Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anatomy of an internet argument

defenderofthebasic.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#71

Post by randomdata »

lynx23 wrote: post #49
randomdata wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. Those who have settled on some kind of final truth stop talking about it. Topics become boring once you are sure there is nothing left to be convinced of. If someone is wanting to talk about a subject, they are in a state of being unsure and are looking to be convinced of something other than what they are currently thinking. But rarely is a topic so simple that "X is Y"; "no X is Z" provides enough information…

I clearly perceive the world differently from you. Sure, once an argument is over, its boring to continue, thats pretty much a no-brainer. But to my experience, people discuss topics not because they are unsure, but because they basically do virtue-signalling by stating their position on the topic. But almost nobody is interested to actually change their position or, heaven forbid, learn something.

Virtue signal to whom, exactly? If nobody is interested in learning of or changing their opinion of your virtue...

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#72

Post by ericyd »

I think the key point in this post is actually right at the end where the author states that their goal is always to understand the other person.

If that's your goal, I agree it's usually pretty easy to avoid flame wars and get people to talk in respectful ways.

For me it often isn't worth it to spend time trying to build understanding of anonymous actors online. But, I think some of these recommendations carry into IRL discussions too. The central question for me is typically not "how can I make this civil" but rather "how much effort do I want to put into this argument?"

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#73

Post by tempodox »

TZubiri wrote: post #50
niemandhier wrote: post #44

I think the approach the author is suggesting is the right one but for abdifferent reason. The most important person in an internet argument is the uninvolved passer-by, at least in those cases that make me argue publicly at length with strangers. I might never be able to convince the person I am discussing with, but I might convince the audience.

Interesting. In that case offering a submissive message may mollify the interlocutor in exchange for a response, but at the cost of signalling to other readers that their position is sensible. My grandma used to say that arguing something is the greatest concession. Consider A: -Earth is flat - it is not, earth is round - ya it is, john doe proved it - ok sorry for not understanding could you please explain what john…

I feel reminded of Mark Twain:

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#74

Post by randomdata »

derekbreden wrote: post #46
xscott wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your honesty is refreshing, but the result is depressing. It sure would be nice to have a place where you could discuss ideas without it being an argument, or to offer helpful suggestions to people without them treating it like you insulted their intelligence.

> It sure would be nice to have a place where you could discuss ideas without it being an argument 100% Arguments result in walking away, the relationship ends before hardly any information is exchanged. If either side wants an argument, it can be difficult to avoid. If both sides are seeking understanding, it becomes very easy to exchange a lot of information and for all to learn a great deal, even as they still dis…

> I would very much like to find (or create) forum(s) for discussions seeking understanding instead of arguments seeking to “win” wars or battles.

The users on chatgpt.com are quite good at staying cordial and come off as if they want to seek a genuine understanding. Granted, its UI is a little different from the traditional forum, only occasionally seeing additional users reply but being mostly geared to one-on-one interaction. That said, most discussions on more traditional forums like this one end up branching off into one-on-one discussions anyway, so I am not sure that is a terribly meaningful difference at the end of the day.

> My own attempts have shown the potential audience is small to non existent

Said discussion community has quite possibly become the most popular place for online discussion, so I am not sure about that. Understandably bootstrapping such a service is hard, though. "If you build it, they will come" only happens in the movies.

"Be careful of what you wish for", though. While what you describe sounds nice in theory, it ends up feeling rather sterile when you don't have all the quirkiness of the so-called battles. That's what brings me back here, and deep down that is probably why you are here too.

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#75

Post by cryptopian »

m-i-l wrote: post #67
TZubiri wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. In that case offering a submissive message may mollify the interlocutor in exchange for a response, but at the cost of signalling to other readers that their position is sensible. My grandma used to say that arguing something is the greatest concession. Consider A: -Earth is flat - it is not, earth is round - ya it is, john doe proved it - ok sorry for not understanding could you please explain what john…

> Who here thinks twitter is a platform for rational discourse? That's the elephant in the room here. The site formerly known as Twitter is optimised to maximise engagement, and conflict typically generates much more engagement than co-operation. It'd be like trying to have a friendly discussion to work out your differences with your opponent in a boxing ring, surrounded by large crowd who have been whipped up by the…

I've noticed that certain Twitter behaviours are popping up on Bluesky. It's being fought against by the early adopters, but fundamentally, the mechanics of a platform are going to massively influence how arguments happen. It still allows replies and quote-reposts to divorce a comment from its context. It's still global and public by default so users are always in performance mode. What it doesn't have yet, that Twitter does, is sorting of comments by engagement. That always had the effect of presenting responses to an argument with the most inflammatory takes first.

