gistfile1.txt

I was having trouble responding to that in a few tweets, so I decided to flesh my thoughts out a bit here.
 
Things about me & internet drama:
 
- I enjoy it. I don't get upset or depressed by it, and I am pretty good at walking away when the possibility for productive
discussion seems to have evaporated. This is probably because I am a non-poor, college-educated mostly-cis straight-passing
white dude, and don't have a history of verbal abuse or self-esteem issues.
 
 - I believe that I can use the advantages conferred by the above privileges to do some good by participating in discussions
respectfully, calmly, and with the kind of personal passion that is inspired by witnessing harm that has been done to close
friends rather than to myself. I think I'm pretty good at distinguishing the merits of an argument from the end goal of the
person making the argument, regardless of my own stance on that end goal, and I think that conflations of same are one of the
prime contributors to msiunderstandings and pain in internet arguments. Therefore, I would like to help clarify the distinct
ion when possible & useful.
 
Problems that I am having with this:
 
 - I care more about being kind to people and about maintaining my friendships than I do about being a Paragon Of Objective
Truth. Thus, when I see people I care about making logically unsound arguments against the people hurting them, I am loath to
bring it up. But I'm also super conflicted and sad about it. I feel that there must be a compassionate way to help someone
see that they are doing themselves a disservice without invalidating the real harm that I know is being done to them, and
without shaming them for making a mistake, and without seeming like I am just looking for another way to hurt them. But I
don't know what it is, so I usually remain silent.
 
 - I am more likely to pipe up when the dynamic is reversed, and instead of it being a friend defending themselves with
unsound arguments, it is a friend attacking something else with unsound arguments. In these cases, there is still the risk of
being seen as wanting to defend whatever (usually actually awful) thing they are attacking, but there is less risk of doing
direct emotional damage to them at a time when they are vulnerable. Still, I often don't, because on a few occasions that I
have tried, I have been seen as an apologist and dismissed somewhat angrily. It is profoundly frustrating to me that it is so
difficult to stand up for an argument without being seen ot stand up for the cause it was intended to further. This is
exacerbated quite a lot by the brevity of twitter, but even in logner formats, all the hedges and caveats in the world often
aren't enough to get people to see past the feeling that, by daring to say that *anything* about the target might not be
totally wrong, I am betraying the cause.

 
 - I really don't think that this is because most people are stupid, or unwilling to examine their beliefs, or can't take
criticism. I think there are a number of contributing factors, one of which is the lack of tone and visual cues online, but
the one under my control (and thus the one I'm most interested in) is the /way/ that I instinctively go about trying to have
these conversations. I think I'm pretty different from most people in how I think about logical criticism, and I think it's a
bit of a social impairment, in that it's difficult for me to find ways of expressing it that will be well-received by others.
I HAVE gotten a lot better as I've gotten older at evaluating when something I'm considering saying WON'T be weill received,
or will be perceived as unking, hence my frequent decisions not to say anything. But again, it's frustrating, because I
strongly feel that my ability to disentangle misunderstandings and separate rhetorical tactics from underlying beliefs/goals
is one of my greatest strengths, and when I AM able to apply it successfully it's very satisfying and occasionally very
helpful to others.
 
So I guess what I was really after with my tweet was, "What are some strategies for compassionately, kindly, and non-condesc
endingly clarifying & criticising logical arguments?" (That alliteration showed up out of nowhere, but I can't say I didn't
run with it :)
 
To that I will add: does anything else stand out about my thought process here? Is my entire worldview ineherently flawed &
elitist? Should I just stop caring about being intellectual honest, and only care about being emotionally supportive? I think
trying to do that might kill me, but I am being serious - I am open to the possibility that I'm fundamentally doing it wrong.
I don't /think/ I am, but I also don't want to close myself off to the possibility that the answers I seek don't exist, and
my belief that they should rests on incorrect assumptions.