At last week's Tweetup, there was some brief discussion about how you represent yourself online and the possibility of getting into nasty internet arguments. And wouldn't you know it, this week brought a few smacks for me, and also for my new Twitter buddy, Jamie Varon, who has had a banner week as a blogger.
As a seasoned veteran on the receiving end of the internet smackdown I thought I'd offer my views on this important topic.
1. If you have an online presence you have to consider everything you display is game for fodder or ridicule. You cannot be mortally wounded when someone says something nasty. And when I say nasty I mean like the kind of thing that makes you cry and want to banish yourself from the online kingdom forever. It has happened to me time and time again.
There are unstable people all over the place, you can never shield yourself completely. But remember, the internet is the snark's ultimate playground - and your blog post is the merry-go-round. Where else can people run around in pointless circles that go nowhere, chide you incessantly, or anonymously, without repercussion? I feel sorry for some of the career-level haters. They need help blog posts can't solve.
2. We all have a right to air our thoughts, so if you write opinion pieces, accept misunderstanding is coming your way and have a response strategy. And by "response strategy" I mean anything from firing back to completely ignoring people. I've gotten to the point where I can tell right away if someone is too delusional to have any hope of civil rapport. I ignore them or try to say something vague and benign to end the conversation. Then there are some people whose opinion I respect, or feel have truly misunderstood me, and I'll try to make sense of things. But, all in all, bloggers have to grow a thick skin when dealing with comments.
3. If you object to something in a post and go on the offensive, attack ideas, not the people writing about them. So often I find people attack me personally, instead of my ideas. There is perhaps a subtle, but distinct, difference.
For example, I might write, "I think cherry pie is the most awesome of all pie flavors."
Someone will invariably reply, "Only an idiot likes cherry pie."
In addition to offering an inane cookie-cutter response, there is no evaluation of the merits of my argument. A more successful approach would be to make an intelligent, original point, such as, "Cherries are too tart, therefore the addition of excess sugar spoils the natural flavor of a fruit pie. Apples and peaches are more suited to pie-making."
Instead of supporting their own ideas with cogent commentary, people cut me down personally. I think this is a cowardly response from those who are high on emotion, low on original thought.
4. After being subjected to a number of horrifying internet smackdown scenarios, I now have a firm policy about online debate: Do not intentionally provoke people! They can be scary, unstable, and stalkerly! I've learned other people have a much higher tolerance for down and dirty than I do. While I'm sure there will be some of you who disagree that I don't intentionally provoke, I would argue there is a distinct line between posting my opinions on my own "internet property" (i.e., my blog or Twitter stream) and jumping onto someone else's. When I disagree with a writer, I make every attempt to make my comments civil and detached from personal commentary. I do not seek out web pages or Twitter feeds to pick fights, but to discuss ideas.
5. If someone directly opines on something you've written, mentions your name, links to you, or uses personal pronouns, (I say) consider the game on! For example, don't use my name in your blog post title, and then act incredulous and outraged when I bring the pain.
Another thing that absolutely makes me say, WTF?, is when a commenter starts their sentence with, "You think..." or "You are..." or some variation on a theme where they decide to tell you something about yourself. I find it incredibly bizarre that anyone will use the second-person singular in that way unless they are directly quoting the author or asking for clarification. Maybe I'm too literal, but that use of grammar indicates an intimate knowledge with a person's psyche and motivations. Dangerous territory indeed. Unless you are a family member or BFF, I'd suggest shying away from making declarative statements, and instead, ask questions, you may actually learn something.
6. Satire is Not Dead!!! People need to have a sense of humor. Despite everything I've said above, I think people can take hurt feelings and being politically correct way too far. For example, despite our numerous ongoing disagreements, I think Tim Weaver is freaking hilarious sometimes. Another example of a great debater is Andrew Norcross. He and I parse contentious topics on Twitter routinely without getting all weird and personal, which is refreshing. He can jokingly call me an anarchist and I can call him a socialist and we can both move on to another topic, no problem.
