Posted on 01/01/2012 9:41:38 PM PST by grey_whiskers
In part I of this series, Internet Forums and Social Dynamics: Part I: Everybody is someone else’s weirdo, I observed that like-minded people cluster into groups on the internet. Using Free Republic as an example (as it is the only site I feel I have any right to talk about), I showed how people’s reactions to other posters are based on observation of the other poster’s opinion, and that the process used to evaluate other posters bears an analogy to statistical techniques used in industry. In this part, I consider some of the social tensions which occur during conversations / disputes on chat rooms, and an interesting phenomenon often seen when people with differing ideological views try to hash out their differences.
This phenomenon is most often seen on controversial topics, such as gay rights, crevo threads, abortion, or religion, either Protestant/Catholic or atheist/Christian. The course of conversation in such threads (among people who disagree) usually follows one of two paths: immediate savage war, or grudging, semi-pretended politeness. We’re all familiar with the first, and there isn’t too much to discuss, as it ends up tracing out the following course as seen in Calvin and Hobbes:
While entertaining for the bystanders, such disputes often end up like falling into a pile of manure: generating more heat than light. It is more instructive to look at the interactions where people of differing opinions are at least trying to get along at first. Typically people sound one another out, looking for easily exploited chinks in the armour (logical flaws, "previously solved problems" or statements which allow the judger to dismiss the other as some particular species of crank from within the judger's worldview); failing this, invariably the dispute goes to larger-scale definitions or claimed consequences of (usually still-unstated) "axioms" of each side; and thence to the "real" base issues. And this is where the fun comes in. Usually, if people are interested either in persuading the other side, hoping to convert them by demonstrating a logical fallacy or missing step in logic, or by marshaling pertinent facts and data so far unknown to the person they are talking to, they are pretty civil. They can also be pretty civil if they are not really interested in what the other person has to say, either because they’ve already blown them off, or because they are on the thread only to sharpen their intellectual claws.
But the minute they find out that the other person isn’t going to convert, or even worse, really believes certain things totally incompatible with their beliefs, two amusing things happen. First, the civility in the discussion often disappears, to be replaced by ridicule. Secondly, the careful, concise logical arguments often go away, to be replaced by reversion to personal accusations amounting to a strawman argument.
This point usually happens when someone who was originally thought to be "part of the group" either persists in something that had caused doubt, for so long that it is clear they don't fit in, or, they say something so intolerable that the people disputing with them come to a conclusion that "they can't take this anymore" *all at once* (see Internet Forums and Social Dynamics: Part I: Everybody is someone else’s weirdo).
It is comparable to all the tension in a rubber band (representing the strained relations by the party attempting to remain civil) being released at once, as the rubber band breaks, and restraint is lost. I call this phenomenon “snapback.” Following are a few, umm, dramatizations (to protect anyone who might recognize themselves). And a hat tip to FReeper APatientMan,who asked me if this essay would mention the F-test. No, not quite, but snap-backs often can result in a few F-bombs:
ABORTION:
Q1. So you don’t believe a woman has the right to choose, in the case of rape or incest?
A1. No, I don’t. Performing an abortion only compounds the evil: why not give the child up for adoption?
Q2 (snapback): Oh my God, and you call yourself religious! What about an abusive stepfather, you must approve of incest yourself. I’m just glad I’m not one of *your* daughters!
DEATH OF FAMOUS ATHEIST:
Q1. I’m praying he had a deathbed conversion.
Q2. (snapback) He’s going to Hell, he lived all his life spitting on God, why would he repent?
Q3. (snapback) Yeah, that proves all you Christianists are raving haters! Where’s the open mindedness? IF there were a God, there wouldn’t be any evil, and He wouldn’t send anyone to Hell anyway, no matter what.
GAY MARRIAGE:
Q1. So I’m for gay marriage because I believe in love. I think it’s wrong to deny two people who love each other just because of their gender.
A1. Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman, for the raising of children. Gay people cannot procreate. And marriage has always had a religious aspect; the Bible says ...
Q2. (snapback, interrupting): You are such a hate-filled BIGOT! Christians are idiots, who only want to control other people! What difference does it make who I f*ck?
SARAH PALIN:
Q1. Who are you planning on voting for in the primary?
A1. Sarah Palin, because...
Q2. (IMMEDIATE snapback): I can see Russia from my house! You’re an f-bombing idiot!
EVOLUTION:
Q1. (pre-emptive snapback) Evolution is a fact, and anyone who doesn’t believe it is a mouth-breathing bible thumping CRETARD who should crawl back under the rock by their one-room schoolhouse in Alabama.
Q2. (pre-emptive snapback) Mistyped cut-and-paste from Answers in Genesis, or a reference to the 2nd Law of Thermal Documents
Full Disclosure: It is important to distinguish the snapback from the legitimate stomping of someone who persists in cutting-and-pasting their own talking points, or someone who is openly a troll (i.e. freely admits they hold views entirely contrary to those prevailing on a site, or someone just posting to get people mad). These people are deserving of a little bit different treatment:
PAULBOT:
Q1. We should support Iran because Israel is controlling the US! We should be isolationist! And revert to the Gold Standard.
Mod: (Not snapback, because FR is a conservative site, and Ron Paul is too flaky on too many areas):
Cheers!
Cheers!
Cheers!
Very interesting. There’s a book here.
:’) G’night gw.
GW - I just wanted to say that I’ve seen several of your discussions recently and I envy you your patience and considered inputs. It’s made me set back and think on how I can consider and better respond not just on this forum but in other aspects of my life. Cheers to you, sir; and a Happy New Year!
As usual.
Freepers in the Mist!
Q1. Who are you planning on voting for in the primary?
A1. Sarah Palin, because...
A2. She’s not running.
You wrote: “...It is comparable to all the tension in a rubber band (representing the strained relations by the party attempting to remain civil) being released at once, as the rubber band breaks, and restraint is lost. I call this phenomenon “snapback.” Following are a few, umm, dramatizations (to protect anyone who might recognize themselves). And a hat tip to FReeper APatientMan,who asked me if this essay would mention the F-test. No, not quite, but snap-backs often can result in a few F-bombs:”
Latest example of the rubber band breaking:
“And you’re a fucking jackass! Jim, you can give me my time out now. I “feel” better after getting that off my chest.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2827961/posts?page=169#169
<>
“MOST people think this is very weird...and that’ll be enough that they’ll never vote for him.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2827961/posts?page=171#171
<>
“Look up “Blowback” in your political dictionary.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2827961/posts?page=173#173
And awaaaaaay we go again! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.