I put aside someone telling me he hopes Obama will lock me up to rot in jail because I don't think Lincoln was a "tyrant" for doing what the habeas clause implies he could do. Well, not quite. The person there -- who mixes intelligence with troll online -- does a standard thing. Flails about, sneering at me, but doesn't really try to specifically address what I take time to say. This happens from time to time -- I take the time to make an argument, which might be wrong, but get dismissive replies which simply do not wish to seriously engage me. This annoys and depresses me though I have that "Someone is wrong on the Internet" comic with a little "Not Role Model" personal reminder on my wall.
One comment was alluded to earlier, part of a thread involving bestiality (the main post's author has a low batting average and the effort -- from votes of comments apparently isn't just a joke -- is par for the course). The nature of the post, which was a jokey bit of confusion, didn't bode well, I admit. One of my comments noted that I think lack of consent is a factor to justify bestiality bans. A person who generally I respect thought this silly since animals have no "legal consent."
I didn't say they had "legal" consent. I said their inability of consent is one reason we have bestiality bans. Did add that some animals having some will, some ability to "consent" (which was admitted as a sensible explanation, if tossing in some philosophical verbiage to confuse things) underlines the point. We respect that Fluffy, e.g., has the power (if not the legal right) to consent to certain things, so are concerned about her possible wishes and desires when determining proper animal welfare laws. Like a five year old child, animals don't have "legal consent," but lack of consent (and some will that warrants concern) matters.
Why is this difficult? The same blogger led to another issue, this from one of those commenters that I know does not see things my way in a fashion that I repeatedly think misses the point while finding me just clueless in the process. So, I had some fair warning, but again, the clueless nature of the comment annoys and saddens me. The post was one of those Israel ones at Volokh Conspiracy from one of the somewhat kneejerk Israel defenders. So, I questioned if there was a film there that put the Nativity story in a Palestinian context.
The reply wondered if I wanted one where the couple was expelled for being illegal settlers or something. I thought this sort of missed the point and didn't quite follow the original. The original had Mary/Joseph flee to Egypt to avoid Herod's son. So, I explained something like that but with new heavies would be a more direct parallel. I also explained (twice, after someone noted "huh" -- red flag emotional aside alert -- it seemed I was trying to promote an anti-Jewish film here) that the overall story would suggest altering some things given things are different today. For instance, the Jews control Israel. Jews wouldn't be lowly figures in the same way. This led the person to wonder if I wanted Mary/Joseph to be serial killers, since they too would be against the PTB. Seriously?
I get some replies like this online -- are these people even trying to understand what I'm saying? The person actually said "by my logic" the serial killer duo would make sense. This reminds me of another comment in another thread that assumed my link to a website explaining the "five non-negotiable" things for some Catholics (spoiler: SSM included) was my argument, perhaps because the link was to "St. Joseph" or something or other. I have visions of the SNL character saying "never mind."
But, one thing that rarely occurs with many of these people is admitting error. It occurs a few times, to be fair, but repeatedly they lash out quite badly and even when called upon it, they don't admit error. They don't even say "oh, I see what you are trying to say, but I disagree" etc. At some point, I realize one should not stress out about that. It's just someone online. But, they are not merely that -- they reflect a certain breed of people. Also, it is just rude and not respectful. Also, serious debate requires more than that -- it requires actually listening and trying to seriously engage people, including some with whom you strongly disagree.
I don't always succeed, but my basic philosophy is try to respect the people I argue with, even those who have views that I find wrong or even offensive. Some repeatedly just don't make a serious effort and at some point, it is best to ignore them. Given my tendencies to want to speak out online, that is not always easy. It helps when you can delete the comment -- sort of like writing a letter that you don't send. And, sometimes, I expect more out of the people, who seem to overall to be serious people.
Still, take the person cited at the start. He is clearly very intelligent and has wrote law articles and works as a lawyer. But, for whatever reason, especially on certain subjects (e.g., religion), he -- and the word is not one I like since it tends to be overused -- is something of a troll. He lets his id out and doesn't care to seriously reply to people. Other times he does, so it is not like he cannot. Not quite like a person at a sentencing blog who in real life is a serious lawyer job but spends much of the time ranting. The Internet encourages this sort of thing -- anonymity and all that though it is also seen by those who go by their real name. A few real tools in the blogosphere.