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#76

Post by Y_Y »

xamde wrote: post #69
TZubiri wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. In that case offering a submissive message may mollify the interlocutor in exchange for a response, but at the cost of signalling to other readers that their position is sensible. My grandma used to say that arguing something is the greatest concession. Consider A: -Earth is flat - it is not, earth is round - ya it is, john doe proved it - ok sorry for not understanding could you please explain what john…

> it all comes down to whether you view the internet as the greek agora or the roman circus. The best summary I've ever read about the internet

I've often suspected internet arguers of being agoraphobic.

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#77

Post by karmonhardan »

m-i-l wrote: post #67
TZubiri wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. In that case offering a submissive message may mollify the interlocutor in exchange for a response, but at the cost of signalling to other readers that their position is sensible. My grandma used to say that arguing something is the greatest concession. Consider A: -Earth is flat - it is not, earth is round - ya it is, john doe proved it - ok sorry for not understanding could you please explain what john…

> Who here thinks twitter is a platform for rational discourse? That's the elephant in the room here. The site formerly known as Twitter is optimised to maximise engagement, and conflict typically generates much more engagement than co-operation. It'd be like trying to have a friendly discussion to work out your differences with your opponent in a boxing ring, surrounded by large crowd who have been whipped up by the…

Reddit where upvotes are weighted by your similarity or difference to the target uploader or commenter. People who have different sentiments, identities, writing styles, etc. will boost your post faster than people who are similar. Downvotes count for less, in the same vein. Discourse approaches a mean of respectability and sentiment. A few years down the road, sell analysis of users' corpus as de facto background checks.

Or

Something something LinkedIn.

I suppose both approaches have their own problems.

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#79

Post by nickpsecurity »

otherme123 wrote: post #17
nickpsecurity wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Not going to discuss with you about evolution, but about your last "dissent is not allowed" I would like to remind you that evolution theory was born from dissent, rejected at first and then slowly being accepted as the most probable scientific explanation for the pool of evidence available. The same is true for another theory like the continental drift. Dissent is not only allowed, but one of the main drivers of sci…

That’s a good point. Evolution had an uphill battle early on before many scientists accepted it. Dissent does help in many areas. It’s allowed within evolution, but not against it. No dissent is allowed contradicting the entire theory.

We have to teach it like it’s an observed fact, anyone disagreeing is mocked, and it’s blended into tons of topics with no evidence it happened. People just start saying something is an evolutionary X or Y happened over millions of years with no proof of this.

That a theory with many articles of faith becomes the lens through which observed facts are reshaped is more like philosophy or religion. That it can’t be contradicted and its proponents rooted out all alternatives. This shows it’s built on group or political power, not the scientific method.

Re: Anatomy of an internet argument

#80

Post by diggan »

niemandhier wrote: post #44

I think the approach the author is suggesting is the right one but for abdifferent reason. The most important person in an internet argument is the uninvolved passer-by, at least in those cases that make me argue publicly at length with strangers. I might never be able to convince the person I am discussing with, but I might convince the audience.

> I might never be able to convince the person I am discussing with, but I might convince the audience.

Reading the comments around this blogpost here on in other places, I feel like I'm almost alone in not trying to convince anyone when I argue with strangers online (most of the times), neither the other person I'm discussing with, or others who might be reading.

I mostly reply because there are unanswered questions that if answered, might teach me something new. Most of the times I'm just seeking understanding from both sides, not convincing the other.

Do most people argue on the internet with strangers in order to convince others of something? If so, how does your success rate look like? I probably feel like aiming for that would be futile at best.

Post reply on HN