The way I see it, you’re 100% right if we were face to face. In class, in the office, in the friend group, whatever. Online the base assumption is hostile stranger, in person you’re both real people, and its much easier to break through to someone. Online, if someone decides to think I’m an NPC, me and anyone who sounds like me can only be a NPC to them, because we’re just text no a screen
So because we aren’t face to face, I don’t focus on that unless its abundantly clear that someone wants to engage in good faith and learn about a new perspective. Like now, I respect how you’ve engaged with me. That confusion we had about the You (liberals), you could have been an ass and said I was just lying after getting called out or any number of bad faith deflections, but you didn’t, so I engaged earnestly.
However, this is not the average interaction. for one, this is taking a lot of time, in this same number of words and posts I could have obliterated a whole bunch of libs while leaving behind a trail of information and things to research for anyone who happened upon them. Sure, lower success rate perhaps than trying to save individual souls as it were, but far more chances to. Also, and I think this is a valid thing thats just down to taste, its a preference thing if you like the 1 on 1 or the crowd talking, its personal style and strengths
Sure, this talk has been valuable, but I bet you of all the people who come to look at this thread, less than 5% of them will actually read through this conversation of ours
And that’s where we disagree. It’s easy to spew whatever online. For all I know I see you every day of the week and neither of us knows we’re the other here. There are no repercussions.
Except how a person thinks of that group in their head. Which in turn will affect their actions, maybe only slightly, in life. Going out of your way online to try and meet them on an honest level, where they may not be able to in life, can have a big impact.
Which is not to say that I must be right or you must be wrong. But I think it makes sense.
Its a far ways off from “speak to the audience not the person you’re talking to” to “spewing whatever”
There are no repercussions.
Idk what you mean by that, its not about repercussions its about how the medium through which we interact shapes the ways we interact
Going out of your way online to try and meet them on an honest level, where they may not be able to in life, can have a big impact.
A very admirable thought, and one I share and have often written long posts about (doin it rn over on Hexbear, to the annoyance of some of my comrades lol)
But again, its about impact. For the effort it took to go through all this, just to end in “agree to disagree” as it seems like its headed towards, I could have made a lot more people think about a lot more things, you know?
Also, my apologies, I added a whole bunch to my previous comment in an edit and forgot to hit send in another tab until just now, I didn’t change much but added 2 paragraphs, some of which I may have reiterated here lol my b
It very probably is headed there but I would argue that both of us, as well as an unknown number of observers, have been shaped by the interaction. Maybe only a little, but not none.
I know I’ve learned a few things from a few exchanges here. I think it’s mostly been from the ones that have been open to discussion on both ends, which I think emphasizes the point I was trying to make, even if I didn’t succeed at it.
But the other side of that is one of the others I’ve exchanged with today, who was more drawn in by the type of rhetoric that drives me away.
I think the lurking audience isn’t to be discounted though. I’ve been among them before myself, but there’s never a way to know their size or if they’re even looking. Even so we can be influencing them in unexpected ways.
Either way I think I’m ending this a bit better than I started it. I hope I’m not the only one who feels that way.
No worries about the oversight. We’re all prone to mistakes.
The way I see it, you’re 100% right if we were face to face. In class, in the office, in the friend group, whatever. Online the base assumption is hostile stranger, in person you’re both real people, and its much easier to break through to someone. Online, if someone decides to think I’m an NPC, me and anyone who sounds like me can only be a NPC to them, because we’re just text no a screen
So because we aren’t face to face, I don’t focus on that unless its abundantly clear that someone wants to engage in good faith and learn about a new perspective. Like now, I respect how you’ve engaged with me. That confusion we had about the You (liberals), you could have been an ass and said I was just lying after getting called out or any number of bad faith deflections, but you didn’t, so I engaged earnestly.
However, this is not the average interaction. for one, this is taking a lot of time, in this same number of words and posts I could have obliterated a whole bunch of libs while leaving behind a trail of information and things to research for anyone who happened upon them. Sure, lower success rate perhaps than trying to save individual souls as it were, but far more chances to. Also, and I think this is a valid thing thats just down to taste, its a preference thing if you like the 1 on 1 or the crowd talking, its personal style and strengths
Sure, this talk has been valuable, but I bet you of all the people who come to look at this thread, less than 5% of them will actually read through this conversation of ours
And that’s where we disagree. It’s easy to spew whatever online. For all I know I see you every day of the week and neither of us knows we’re the other here. There are no repercussions.
Except how a person thinks of that group in their head. Which in turn will affect their actions, maybe only slightly, in life. Going out of your way online to try and meet them on an honest level, where they may not be able to in life, can have a big impact.
Which is not to say that I must be right or you must be wrong. But I think it makes sense.
Its a far ways off from “speak to the audience not the person you’re talking to” to “spewing whatever”
Idk what you mean by that, its not about repercussions its about how the medium through which we interact shapes the ways we interact
A very admirable thought, and one I share and have often written long posts about (doin it rn over on Hexbear, to the annoyance of some of my comrades lol)
But again, its about impact. For the effort it took to go through all this, just to end in “agree to disagree” as it seems like its headed towards, I could have made a lot more people think about a lot more things, you know?
Also, my apologies, I added a whole bunch to my previous comment in an edit and forgot to hit send in another tab until just now, I didn’t change much but added 2 paragraphs, some of which I may have reiterated here lol my b
It very probably is headed there but I would argue that both of us, as well as an unknown number of observers, have been shaped by the interaction. Maybe only a little, but not none.
I know I’ve learned a few things from a few exchanges here. I think it’s mostly been from the ones that have been open to discussion on both ends, which I think emphasizes the point I was trying to make, even if I didn’t succeed at it.
But the other side of that is one of the others I’ve exchanged with today, who was more drawn in by the type of rhetoric that drives me away.
I think the lurking audience isn’t to be discounted though. I’ve been among them before myself, but there’s never a way to know their size or if they’re even looking. Even so we can be influencing them in unexpected ways.
Either way I think I’m ending this a bit better than I started it. I hope I’m not the only one who feels that way.
No worries about the oversight. We’re all prone to mistakes.