An Argument vs. A Discussion...

[GroobyKrissy]

I'm just throwing this out there... because I've heard this "lots of arguments" I think... 5 times now this AM.

Can people not have a discussion without people calling it an argument anymore? Does a discussion even exist or are the two inseparable these days?

Let's argue about that discussion.

For me... most things are a discussion...

A discussion is two (or more, obviously) people sharing ideas, questioning them, refuting them, and engaging the other to think for themselves...

An argument is when there is no further discussion and just personal attacking remains...

A personal attack is belittling something about the person's character or appearance that has nothing to do with the discussion... i.e. - saying someone is being hypocritical is not a personal attack when it goes to undermining their principle point...

Are these things not taught in school anymore or have we just become a society where we don't discuss... we argue?

Discuss.

[dderek123]

It seems like discussions turn into arguments when people can't agree to disagree and respect each other's views. Some posters here are more contentious than others though.

I'm guilty of arguing when I should be discussing too. When I think back to my university days I was horrible for that.

[bte]

I used to be able to tell the difference between an argument and discussion. Nowadays, not so much. Seems like a discussion always seem to escalate into an argument.

[GroobyKrissy]

I used to be able to tell the difference between an argument and discussion. Nowadays, not so much. Seems like a discussion always seem to escalate into an argument.

Why do you think that is?

Personally, I think it is because we expect people to say things in 140 characters or less, and most things just can't be discussed in that short of a span thoroughly.

Also, we've become a society that lacks critical thinking skills or the attention spans to read, partially because we're just so damn busy and partially because we have just become lazy.

[GroobyKrissy]

It seems like discussions turn into arguments when people can't agree to disagree and respect each other's views. Some posters here are more contentious than others though.

I'm guilty of arguing when I should be discussing too. When I think back to my university days I was horrible for that.

I don't think you can always "agree to disagree". Sometimes the point is so significant it is a, "if you can't concede that your point is unsupported and therefore invalid - we can't continue the discussion". Which I guess is, in a way, agreeing to disagree.

Perhaps I should just start stating that. I guess I get stuck when I feel that the point I am making is outlined so logically that it cannot possibly be wrong. Obviously, some people don't, can't, or just won't see it that way and I should start realizing that sooner.

[Prospero]

well said Krissy

[runningdownthatdream]

Why do you think that is?

Personally, I think it is because we expect people to say things in 140 characters or less, and most things just can't be discussed in that short of a span thoroughly.

Also, we've become a society that lacks critical thinking skills or the attention spans to read, partially because we're just so damn busy and partially because we have just become lazy.

I disagree. I think people argue because it is human nature to devolve to our basest instincts whenever threatened. Few people can control that urge. It appears to be more prevalent now because we have technological tools that enable just about anyone who can pay for a cell phone or internet access to voice their 'opinion' in multiple places almost simultaneously to an audience numbering anywhere from 1 to millions. And EVERYONE wants to believe their thoughts are more important and valid than the next person.

You seem to be inferring that there were good old days where people were more polite, educated, and industrious. This is false. More people now have formal education but the basic tenets of old school education based on classical Roman or Greek methods are being replaced by more touchy/feely, nobody-is-ever-wrong, accept everyone, validate every opinion no matter how invalid, live for the moment idealogy. Is it good? Is it bad? No matter,,,,it just is.

[nysprod]

When you engage in discussion you have to accept there will be times when the other person will not agree with you no matter how clearly presented and/or logical your views may be. Once that becomes clear the discussion is over, there's no point in continuing it. If it does, the probability the discussion will then devolve into an argument which includes personal attacks is high.

[Prospero]

Argument Clinic - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y)

[bluesoul]

the only time when discussion works here is when everyone agrees. as soon as someone disagrees they are either labelled a hater or a troll.

another thing that makes discussion impossible is when people questions others right to have opinions by saying "i've been at this for 20 plus years so my opinion clearly has precedence over yours" or "you're one to talk. you're not even a woman/man etc"

it's impossible to have discussions with people that don't know how to discuss and are clearly only about getting people to agree with them. most times people fail to "win" people to their corner, then they threaten they will quit/leave or request for the other party to be banned

[maxpower]

Great Python bit, Prospero.