Other examples are veteran writers Camille Paglia, or John Derbyshire, who are polar opposite ideologues. Paglia is an atheist feminist pro-choice Democrat, and I basically disagree with 75% of what she says, but her writing doesn't offend me, because it's so damn good. Well that, and she can *gasp* make fun of her own party along with the opposing team! Derbyshire is a dour British mathematician, and a pundit after my own heart politically. But they both have the art of the satirical essay nailed. They make intelligent and valid points with wit and color. So, if you are a great writer, and don't take yourself too seriously, I think you can make any topic appropriate for a wide audience.
I'm not claiming to be a perfect representative of online discourse, because I've gotten into overly-emotional spats in the past. I even went through a point where I thought I'd quit blogging, but that was childish. I'm much happier now that I've settled on what I consider the "Golden Rules" of blogging. All in all, civil debate can be fun and educational!
****************
Bonus Rule! I thought of this as I dozed off to sleep last night. This rule is only for the most fierce of internet fighters. Admit when you are wrong. Admit things aren't black and white. Admit you might be uncertain. Admit you need to do more research. I have had plenty of occasions online and otherwise where someone made a relevant point I hadn't considered and I changed my mind on my point of view or asked for more explanation. I'm not too proud to admit my faults, in fact, I love being wrong, so I can get that much closer to the truth.
11 Comments:
Out of all the posts I've read from you, this might be my favorite one yet!
Please, keep writing!
Sage advice for anyone with an online presence. Great thoughts. There's something here both for those providing opinions and content and those responding to opinions and content.
When you feel particularly passionate about something that someone disagrees with it's easy to want to lash out at them. It's valuable to step back, assess their argument and respond, as you pointed out, to the content of their argument, not to the fact that they disagree with you.
Great post. I have to admit, I am not an expert on the smackdown. I do think honesty with a bit of humility goes a long way though. If you're a good blogger, you build trust through being honest and being humble about your opinions. And being humble doesn't mean you can't have a strong opinion.
To me, it makes a big difference in how I react to other bloggers. That's why I feel comfortable reading a strong opinion from you. I am guessing a lot of people feel that way.
@Dave - thanks! I'm glad you like it. I only speak from a place of having been routinely beaten down...heheh!
@Turbobrown - I know, it's sometimes hard to bite one's tongue. I definitely have problems with this at times. Maybe there should be a 10 minute rule too - or like my mom says, "When in doubt, don't!" This could apply to posting possibly inflammatory comments against someone else.
@Lance - As an FYI - you are definitely one of the people who's (sp?) opinion I respect.
Take our most recent exchange on P-Trunk's blog. We may still have some points of disagreement (haven't checked the comment stream recently), but you made great points relevant to the conversation, and I felt I learned something of value, without being personally attacked.
I think that's an important point. No matter how great the intrinsic value of your message is, it can be muddied or devalued by ineffective or overly-emotional delivery.
I'd like to pretend that never happens to me... : )
@Whoever -
As a side-note - in case any of you think I'm making veiled references to conversations I've had with you in particular - you can fairly confidently assume if you still read my blog posts, you are not one of my above-referenced mortal enemies. I'm guessing anyone who has hated me enough to attempt to publicly ridicule me has had enough by now.
We cool.
I am all about civil disagreements. It is a big part of my job. Being able to be confident enough to be honest is a huge hurdle to get over for people.
I feel like I hold back more online than I do in real life. I am used to having very robust debates with my family and friends about politics in particular. I try to bring it down online because I don't think it translates as well (and it seems as though everyone is a little more unhinged).
Thanks for writing this. I took a lot from it and definitely felt understood.
Your blog is absolutely one of my favorites. You write honestly and without abandon. It's inspiring.
Someone should write a book!
There isn't much difference between living on online and being a gladiator at the height of the Roman Empire is there?
@DaveMurr - I can see it now...Zen and the Art of the Internet Smackdown...
I do in fact tend to think of myself as an e-Gladiator. That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
I've not had to deal with this... yet. But I'm making a mental note of this post for if/when I do. Thanks!
I'm having to learn how to hit the delete button or just ignore it when I start receiving certain criticisms. When people start attacking me, rather than what I'm talking about, I just delete it. Life's too short to read that stuff. It's definitely too short to argue with it when you know you've got no reason to feel defensive.
Post a Comment