queue hundreds of hn commentators
cue
No, we're forming a line to take our turn like civilized internets.
You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
41–50 of 226 posts
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#42Great advice.
I have tried this often, while it is really useful, sometimes it isn't enough. What I found more useful a good chunk of the time (on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit..) is to start blocking people. There are some people that are so far off the mark that what they say not only gets in the way, it actively erodes the quality of what's out there. I've found it far more beneficial than just shrugging and moving on.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I'm going to disagree here. I've learned quite a lot from internet arguments. Admittedly, the majority of it was from attempting to argue positions I don't hold. You're taking it as a given that the only goal of an argument is to convince…
> there can be value in making an argument specifically in bettering your own understanding of a point If you want someone to educate you, the polite thing to do is ask . This kind of "stealth learning" where you say things you don't believe, expecting to learn via corrections, is inconsiderate and inefficient. I know people who have lost practically all of their friends because they couldn't bring themselves to ackn…
There are different forms of argumentation and they have a different tone that maybe doesn't come through so well on the internet without context. I dislike the debate club mentality where arguments are more like a spectator sport than a deliberation most of all, but there are less combatative forms of arguments that are really more like questions with extra scaffolding. I think all people are weakly informed and weakly opinionated about a different subset of most things and it's not always clear when you are in an environment with people who aren't also weakly informed and weakly opinionated. Arguments of the form "I believe this" and "here are my (maybe not so great) reasons" can be a reasonable starting point for laying out your prior knowledge and biases. Making it clear that it is only a weakly held belief is an art form, though, and I can understand why someone might omit that step in an (assumed to be) hostile environment. It's one of the reasons why I think the choice of forum matters. It can be easier to be more open about what you don't know if you aren't subconsciously worried about being attacked for it.
As you said, (I'm paraphrasing) there are often better ways to go about things.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On the internet, it is usually very clear that you will accomplish nothing except maybe introduce receptive onlookers to a new idea, so the choice to minimize engagement is easy. I'm going to disagree here. I've learned quite a lot from internet arguments. Admittedly, the majority of it was from attempting to argue positions I don't hold. You're taking it as a given that the only goal of an argument is to convince…
You're not wrong. You can think of internet arguments as a method of developing a thought and collecting counterarguments in a real environment to refine it. The choice of forum affects the quality of the counterargument though, and developing a thought can be done with a crowd more likely to give constructive feedback. If some random website works for you, that's fine. My statement is more that if you're interested…
I can't remember the exact origins of it, but I think it was a tweet that was essentially:
No one will remember who won an argument on the internet, they'll just remember that everyone involved is the kind of person who gets in arguments on the internet.
I'm not even sure that's really limited to just the internet either - outside of very niche cases, you don't win any argument, you just become known as someone who likes to argue, and thus you need to decide if this is a venue you want to become known as someone who argues about things. There's venues that may be good, wholesome, and useful, but it's been an axiom that's definitely stopped me from contributing to a lot of arguments.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#45Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#46Reddit is great because someone can says 1 + 1 = 3, get fifty upvotes, you can point out that it's actually 2, get downvoted into oblivion, and then some other idiot will come along and say it's 4
And they're right insofar as it is not 3.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#47I may not have to but I will.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#48[deleted]
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#49I really struggle with this; to this day I haven't found a good resolution. I'd say by analogy you could also say: "You don't have to pursue people romantically." It's really, really true: you don't. No one will blame you for keeping to yourself. In many settings it may even be better (example: a club, where the club organizers find the drama caused by romantic entanglements annoying). But there's a problem behind th…
> I really struggle with this; to this day I haven't found a good resolution.
For me, if somebody has posted something that's factually wrong and it's not much trouble I'll try to post a correction. There's little harm in that and maybe my correction gets corrected and I learn something new!
The trick is knowing when to walk away so you're not caught up in bad faith arguments against facts, and you're not letting people who are just argumentative or 'fact/reality resistant' rope you into an emotional investment over internet bickering. Especially when it comes to "attacks" on your work or your employer. Don't take anything personally.
I know you can't always change people's minds with evidence (although I think sometimes too much is made of the backfire effect), but even if you fail to convince the person you respond to it's nice to not leave actually false information uncorrected for everyone else who comes across the discussion. Leaving lies and disinformation around unchallenged seems like a bad idea too. I just try not to let it eat up too much time or emotional energy.
Re: You don't have to engage with people on the Internet
#50[flagged]