caerula's Diaryland Diary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fallacy will get you nowhere Proceed with caution. Falling rant ahead. Disclaimer: if you think I'm talking about you, I'm probably not. I'm aware that I'm pretty much preaching to the choir. Still, you might take a minute to think about it. I believe most online journalists think of their journals as somewhat equivalent of a paper journal. I know I've fallen into that trap. In the end, however, we have to admit that unless we lock our journals and give no one the password, we are *not* writing in a vacuum. If you're writing online, you know someone's going to read it. You want that -- admit it -- or you wouldn't be here in the first place. People are going to read this, maybe only a few, but for good or ill our words here have impact. And impacts generally result in reverberations. Much of the time, these reverberations are positive. Wow, that really made me think. Hey, that was hilarious. Sounds like a good book/movie/CD, I'll check it out. Inevitably, there is also a backlash. You idiot, how dare you write that. You're unpatriotic. You're stupid. You're insane/a slut/homophobic/racist. As journalers, I think most of us relish the compliments and try to ignore the ravings, difficult as the latter may be. There's a middle ground, however, and that's what I want to address. That is the "I disagree with you, and here's why" crowd. As much as I, the writer, have the right to my opinion, you, the reader, have the right to disagree with me. That's why we have op-ed pages and letters to the editor in newspapers. And, tragically, talk shows. There will never be complete agreement on any subject, from who Joe Millionaire should have picked to whether we should blow Iraq off the planet. If you can disagree with me, using a valid cogent argument and refraining from attacking my height, sexual preference, choice of breakfast foods, or any other irrelevant personal details, I will respect your opinion. You probably won't change my mind, but I will respect the fact that you have a) the guts to speak your mind and b) the common sense to follow basic tenets of civility and social interaction. And I'll give you points for grammar and capitalization , as well. Now, I want all you online journalers to read the following, and repeat after me: In turn, I, if I choose to reply, will address your arguments. I will use example and experience to strengthen my stance. I will reference only the issue at hand and will not in turn attack you personally, or any group of people to which you happen to belong. I will not accuse you of stupidity or close-mindedness unless you have demonstrated such directly to me. There is a disturbing trend among us. The "I can write whatever I want and you can just suck it up and deal" philosophy of online journaling. The illusion that these journals are just our own personal spaces and we can say whatever we feel like saying without consequence, and anyone who dares question us is at best misguided, and worse, an evil person who's just wasting everyone else's oxygen. Granted, there are people like that, but most of them are probably not reading your journal -- they're too busy coming up with new reality shows. This is not, sadly, a new philosophy. It's closely related to the "cancel my subscription because someone in your magazine/newspaper wrote something I think is crap" and the "my child would never do something like that, so you must be an idiot" schools of thought. It's what breeds flame wars and fistfights. However, the internet, as with many things, has spread this attitude around rather liberally. It's given many people a voice they would never have had otherwise. And usually this isn't a bad thing. It exposes us to whole ranges of experiences and opinion we might never have been aware of. If you don't agree with what you're reading or looking at, that's what that handy "back" button is for. And if someone doesn't agree with you, than you can, if you so choose, ignore it. Unfortunately many people, some of them otherwise mature, seem to be incapable of reasonable behavior when disagreed with. I think we�d all like to preserve the illusion that we are Right, and anyone who doesn�t agree is Wrong. Most of us have felt that at one time or another. But in a practical sense, we know that we are not always right, and that even if we are, we will never win over everyone. And really, do we want to? There are some people I just don't need on my side. What's my point? My point is, it's not ok to disregard courtesy and civility just because you're writing on the internet. If your tone is consistently angry, whiny, or judgmental, expect to get responses in kind. Remember that it's not ok to respond to someone who disagrees with you with "well, you're stupid" anymore than it was ok in debate class. If you are going to take the time to rebut, think about it. Make it worthwhile. Don't lower yourself the level of the person who judges others because they read romance novels, or dye their hair pink, or choose to eat meat. Valid lifestyle choices, all, and if you feel the need to defend your own, do it intelligently. Don't assume you're being judged unless you have proof. Otherwise you're just sinking to the level of the non-open-minded person you want to kick down. Just because some may disagree with you, it doesn't make them prejudiced and closed-minded. You can judge this from their tone; if someone says "you stupid hick, your mother was a llama and you're a wooly-headed liberal," they probably aren't coming from a viewpoint open to argument, and going a couple rounds with them isn't going to do any good. You will never ever change that person's mind, and responding in the same tone is the equivalent of yelling "oh, yeah? Well, your mother!" on the playground. That never worked out well, did it? On the other hand, if someone says to you, "I think you're wrong. I think the fact that Jerry Springer is still on television is not one of the signs of the Apocalypse, and here are my arguments for this point of view," then give this person a shot. Despite the questionable taste in tv viewing, the tone is logical and not insulting. You'll probably still end up disagreeing, but no one will feel bad about it in the end. Disagreement does not necessarily equal personal attack. It's a hard lesson to learn, and one that many of us out here on the net seem to have avoided taking to heart. The fact that a vast number of online journals are written by teenagers doesn't help; everything said to a teenager, including "how was your day?" can be seen as a personal attack by someone in the throes of gym class, hormone upheaval, and learning to conjugate French verbs. I can't count the number of "so's your mama" arguments that show up in these sorts of writings. If someone attacks you ad hominem, it invalidates their premise; if you respond in kind, your own otherwise defensible position is completely undermined. So the lesson is, just because someone dares to disagree with or contradict you, politely or rudely, that does not make it ok to attack them in return. It also doesn't make it ok to generalize about an entire group of people that person may belong to, whether it's Southerners, heterosexuals, men, Christians, or llama breeders. In my opinion (and yes, you are free to disagree) that is nearly as bad as a personal attack. Worse, in some ways, because you're generalizing about a group of people who probably have very little to do with the issue at hand. "Of course you feel that way, you're straight/Christian/Midwestern/possess a penis." All of those things inform one's opinions and personal belief systems, but no one factor is wholly responsible for any one person's ideology. And it's unfair to generalize that it is. It's unfair to the person you are arguing with; it belittles their stance by implying they can't think on their own. And it's unfair to the group you just generalized about, which no doubt contains many diverse people with just as many different moral and ethical stands. Don't judge all fundamentalist Christians by Jerry Falwell. Don't assume all Republicans think George W. is brilliance personified. All Southerners aren't backwards in-bred hicks, and the jokes aren't funny anymore. Many married people have fulfilling, non-boring relationships with their spouse. If it's not for you, fine, good. Don't assume I judge you for your beliefs, cultural background, or hair color, and do me the courtesy of not assuming anything about mine. Attack the flaws in the argument, not the flaws in the person. Your flaw is my point of pride. Whether or not you change anyone's mind as a result, whether or not you destroy someone's personal prejudices or reinforce them, you, personally, will be a better person for it. Believe me. Or don't. It's up to you, and I won't take it personally. Really. Unrelated advice of the day: Don't eat a garlic bagel and then rub your eyes. Ow. 2:55 p.m. - February 25, 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
|
||||||