![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
[Public] Why I do not invite or encourage combative debate in my journal
My journal is not a forum for political or social debate. I am pretty clear about that. The short reason for this is that I do not like debating. The other short reason is that this is my little corner of the LJ universe, and I get to say what is and isn't acceptable here. If you're interested in the long version, I invite you to read on.
Trust me, if I felt I had to be right about everything or that my views were the only worthwhile ones to have, I wouldn't post half the stuff I post even to friendslist level in this journal: I'm aware that like everyone else on earth, I'm capable of jumping to conclusions, getting the facts wrong, misanalysing and misunderstanding. There is, I've found, a fine line between what feels like a respectful fact correction and what feels like an attack with bonus insults. Because I know that I cannot explain where this line lies to you, I choose to note that I do not want to debate political points in my journal, particularly when I'm just presenting an article or link I found amusing or thought provoking.
I know that some of you enjoy engaging other people in arguments wherein you demand evidence of everything, up to and including the colour of the sky, and if your opponent cannot produce, that means he's wrong, a wimp, or unwilling to accept the fact that You Are Right--possibly all three. You may assume that I am using the male pronoun generically if you like: this kind of attitudinal, combative arguing is something I tend to associate with men, although I have seen some women engage in it from time to time. This kind of arguing makes me want to run and hide under a table, and I'm not interested in engaging in it, although I am interested in presenting things that I found interesting or thought-provoking. Now, I'm going to use an extreme example below the cut-tag, so be warned.
Tell us what you didn't post yesterday, Harper....
Yesterday, my friend![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
earthmystic posted a link to an article from Beliefnet that drew a correlation between Roe v. Wade and the drop in crime in the US in the 1990s. The article is here, if you want to read it, but please be aware that it may offend people across every stripe of the political spectrum.
Although I found this article interesting, I felt its controversial conclusions would upset people and that they might not be able to keep their opinions to themselves or start debates or express their outrage in their own journals rather than attacking me in mine. So I didn't post it. Because, you see, this is the kind of argument I wanted to avoid:
Me: *posts article*
Reader 1: *gets offended and posts an angry, reactive comment in my journal about how this article is wrong, wrong, wrong.*
Me: *feels like crap because I offended someone*
Me: *tries to diffuse argument by noting that it was presented to provoke thought and not anger*
R1: *asks me to come up with other examples that the conclusions reached by this fellow are TRUE, or apologise for having posted it in the first place, since it was clearly a Lie Lie Lie, completely avoids the thought vs. anger comment, because his (or her) "debate" does not have anything to do with anger, despite the fact that he (or she) is speaking provocatively and accusingly to me*
Me: *wants to hide under the couch*
Me: *has no desire to spend all day searching around for obscure proof for an article I posted because it was thought provoking, not because I wished to spend the rest of the day "debating" its conclusions with someone who requires that I present chapter-and-verse-style proof for every single point made therein*
Me: *Says as much*
R1: *accuses me of being stupid/wimpy/wrong/a liar/unwilling to play the game he (or she: this subject matter actually incenses lots of women, too) wants to play, plus bonus damning to hell if R1 is religious*
R1: *Says that if I am not willing to provide "proof" of my "assertions" (which I didn't actually make) then I am not worthy as a person, stalks off my friends list in a huff because he (or she) is sooooo angry because I won't let him (or her) provoke me*
Yes, that's an extreme example. I know, however, that we have seen arguments like this take place all over the net, particularly on USENET, where such abuse (yes, I said abuse) disguised as debate exists in such volume that I simply don't go there anymore. I know how it feels to be verbally hammered at until I am reluctant to express or present my opinions at all, thank you: I was married to that for eight years and I prefer not to relive those experiences now that I have a better life. For those people to whom this kind of behaviour is sport, who just think it's fun to wind other people up, I have absolutely no consideration or respect, particularly if they choose to engage in provoking me after I have specifically said I have no desire to debate or be provoked. Period.
I hope that I will not offend half my friendslist when I say that the worst offenders, with regard to provoking for sport, really tend to be self-declared American libertarians. My ex was one such, and the way he shouted people down and alpha-dogged his way through arguments, breezily making up statistics as he went, shocked and offended me more than once when he did it to other people. When he did it to me, well. I shut the fuck up, I'll tell you that much. I have seen this from the other side: I know that people take pleasure in treating other people this way when they "debate" with them. I am not interested in feeling the way I did when I had to endure that kind of nit-picking, soul-killing, back-it-up-with-verifiable-facts-from-a-source-that-I-trust-and-I-get-to-pick-the-source kind of barrage. Ever again.
