I am an argumentative person and I love debating and arguing with people. I find it a great test of mental gymnastics unlike any other, needing to cover your opponents points and think of counterpoints in the moment is an enjoyable experience for me. I also find it a vital way to double check my own opinions and beliefs. If I cannot overcome someone’s counterpoints to my belief and don’t have many things to offer it really shows up where my knowledge is lacking and makes me take a look at what I consider to be true. I love being wrong, I love finding out how I was wrong, why I was wrong and researching it to maybe have a better point next time.
Social media then for me should be a delight, almost at any hour of the day I can get myself in an argument about something. I have found though, that the process is remarkably unfulfilling and frustrating due to a number of factors that I shall try and cover here.
There is definitely a lack of humility on the world of social media, rarely will you hear someone in a long argument thread say something like “Wow, I didn’t know that, I was totally wrong!”. This seems to me to be part of a wider trend in society that people cannot detach their beliefs from their identity, they take an attack on an opinion to be a personal attack and so cannot simply let it go but respond. Instead of the admission of a lack of knowledge or a misunderstanding they will double down, often getting emotional, defensive or insulting.
The medium of social media itself also tends to lead to a more incendiary atmosphere. I’m far less likely to be abusive or insulting to someone in real life where I can see their facial expressions, the effects of my words or perhaps feel their physical counterattack if pushed too far. Text is dehumanising, text is nothing, it’s easy to be mean to a piece of text. Coupled with the anonymity that I’m likely to never engage with the person again creates a scenario where I don’t need to inhibit my language or tone to prevent offense, nor do I have to abide by the rules of civil discourse by not being insulting or rude. Most social media arguments therefore are conducted in a context where not all parties agree to not escalate the situation.
One of the most frustrating things I have found is what I call the “prove me wrong or I’m right” -ers. They will appear somewhere and make a claim but refuse to provide any evidence to back it up, instead they will hold the position calling for people to disprove them. After having received some piece of research or something they will then find the most trifling reason to discredit it and continue to sit atop their throne of infallibility without anyone being able to prove them wrong. The logical fallacy here is fairly straightforward to unpack. If someone were to argue that the earth is flat, I do not need to prove to them that it isn’t. Prevailing wisdom suggests that it is. They need to prove to me that it is not.
A second type of twitter argument is waiting for you to give up and then claim victory. It sounds childish and nonsensical written like that but it is mind-breakingly common. Usually the more reasonable of the participants will realise the argument is going nowhere and choose to discontinue. The other participant will then claim victory because they are “tapping out” or “have nothing else to say”. Again the logic here is fairly baffling, those who partake in this tactic will stick to this as if their life depended on it, even when the conversation as wildly veered away from it’s initial premise. If I was on a bus arguing with someone denying the Holocaust, my having to get off the bus at my stop doesn’t mean the Holocaust didn’t happen, it means I need to end the conversation. Frustratingly obvious, but one of the most common things I see happen.
I’m no psychologist, but in this I see desperation for contact. My life is such that I have several “pillars” of things that are going well. My fear is that many people haven’t worked to achieve that and so place higher importance on their social media lives. It takes me placing a level of importance on what someone says to argue with them, I’ve read it and considered it and then replied. I genuinely think people are so hostile on social media because they are desperate for interaction.
Thirdly, I’ve noticed a fairly simple tactic that everyone will have seen; the straw man. The idea by which someone will respond with a counterargument to a point that you don’t hold or haven’t said. Again, whenever I’ve had these arguments they tend to devolve to me continually re-quoting my actual views as the other participant desperately tries to have a totally different argument. These tend to be fairly easy to shut down as they don’t have much momentum in themselves: “So what you’re saying is…” can be easily answered with “No. I didn’t say that at all, please re-read my post.”
The echo chamber factor is another element to the social media argument that covers a number of things. Someone will say something silly and not actually respond to your counterpoint, instead replying with a gif and revel in the “likes” claiming victory through the interaction of their followers. Some will begin their own arguments with you at some point through the chain of a different argument over the use of a word or idea, completely out of context of the main debate. The depressing thing here is as an outsider arguing with a cult, (sorry echo chamber) is that numbers count, you’ll be shouted down and mocked no matter the validity of your argument, it simply won’t be addressed if it contradicts the edicts of the group.
The final group I’ll mention is the “insulters” or to show off a bit of Latin here: “argumentum ad hominem” meaning “to the person”. These are the ones who once you have suggested they are wrong, will just insult you. Rather more irritatingly they will rarely realise or accept that by resorting to this tactic they have, by any metric, lost the debate. They will instantly shift from the point of debate to straight insult, finding something on your profile to mock or insult, or just insulting you directly. Many of these will also be the echo chamber argument intruders mentioned above.
A debate or argument is almost like a duel at dawn in my mind. An arrangement that two parties enter, both knowing the rules and protocol involved and agreeing to carry them out. Social media is like a duel where one participant has no idea of, or intention to stick to the rules. To carry on the metaphor, I take my 10 steps and turn to discover they have built a wall and gathered a few friends to form a firing squad.
My personality is nauseating enough that I shall continue to ask for evidence of spurious claims and to inject context into the propaganda campaigns of echo chambers. For that I will likely never have a decent debate again, instead I shall endure comments like “ok boomer”, “haha why you so mad bro”, “triggered much?” and other perfect examples of the degradation of the English language.
CodexCaster's Contribution 