the form of indepenently constructed ideas just as you would in ordinary letters or even emails as you say.

You wouldn't? Fine! - though "indepenently" is an adverb with which I have yet to become familiar.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Some things that cause arguments online:

-Being picky.

-Tagging people.

- Stating what someone else thinks without really knowing that they think.
 

Arguments on the internet or with letters I feel are very different to arguments you would have in person. Arguments on the internet and letters can have much more thought put into them, you can construct what you say with a lot more safety guards. When in person you have to think on your feet, if you go a wrong direction you can't delete it and paste something else.

Also people are usually a lot more relaxed when arguing in person, when you are on the internet the control of emotion is usually a lot less or carefully controlled in a manner to channel a negative calculated context in order to cause maximum response from others. You only have to have read a few hoax emails sent you about sick people or other crap, a recent example might be www.birthornot.com

So we find something very interesting on the internet where people pretend to be someone else. They create situations and live this 2nd personality online. There are countless people doing this online, it is just everywhere it is a really interesting internet phenomenon. However, many people tend to pretend to be a personality that draws as much attention to themselves as possible and usually this is through shocking people and encouraging debate. Why it happens I am sure holds various reasons but one main reason must be because of the lack of attention they get in their real life.

[ahinton]

Some things that cause arguments online:

-Being picky.

-Tagging people.

- Stating what someone else thinks without really knowing that they think.

At the risk of being "picky" myself(!), do you mean "knowing that they think" or "knowing what they think"? (I presume the latter)...
 

Arguments on the internet or with letters I feel are very different to arguments you would have in person. Arguments on the internet and letters can have much more thought put into them, you can construct what you say with a lot more safety guards. When in person you have to think on your feet, if you go a wrong direction you can't delete it and paste something else.

That's very true, of course, although some people - barristers in particular, perhaps - can and sometimes do develop their skills in face to face argument to such an extent that they become quite alarmingly closer to written cut-and-thrust than most of us can manage; it's a kind of professional quick-wittedness born of the ability (essential for lawyers appearing in court) to see and present at least two sides of such an argument.
 

Also people are usually a lot more relaxed when arguing in person, when you are on the internet the control of emotion is usually a lot less or carefully controlled in a manner to channel a negative calculated context in order to cause maximum response from others.

I'm not convinced that this is always the case; face-to-face arguments allow for the possibility that either side or both sides winds up the other at various speeds.

So we find something very interesting on the internet where people pretend to be someone else. They create situations and live this 2nd personality online. There are countless people doing this online, it is just everywhere it is a really interesting internet phenomenon. However, many people tend to pretend to be a personality that draws as much attention to themselves as possible and usually this is through shocking people and encouraging debate. Why it happens I am sure holds various reasons but one main reason must be because of the lack of attention they get in their real life.

This is certainly true, although one could, once again, argue that it's equally true of exchanges of correspondence that are done using older technology (i.e. pen and paper).

For the sake of completeness, one could also usefully consider comparing face-to-face arguments with those conducted over the telephone - or, indeed, in between these two, those conducted using such facilities as Skype.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

At the risk of being "picky" myself(!), do you mean "knowing that they think" or "knowing what they think"? (I presume the latter)...

I don't think asking for clarification is picky at all, although I'm sure others could feel that way in a given circumstance. There is a clear distinction in my mind at least in what I "know" and "think". When I can quote peoples exact words I can restate what they say and post my statements on what they think or pose questions to their thoughts on the given issue, if I am wrong when I restate their idea they can clarify their own quote I am inspecting. I "know" there will be no confusion if both parties are interested in constructive discussion because we are interested in clarifying a specific issue. However I find that there are misunderstandings which can be very constructive and set up grounds for interesting discussion or thought but only once the other person clarifies their original stance.

Sometimes you get people reading a response then interpreting it in their own way without caring about what is exactly meant. Some actually go so far as to define your thoughts in terms of what they "think they know" (as opposed to "knowing you know" what the other person thinks which usually requires an exchange of elaborations on both sides until the situation becomes clarified somewhat) and then proceed to argue on that basis.

If they would find out what you think by asking for clarification there would be not so much argument and confusion. Some people respond to something that might be written in a general form and then make interpretations as to what it means and thus, even though it is nothing of what the initial poster actually believes, the responder tangents the conversation by restating what the poster thinks in terms of their own thoughts with no real consideration for searching for the truth, the initial poster then can start debating the wrongly interpreted idea and the process continues on and on. In the "theory of technique is dead" thread most posts do not actually define their generalized comments but each is responding to the other as if they know exactly what the interpretation of the generalisation is thus the thread go off into a spin of confusion with no real point to the discussion.

So I guess after all that typing I could sum it up by: What you know and think are two different things, arguments often happen when one mixes what they think with what they know. To know what the other person is talking about one sometimes needs to ask for clarification (there is no need for clarification if someone says something obviously wrong), through the clarification this sets us up for constructive debate. We must endeavor to clarify generalisations if they become an issue of debate, failure to do so merely causes useless argument.

....some people - barristers in particular, perhaps - can and sometimes do develop their skills in face to face argument to such an extent that they become quite alarmingly closer to written cut-and-thrust than most of us can manage; it's a kind of professional quick-wittedness born of the ability (essential for lawyers appearing in court) to see and present at least two sides of such an argument.

Yes I agree that there are some of us who can break up an argument and get to the main points immediately without wasting time during oral debate. The thing with face to face discussion is that you often argue a single main point and work around that. That single point may cause other questions to pop up but each one relates to the main question at hand in effective debate (ineffective of course tangents into irrelevance or less relevance). Online however and in writing, we tend to handle multiple issues at once, it tends to be more complicated but slower in the fact that multiple issues must wait for each response, like many downloads working at the same time

Often when multiple issues are debated many become ignored and focus is placed elsewhere. Irrelevant or small issue can become the main point of online debate because with the internet you have so many different types of people, nationalities (and I believe your native language effects how you think but that is an issue we could write a lot about and I will not suffer doing that here), devoting time to respond to all sorts of different things relevant or not.

There is no real judge jury or real observer physically in front of your to convince when arguing issues online, so being relevant really doesn't matter (of course one can get into semantics of what is relevant but that is irrelevant in my mind If we had infinite time in our life it would be true that nothing is irrelevant, however we are mortals with limited time, best not to waste your time doing irrelevant things, unless you really need it.... I guess some people could need it who's to say they don't?! It's just ineffective, inefficient use of your mind and time but some people like that. All of us waste our time doing all sorts of useless things, the internet seems to have not escaped us observing people doing just that. I want serious discussion and want to constructively use my time, but I have to deal with those who just want to waste their time doing irrelevant things. But I don't hate these time wasting people, since I myself like to waste time just as all of us do, although when I procrastinate I try not to waste other peoples time!

[naumdar]

Related to this subject - one of my favorite aspects of Thomas Harris' writing of Hannibal Lector was his abhorrence for rudeness, and of course his prescribed remedies.

[lostinidlewonder]

Related to this subject - one of my favorite aspects of Thomas Harris' writing of Hannibal Lector was his abhorrence for rudeness, and of course his prescribed remedies.

I've always found it good manners to pick someones brain.... just not literally