I have political and social opinions. They are what Americans would call 'liberal' and what people anywhere else would call 'socialist,' and probably *gasp* 'pacifist' as well, fairly firmly rooted, have been evolving for my whole life, and I believe what I believe, as do most of us. There was a time in my youth where I expressed these opinions openly, and then there was a time in my adulthood where I was made to understand that expressing my opinions would get me at the very least belittled and made fun of in front of other people, if not called an idiot outright. So I clammed up. Now, I live with someone who supports and understands these beliefs that I have held and nurtured for all these years, and so I have occasionally run into some problems with a few people who knew me before I felt it was safe to talk about what I think, even in the very bland sense of, say, posting a link to an article I enjoyed. I guess that most people, myself included, seem to begin from a position of, well, if someone is smart and interesting, they must believe the same things that we do. That's an assumption many people seem to make. So when people see political and social liberalism coming out of my journal, maybe they're shocked and offended that a nice, smart, talented person like me could hold such views; I don't know. But because my friends are my friends and they understand me, even the ones I have serious political differences with don't feel the need to make our relationship all about that. I could name names here and let you know who those wonderful people, with whom I disagree on serious political and social points but who I would still do anything for, are, but I'd leave somebody out and I think they know who they are, anyway.
I have kept this journal for four years. In that time, with a friendslist that hovers around three hundred people on occasion, only two people have left my friends list because they did not seem comfortable with my reluctance to debate political points in my journal. Both people were kept on my friends list for a long time after they dropped me, because some people make decisions rashly and then feel bad about them later. For that reason alone, I feel like it's a pretty simple and easy-to-follow rule, particularly since I tend to note it gently every time I post or link to something that might incite screaming political arguments. I have set this rule. This is my journal. You are here because I invited you to be here, and there will have been a reason for that. Please don't make our relationship all about politics and debate. There are places you can go online (like USENET), where people love to scream at one another. This is not one of those places.
So to sum up, it's fine to disagree with me: I'm OK with that. What I don't like are combative debates in my journal or anywhere else that make me feel terrible. I don't care if you enjoy those things: getting off on making me feel terrible without my consent is not OK. Dropping me from your friendslist if you think you can't abide by this simple rule is OK. I will probably keep you on my list for awhile after that in case you decide you made a mistake. Trolling my journal after you've dropped me, just to add a snarky comment or try to provoke me for sport now and then, is not OK.
Trust me, if I felt I had to be right about everything or that my views were the only worthwhile ones to have, I wouldn't post half the stuff I post even to friendslist level in this journal: I'm aware that like everyone else on earth, I'm capable of jumping to conclusions, getting the facts wrong, misanalysing and misunderstanding. There is, I've found, a fine line between what feels like a respectful fact correction and what feels like an attack with bonus insults. Because I know that I cannot explain where this line lies to you, I choose to note that I do not want to debate political points in my journal, particularly when I'm just presenting an article or link I found amusing or thought provoking.
I know that some of you enjoy engaging other people in arguments wherein you demand evidence of everything, up to and including the colour of the sky, and if your opponent cannot produce, that means he's wrong, a wimp, or unwilling to accept the fact that You Are Right--possibly all three. You may assume that I am using the male pronoun generically if you like: this kind of attitudinal, combative arguing is something I tend to associate with men, although I have seen some women engage in it from time to time. This kind of arguing makes me want to run and hide under a table, and I'm not interested in engaging in it, although I am interested in presenting things that I found interesting or thought-provoking. Now, I'm going to use an extreme example below the cut-tag, so be warned.
Tell us what you didn't post yesterday, Harper....
