Hold the Mayo

April 18, 2004

Digital Cannot Change Debate

I wrote a post earlier in the election season about the Al Franken incident at a Howard Dean campaign appearance. I didn't comment on what happened, I focused on the very different accounts of the event from different news outlets. In the comments someone asked

Some people are claiming that it was Al who was the aggressor and should be booked for assault. What do you make of that?

To which I responded

Should Franken be arrested for assault? If what he did fits the definition of assault, absolutely.

This lead to an exchange between myself and a commenter named Bill. Bill felt that I had judged Franken guilty. After a few exchanges I pointed out that what I wrote was that if Franken's actions could be classified as assault then his celebrity status should not prevent his arrest. Bill's last comment was

Stephen
Well said, and yes I do think that anyone who commits assault should be subject to the full weight of the law. I must admit that this is the first rational interchange I have ever had on the net. I had heard so much about the value of the internet in the exchange of views - pretty disappointing at most sites. So moving on to meatier matters. What is your opinion on George W. Bush?
Bill

I responded to Bill in email noting that he had given me topics for two posts. What's wrong with debate on the internet? and what do I think of George Bush? Today I'll tackle internet debate.

There is the belief that because it is in a written form, online debate will somehow be more rational and more civilized. That people will be more thoughtful before they hit the "post button" than they might be before opening their mouths. The truth is, that the medium will not change the messenger. An irrational idiot in a verbal debate will be an irrational idiot in a written debate. What the internet does for debate is to open it up a larger number of people. From what I, and Bill, have seen there are a good number of irrational idiots on-line.

Ad to this a level of anonymity that is impossible in a face to face debate and there is a bit of a sense of anything goes. With the shield of a screen name, almost anyone can say any outrageous thing that pops into their head. Before you know it, the whole debate has become a massive digital parody of the O'Rielly Factor. With almost everyone seeking not to advance the debate but to slam the person 4 comments prior.

Debate on the internet becomes irrational, mean spirited and meaningless because there are people out there who make it that way - on purpose. We call them Trolls. A month or so ago I was reading through the comments on a post over at Eject! Eject! Eject!. It was not one of Bill Whittle's major posts, it was a short note saying a new series would be starting soon. There were over 150 comments! Interspersed throughout all the anticipatory comments from those looking forward to the new series, there was one guy posting a series of rants about Richard Pearle. It was interesting to watch the reactions. At first people just ignored the guy and posted what they came to say. But as he persisted people began to get offended and responded accordingly. Eventually the idiots comments were deleted. He had changed IP addresses several times during the episode so blocking him was difficult.

The bottom line is, debate on the internet is not as rational and civilized as we might like it to be because people are not as rational and civilized as we might like them to be. The fact that the debate is taking place on-line is not going to change that. The challenge is to find the places where rational debate happens and where civilized people go.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 10:37 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment

1 Excellent points! I get into trouble when I attempt a rational debate and run smack into the invisible "no dissent" wall. If I don't agree with the author, then I must be a troll.

Many times, I will be ignored while other commenters talk around me, making comments about me without directly communicating. It can be infuriating, and sometimes it's very tempting to become the namecalling troll they want to see.

Posted by: Ted at April 18, 2004 11:55 AM (ZjSa7)

2 I think there are just people - a lot of people - who are not open to rational debate. They are just unwilling to even listen to anything anyone had to say. I think they are unwilling and unable to separate an ideological disagreement from a personal attack.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at April 18, 2004 02:53 PM (4819r)

3 Amen. Even rational folks have an irrational moment once in a while. This is why "preview is our friend."

But you are right about some people being eiher incapable of, or unwilling to engage in a rational debate. More's the pity. They only serve to discredit their own point of view.

Posted by: Mamamontezz at April 24, 2004 04:29 PM (rZmE1)

4 I think most people who wind up turning into trolls (1) want to say something but (2) don't really have anything of particular value to say, yet (3) haven't learned -- and may not be able to learn -- that not having anything of particular value to say is a damned good reason not to say it.

For those able and willing to learn how to make worthwhile comments, the learning curve may often be longer than the tolerance threshold of the more experienced commenters, who quite rightly tire of hearing the same empty "points" raised repeatedly no matter how often they have tried to address them in the past.

As in all things, the best way is to listen more than you speak, read more than you write, and think more than you emote.

Posted by: McGehee at April 25, 2004 08:20 AM (lGoQn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment