Do we all need a thicker skin?
Published Tuesday, March 3, 2009
One commenter notes, “this is a COMMENT board not rocket science…” possibly arguing we ought not to expect a lot from folks who leave comments after articles on the Albert Lea Tribune website.
What should we expect? As far as comments go, it seems as though forum discussions are often reduced to figuring out who should be blamed for something bad that has happened. Some posters of comments believe blaming someone or something long enough will bring justice and solve problems. Sure, a certain amount of placing blame and offending others is probably inevitable and even necessary, but for some reason it becomes a primary activity on discussion boards like these.
Remarkably, very little problem solving or quality discussion takes place when blaming or offending others spoils the bulk of most conversations. One person manages to offend another, the other person offends back. By the time a few offensive jabs have been thrown, any chance at having constructive dialogue has usually disappeared. Does it have to be this way? Maybe it does, but maybe there is a chance that it doesn’t.
Maybe folks could actually try not to offend each other…even when someone else has offended them first. I know that’s asking a lot; not offending people, especially when “someone else started it.” Sure, we could just tell everyone to grow a thick skin, but then hurling offensive comments becomes the norm. I’d rather live in a community and read a news website where offensiveness is the exception, not the rule.
Unfortunately, more and more news websites and forums (and, to be honest, the AL Tribune comment section is measurably less offensive than many I’ve read) appear to establish offending others and exchanging blame as the default mode of communication between parties who disagree. Is there a way to change this trend without outlawing comments or imposing a laundry list of rules for posting comments?
I think so. Maybe I’m too much of an optimist, but all it takes is a few people who are willing to occasionally turn the other cheek and keep the discussion healthy even when someone has attacked them personally.
Comments
I agree with with Jessica. If you say something that someone disagrees with you don't just get an answer like I disagree and then a comment or two why, you get a long lecture and can be called just about anything because you have your own opinion. These are just comments on how you feel not a place to start an argument.
Some people have the luxury of sitting in a circle and chatting, usually the more well off. They can afford to temper their emotions. Others are not in that position. People who feel they are trampled on or ignored have found that sitting in a circle has got them nowhere.
Discussion without emotion is meaningless. I believe the reason why some may object to emotional debate is this: they are nervous to learn of the underlying emotions of their neighbors, etc. Certain cultures are taught to conceal their emotions. And when given a chance this emotion is sometimes revealed in 'emotional' ways, which is then usually misjudged by the circle as inappropriate.
As an optimist you then must accept the pessimists; and the realists, who are often misjudged as pessimists. Pessimism is not a social abnormality as some may think.
And realism should be permitted its rightful place also.
To hide our emotion, like some zombie politician, serves no one. Or must we only express our joy in this Brave New World?
@trifid
I'd even go further with your point. There is no discussion without emotion. It is simply not possible to have a discussion unless there is emotion involved. Point is, emotion and our 'feelings' about things are at the core of everything.
This being the case, it is very difficult to engage in a discussion with true give and take if I attack someone with my words. Because, suddenly, we're no longer discussing, but reacting to being hurt, which transforms itself into anger. When angry people fight with words, they don't think which often leads to more of a mess.
In parts of Appalachia, they have among the highest murder rates in the country...and it is among families that have fought each other for years. It is usually what one family has said to another that leads to one family member killing another. And once the killing starts, they just trade killings back and forth for generations. That's an extreme case, but, point is, words are powerful. And returning one attack with another tends to spiral into an attacking frenzy.
Yes, hurray for emotion. I totally agree that we ought not to hide our emotions, but I also say that self-control is a respectable response as well. And if you're someone who has the ability to be diplomatic with what you say, that's wonderful. We need more people like that, especially in forums where people can post comments anonymously.
That said, I do like the fact that on a forum like the one at the Albert Lea Tribune, I can see a full range of perspectives. So I'm not arguing that people make their comments all soft and fluffy for general consumption. I'm just saying that choosing not to offend someone, even when they've offended you first, can help to make a discussion last a little longer, or actually be something of a learning experience for all parties involved.
I totally agree with your point. Learning is the key. And possibly learning to control our emotions.
Thanks for the excellent article!
Jeshua,
Great stuff. I hope your message spreads. Thanks!
It was just a weird suspicion at first. Now I am worried. The Tribune website has changed. Why? From pressure? Or is it coincidence that lately all I see is fluff? A patient (the economy) "is hemorraging, and the "doctors" consider plastic surgery.
A forum is starved into submission? Coffee house gossip wins the day. And then people wonder why the patient suffers.
Post a comment