It can be so hard for various reasons. Sometimes, people just see things in a different way. It is hard to face such preconceived notions in a comment context -- the people often have limited time anyway, and are not there for long in depth debates anyhow. Others just seem to have a hard time to even take the time to try to understand your p.o.v. Since this to me is not only helpful but good policy, this depresses me. But, so be it, I guess.
One comment was alluded to earlier, part of a thread involving bestiality (the main post's author has a low batting average and the effort -- from votes of comments apparently isn't just a joke -- is par for the course). The nature of the post, which was a jokey bit of confusion, didn't bode well, I admit. One of my comments noted that I think lack of consent is a factor to justify bestiality bans. A person who generally I respect thought this silly since animals have no "legal consent."
I didn't say they had "legal" consent. I said their inability of consent is one reason we have bestiality bans. Did add that some animals having some will, some ability to "consent" (which was admitted as a sensible explanation, if tossing in some philosophical verbiage to confuse things) underlines the point. We respect that Fluffy, e.g., has the power (if not the legal right) to consent to certain things, so are concerned about her possible wishes and desires when determining proper animal welfare laws. Like a five year old child, animals don't have "legal consent," but lack of consent (and some will that warrants concern) matters.
Why is this difficult? The same blogger led to another issue, this from one of those commenters that I know does not see things my way in a fashion that I repeatedly think misses the point while finding me just clueless in the process. So, I had some fair warning, but again, the clueless nature of the comment annoys and saddens me. The post was one of those Israel ones at Volokh Conspiracy from one of the somewhat kneejerk Israel defenders. So, I questioned if there was a film there that put the Nativity story in a Palestinian context.
The reply wondered if I wanted one where the couple was expelled for being illegal settlers or something. I thought this sort of missed the point and didn't quite follow the original. The original had Mary/Joseph flee to Egypt to avoid Herod's son. So, I explained something like that but with new heavies would be a more direct parallel. I also explained (twice, after someone noted "huh" -- red flag emotional aside alert -- it seemed I was trying to promote an anti-Jewish film here) that the overall story would suggest altering some things given things are different today. For instance, the Jews control Israel. Jews wouldn't be lowly figures in the same way. This led the person to wonder if I wanted Mary/Joseph to be serial killers, since they too would be against the PTB. Seriously?
I get some replies like this online -- are these people even trying to understand what I'm saying? The person actually said "by my logic" the serial killer duo would make sense. This reminds me of another comment in another thread that assumed my link to a website explaining the "five non-negotiable" things for some Catholics (spoiler: SSM included) was my argument, perhaps because the link was to "St. Joseph" or something or other. I have visions of the SNL character saying "never mind."
But, one thing that rarely occurs with many of these people is admitting error. It occurs a few times, to be fair, but repeatedly they lash out quite badly and even when called upon it, they don't admit error. They don't even say "oh, I see what you are trying to say, but I disagree" etc. At some point, I realize one should not stress out about that. It's just someone online. But, they are not merely that -- they reflect a certain breed of people. Also, it is just rude and not respectful. Also, serious debate requires more than that -- it requires actually listening and trying to seriously engage people, including some with whom you strongly disagree.
I don't always succeed, but my basic philosophy is try to respect the people I argue with, even those who have views that I find wrong or even offensive. Some repeatedly just don't make a serious effort and at some point, it is best to ignore them. Given my tendencies to want to speak out online, that is not always easy. It helps when you can delete the comment -- sort of like writing a letter that you don't send. And, sometimes, I expect more out of the people, who seem to overall to be serious people.
Still, take the person cited at the start. He is clearly very intelligent and has wrote law articles and works as a lawyer. But, for whatever reason, especially on certain subjects (e.g., religion), he -- and the word is not one I like since it tends to be overused -- is something of a troll. He lets his id out and doesn't care to seriously reply to people. Other times he does, so it is not like he cannot. Not quite like a person at a sentencing blog who in real life is a serious lawyer job but spends much of the time ranting. The Internet encourages this sort of thing -- anonymity and all that though it is also seen by those who go by their real name. A few real tools in the blogosphere.
It can be so hard for various reasons. Sometimes, people just see things in a different way. It is hard to face such preconceived notions in a comment context -- the people often have limited time anyway, and are not there for long in depth debates anyhow. Others just seem to have a hard time to even take the time to try to understand your p.o.v. Since this to me is not only helpful but good policy, this depresses me. But, so be it, I guess.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!