In one of life's great mysteries, I've been giving a lot of attention to my devotional blog and almost none to this one, though the readership of Tangent Space(s) dwarfs that of the other one. As the New Radicals crooned in the days of my restless youth, "Someday We'll Know why..."
But now, O readers, I present a Tangent forged in the flames of internal fire (once I committed to the vocative 'O', I had to end the sentence with something alliterative and epic). We discuss a topic that I both love and hate, and love to hate, and hate that I love, a topic not unlike a car crash from which I can't look away...
Arguing on Facebook.
The Facebook Argument Paradox
You can't live without them, and you can't make them better... until now.
Here's the thing. In a perfect world, debates-- ethical, political, religious, or otherwise-- wouldn't primarily occur on a superficial, delete-able, Like-able, unfriend-able, poke-able social media site rife with pictures of duckface selfies and newborns. But I'm afraid that's the world we live in.
The truth is that conversations, whether they turn into arguments or not, about things like marriage equality, gun control, religious freedoms, abortion, etc., ought to be happening. While, again, Facebook is far from the ideal place for this, it happens to be the setting, at least for now, where people share their opinions. I think there ought to be a way for people to discuss important issues in the medium that is currently most popular for having discussions.
The problem (which you already know if you've used Facebook during an election year) is that these, ahem, discussions often deteriorate into the text versions of all-out bar fights. (I have absolutely no idea what an actual version of a bar fight is like, but I've watched plenty of motion pictures.)
How should we respond to the history of mean-spirited, illogical, non sequitur, and/or ad hominem tirades we've seen (or taken part in)? It seems like the two most common responses are to 'sink to their level' by spouting off our own angry outburst, or to flee the scene and not take part in any controversial Facebook conversations.
But what if, instead, we could agree to some ground rules? Because I love Aaron Sorkin, what if we borrowed the rules from the reboot of News Night from his HBO hit The Newsroom (as seen here)?
Facebook Argument 2.0
1. Is this information that people need in the voting booth?
While this isn't the same rubric you or I would use in our Facebook debates, the principle is the same-- is it worth it to weigh in on this? Just like News Night only has 42 minutes of news it can report, you only have so much time and energy to devote to public forums. Choose topics that are important and about which you know something (otherwise just reading and learning would be better).
2. Is this the best possible form of the argument?
Think before you type. Also, read and re-read what you've written before you hit enter. There are many drawbacks to responding in emotion and haste, and making a bad argument is one of them. If after thought and reflection you realize you can't actually argue your point well, again it's probably better to just read up on the topic instead of entering the fray.
3. Is this story in historical context?
Just like it would be shoddy for a news organization to report one event or quotation outside its historical context, so it is when you or I angrily opine on only one facet, element, or quotation from a much larger issue and ignore the many other factors connected to it. This again calls for thoughtfulness; do I understand the entire issue? To give one small but timely example: in the recent Hobby Lobby decision, religious freedom and contraceptive/women's/health rights are both major factors. Both need to be considered. A man has to do his best to understand a woman's perspective. An irreligious person has to do shis best to understand a religious person's perspective.
Just as Mack randomly added a fourth rule, I will do the same:
4. Be kind.
This seems to be the hardest one. Especially when the person you're arguing with is a 'Facebook friend of a Facebook friend', making them essentially not a real person to you. But here's the thing-- they are all real people (except of course for Catfished profiles, but I'm sure they avoid political debates). The people on Facebook, however ignorant, misguided, 'bigoted', short-sighted, unenlightened, or stupid they may be-- are people. You may despise their opinions, beliefs, arguments, etc., but please still show them basic human respect in your disagreement. This allows an environment in which other people can contribute their ideas on all sides of an issue. If you just bash a person, or even bash them back, the conversation is over.
[Note: I've even called out people before for breaking rule 4. Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I have. They usually respond that they were only violently thrashing the person's stance, not the person himself. If that helps someone sleep at night, then okay. But in my opinion, violent thrashing need not enter the picture at all. Saying, "I have no idea what you mean here... your argument makes no sense to me because... I absolutely disagree with your conclusion because" is so much better, to me, than "your idiotic argument... one of the dumbest things I've ever heard... it's insane that anyone would think that way..."]
What has your experience been with Facebook arguments?
Have I forgotten any crucial rules to making Facebook a better forum?
Do you think we can pull it off? Can social networks be a place where conflicting ideas are meaningfully shared with each other?
Jon
 |
| From katu.com |
