Anatomy of an internet argument

> There’s a misconception that good faith discussion only happens in close-knit communities like LessWrong or HackerNews.

In my experience, discussions about more controversial topics here are exactly as disgusting as they are on any other forum. Which makes sense, because technologically, this place is exactly like any other forum.

> The reality I’m looking at here is that ~everyone on the internet is rational AND is arguing in good faith. (...) "people suck/are bad/evil/stupid" (...) is a very difficult way to live life, it’s also just flat out false.

The approach I'm going to use for debuking this is going to be semantics-play and claiming that your examples are cherry-picked. I'll paraphrase 2 X (formerly Twitter) conversations for this that I just hit recently. I'm paraphrasing because I lost the links. You'll unfortunately just have to take my word for this.

Conversation #1:

OP: You should drink alcohol! When are you going to drink alcohol if not now? 18-29 are your prime drinking years, your body is made to process alcohol at this age. You should never abstinate. You should take at least 12 shots every week."

Apart from being blatantly terrible health advice, this is also logically unsound. The OP very clearly cannot prove or demonstrate that the body is made to process alcohol in this age range. What he could prove/demonstrate is that in this age range, the body handles it best, which is a very different thing.

Commenter 1: I disagree, it's really bad for your body, blah blah blah.

OP: You're a loser, and look at me I'm more fit than you (posts unsavory picture of commenter 1, and a "good" one of themselves).

Commenter 1: posts picture of themselves being visibly more fit than OP.

OP:

Commenter 2: yeah but you're a loser

If this article's author's takeaway from this is that Commenter 1 didn't try to argue in a good manner, that is profoundly depressing. Very clearly OP and Commenter 2 had zero intention in making a good faith argument, or recognizing themselves in the wrong. They were deliberately acting like "cool" assholes.

Conversation #2:

OP: post about Apple and privacy

Commenter 1: whenever I talk about I get recommended them in ads immediately after. How can Apple have top notch privacy if this happens?

Commenter 2: argues that Commenter 1 searched for said and just doesn't realize, therefore he's dumb, therefore Apple good

Once again, there was no attempt at a good faith conversation. Possibly from either of them. Join in, and you'll have to fend off two immature idiots instead of one.

What I'm trying to get at here is that regardless of whether these people are actual assholes or are just acting like one, it doesn't really matter. I'll go on these platforms and be hit with their misery regardless. Them being actually goody two shoes is unimportant, if all I can ever interact with is their asshole selves. Either the platform (X, formerly Twitter) gets this kind of behavior out of people, or being on the internet in general does. Regardless, these people are not worth anyone's time.

Despite this, I will say that I do highly agree that this view is on its own extremely miserable as well. I've been having an extreme difficulty connecting with people due to the many years of insufferable conversations like this, and have abandoned most platforms by this point also. Inviting me to put in even more effort isn't super tantalizing either.

I really don't think this is just a "language" thing people can or should just figure out. It's a bit like thinking that you can do hard drugs if you just control yourself - ignoring of course that controlling yourself is the very thing the more serious substances gradually disintegrate. Is it true that you can be super into, idk, heroin, if you just pay attention? Sure I guess. Is it what's overwhelmingly likely to happen? No. And it has very little to do with you the "person" inside. It's biochemistry.

The second example is just wishful thinking. I bet even if KJ had responded with the author's way, axial would have still blocked them after several exchanges.

Of course I might be wrong. Perhaps I'm just not as good at argumenting as the author.

But that means that the content will be tuned to what the author thinks will most likely produce a reaction. Some audiences respond well to insults, others not so much.

I have a minor gripe though, there’s a contradiction in the writing. “ There’s a misconception that good faith discussion only happens in close-knit…”

And then just a few paragraphs later

“If you’re not willing to do this, then you’re not arguing in good faith in my book.“ but this is generally the default behaviour of people on the internet and the article is trying to convince you, and teach you how not to be like that. So I think indeed, good faith arguments pretty much don’t happen on the internet with rare exceptions. It’s not a misconception unless the misconception is taken as good faith arguments literally never happen except in close knit communities, but who believes that?

Trying to boil this down to the quality of the faith is also a rather immature response. To frame things this way isn't to accept that there are different viewpoints other than your own, it's just to assert a claim that your viewpoints are correct, and that while other view points might exist, they are wrong. Your assessment of what is a good faith or what is a bad faith argument likely has little to do with the quality of the arguments involved, and instead will somehow miraculously align with your own world view at a rather implausible rate.

If you want to argue with people in public, the only thing you should really be concerned about is stating your best case. If you do that then you've achieved the only mature goals that you could possibly attach to public arguing, and whether people are convinced by it or not is up to them.