Yesterday, my friend
earthmystic posted a link to an article from Beliefnet that drew a correlation between Roe v. Wade and the drop in crime in the US in the 1990s. The article is here, if you want to read it, but please be aware that it may offend people across every stripe of the political spectrum. Although I found this article interesting, I felt its controversial conclusions would upset people and that they might not be able to keep their opinions to themselves or start debates or express their outrage in their own journals rather than attacking me in mine. So I didn't post it. Because, you see, this is the kind of argument I wanted to avoid:
Me: *posts article*
Reader 1: *gets offended and posts an angry, reactive comment in my journal about how this article is wrong, wrong, wrong.*
Me: *feels like crap because I offended someone*
Me: *tries to diffuse argument by noting that it was presented to provoke thought and not anger*
R1: *asks me to come up with other examples that the conclusions reached by this fellow are TRUE, or apologise for having posted it in the first place, since it was clearly a Lie Lie Lie, completely avoids the thought vs. anger comment, because his (or her) "debate" does not have anything to do with anger, despite the fact that he (or she) is speaking provocatively and accusingly to me*
Me: *wants to hide under the couch*
Me: *has no desire to spend all day searching around for obscure proof for an article I posted because it was thought provoking, not because I wished to spend the rest of the day "debating" its conclusions with someone who requires that I present chapter-and-verse-style proof for every single point made therein*
Me: *Says as much*
R1: *accuses me of being stupid/wimpy/wrong/a liar/unwilling to play the game he (or she: this subject matter actually incenses lots of women, too) wants to play, plus bonus damning to hell if R1 is religious*
R1: *Says that if I am not willing to provide "proof" of my "assertions" (which I didn't actually make) then I am not worthy as a person, stalks off my friends list in a huff because he (or she) is sooooo angry because I won't let him (or her) provoke me*
Yes, that's an extreme example. I know, however, that we have seen arguments like this take place all over the net, particularly on USENET, where such abuse (yes, I said abuse) disguised as debate exists in such volume that I simply don't go there anymore. I know how it feels to be verbally hammered at until I am reluctant to express or present my opinions at all, thank you: I was married to that for eight years and I prefer not to relive those experiences now that I have a better life. For those people to whom this kind of behaviour is sport, who just think it's fun to wind other people up, I have absolutely no consideration or respect, particularly if they choose to engage in provoking me after I have specifically said I have no desire to debate or be provoked. Period.
I hope that I will not offend half my friendslist when I say that the worst offenders, with regard to provoking for sport, really tend to be self-declared American libertarians. My ex was one such, and the way he shouted people down and alpha-dogged his way through arguments, breezily making up statistics as he went, shocked and offended me more than once when he did it to other people. When he did it to me, well. I shut the fuck up, I'll tell you that much. I have seen this from the other side: I know that people take pleasure in treating other people this way when they "debate" with them. I am not interested in feeling the way I did when I had to endure that kind of nit-picking, soul-killing, back-it-up-with-verifiable-facts-from-a-source-that-I-trust-and-I-get-to-pick-the-source kind of barrage. Ever again.
I have political and social opinions. They are what Americans would call 'liberal' and what people anywhere else would call 'socialist,' and probably *gasp* 'pacifist' as well, fairly firmly rooted, have been evolving for my whole life, and I believe what I believe, as do most of us. There was a time in my youth where I expressed these opinions openly, and then there was a time in my adulthood where I was made to understand that expressing my opinions would get me at the very least belittled and made fun of in front of other people, if not called an idiot outright. So I clammed up. Now, I live with someone who supports and understands these beliefs that I have held and nurtured for all these years, and so I have occasionally run into some problems with a few people who knew me before I felt it was safe to talk about what I think, even in the very bland sense of, say, posting a link to an article I enjoyed. I guess that most people, myself included, seem to begin from a position of, well, if someone is smart and interesting, they must believe the same things that we do. That's an assumption many people seem to make. So when people see political and social liberalism coming out of my journal, maybe they're shocked and offended that a nice, smart, talented person like me could hold such views; I don't know. But because my friends are my friends and they understand me, even the ones I have serious political differences with don't feel the need to make our relationship all about that. I could name names here and let you know who those wonderful people, with whom I disagree on serious political and social points but who I would still do anything for, are, but I'd leave somebody out and I think they know who they are, anyway.
I have kept this journal for four years. In that time, with a friendslist that hovers around three hundred people on occasion, only two people have left my friends list because they did not seem comfortable with my reluctance to debate political points in my journal. Both people were kept on my friends list for a long time after they dropped me, because some people make decisions rashly and then feel bad about them later. For that reason alone, I feel like it's a pretty simple and easy-to-follow rule, particularly since I tend to note it gently every time I post or link to something that might incite screaming political arguments. I have set this rule. This is my journal. You are here because I invited you to be here, and there will have been a reason for that. Please don't make our relationship all about politics and debate. There are places you can go online (like USENET), where people love to scream at one another. This is not one of those places.
So to sum up, it's fine to disagree with me: I'm OK with that. What I don't like are combative debates in my journal or anywhere else that make me feel terrible. I don't care if you enjoy those things: getting off on making me feel terrible without my consent is not OK. Dropping me from your friendslist if you think you can't abide by this simple rule is OK. I will probably keep you on my list for awhile after that in case you decide you made a mistake. Trolling my journal after you've dropped me, just to add a snarky comment or try to provoke me for sport now and then, is not OK.
no subject
no subject
(2) Fundamentalist fervor of any type, for any reason, makes me twitchy. Too many heinous acts have been perpetrated on that basis, for centuries. It doesn't help, either, that I grew up in a household whose head was not only fond of taking such a verbally abusive tack, but was quite willing to follow it up with physical abuse as well. :(
*goes off to twitch in private*