The changing face of disagreements

On social media you see one facet of a person, in real life you may be aware of contributory factors to a person’s attitude which may be a consideration.. True JaxJacky. The article says: Nuance, reflection and mutual understanding are casualties of the crossfire with on-line arguments.

FGS - are you looking for an argument? I couldn’t disagree more with what you’ve posted. Disagree by all means but the first part is unwarranted Suzie. Read the article please.

nanna Agree. I'm sure they do - the writer of the article draws attention to this.

lemongrove

Are you looking for an argument Suzie ? Because I doubt very much that Nana is.
Starting a post ‘FGS are you looking for an argument’ is a typical aggressive social media comment.
Read the article.

I’m tired of posts about banning posters and reporting comments you don’t agree with - the post in question was goady . FGS

No it wasn’t

Do we need a dedicated Argument Thread? Somewhere to go to for a good ol' ding dong?
It would be great
(I'm only half joking)

Thanks for posting this Sarah48. It made me think. I like the ‘Chat’ threads, but I’m also somebody who likes facts, to check things out for myself, and I do like a good debate on things that interest me. I also struggle not to comment when I see ‘facts’ that are not evidence based being promulgated.

The political and news debates in particular aren’t for the faint hearted on Gransnet, as people can be quite vicious in defending their beliefs. The main message I took from the article was to recognise that I’m really annoying - not a keyboard warrior or discourteous I hope, but not good enough at acknowledging why people have reached different conclusions. Onward and upward!

No Suzie my post wasn't 'goady' .

It was my opinion which I'm allowed to have just as you are allowed to have an alternative opinion.

I couldn't give a stuff if our opinions vary but i do defend my right to not only have an opinion but to be able to post it.

I'm never sure why people think you have to be 'brave' to join in political discussions - no point of view is more important than another. I find that having to defend my point of view makes me think about why I hold it, and I can modify it if I learn something new.

I agree with the article about context, though. Offline, when we listen to someone, we know where their expertise lies, and can judge their opinion accordingly. Online, there is no way of telling whether someone knows about the topic under discussion or not, and a lot of people insist that their opinion is as relevant as that of an expert, which can make for a lot of pointless discussions and misinformation. A virologist can explain why she thinks something about Covid, for instance, and then someone with no training in virology will come along and say 'That's rubbish! in my opinion . . .'

I don't think the article was referring to sites like this, though. It was more about Twitter and similar unmoderated 'anything goes' places. There are so many rules here that I don't think that the communication is natural at all.

I agree Doodledog

I haven't read the article yet but i've always thought that in any discussion if one person resorts to personal comments it means that they know they're losing the essence of the argument.
eg in a game of football - you're losing the ball so you kick the player who has it.