[trish]

Arguments have gotten a bad rap. Mathematicians give arguments all the time to establish one proposition or another, and they very rarely raise any tempers. Same thing goes on in many other areas of discourse as well.

If two people disagree there is nothing wrong in presenting arguments and counter-arguments to describe, press and defend their positions. In fact this is what I think people ought to do to mutually explore difficult issues. Good arguments move rational listeners, not always, and certainly not always immediately. But sometimes I will find my own positions shifting weeks after I heard a good argument and had time to digest it.

Arguments go sour when they degenerate into name calling, ultimatums, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. I don’t think it’s wrong to return fire when subjected to such behavior but not in kind; i.e. answer name calling with logic, lies with honesty, ultimatums with reason. I usually fail miserably at this myself.

[GroobyKrissy]

I disagree. I think people argue because it is human nature to devolve to our basest instincts whenever threatened. Few people can control that urge. It appears to be more prevalent now because we have technological tools that enable just about anyone who can pay for a cell phone or internet access to voice their 'opinion' in multiple places almost simultaneously to an audience numbering anywhere from 1 to millions. And EVERYONE wants to believe their thoughts are more important and valid than the next person.

You seem to be inferring that there were good old days where people were more polite, educated, and industrious. This is false. More people now have formal education but the basic tenets of old school education based on classical Roman or Greek methods are being replaced by more touchy/feely, nobody-is-ever-wrong, accept everyone, validate every opinion no matter how invalid, live for the moment idealogy. Is it good? Is it bad? No matter,,,,it just is.

I disagree. I think there were times when you could engage in a discussion with people and they were MUCH MORE willing to listen and understand your point of view... especially in a written format. And it is almost incredible to believe that we're a more "polite" society than we used to be.

I type long entries... I know that I do this and people tell me about it all the time. Take an entry of mine though and READ IT ALOUD. I should take you all of 20-30 seconds. So basically we are to the point where we cannot abide to read something that cannot be digested in one or two lines, yet we carry on conversations with people where one party will talk for 2-3 minutes. That is lazy at best.

Having a discussion has little to do with being polite, educated, or industrious. It has everything to do with being willing to take the time to understand what the other person is saying and refute it directly. Then having the other person take your points and refute them directly.

Impolite people can have discussions. Uneducated people can have discussions. Lazy people can have discussions. We're now people though, who don't have the time, capacity, or willingness to have a discussion in a written format.

And, while we're on the subject of being polite... when was the last time you heard these words...?

"Oh... good point! I hadn't thought about it that way."
"You know what... you're right. I have to rethink this a bit and flesh out my thought process."
"I'm sorry I said that."

[bte]

Why do you think that is?

Personally, I think it is because we expect people to say things in 140 characters or less, and most things just can't be discussed in that short of a span thoroughly.

Also, we've become a society that lacks critical thinking skills or the attention spans to read, partially because we're just so damn busy and partially because we have just become lazy.

I think its because we expect people to believe in what we believe when there is a discussion. If someone doesn't agree then they it escalates into a "you're wrong no you're wrong" type of conversation. People going to have to realize that everybody has different thought processes and different ideals. Everyone on this board was raised differently and has experience different things in their life. Discussions are always welcome, but arguments increase the view/post count on HA.

[bluesoul]

I don't think you can always "agree to disagree".

actually i think it's very possible. my best friend and i disagree on a lot of things: from personal believes to even things as simple as "did you think that film was good/entertaining?"

the strange thing is, we see each others point of view but either we agree that those things (that made the other person find said article of discussion interesting/important) weren't as paramount for us individually. therefore, it's easy to see why the other party loved it or held their point of view.

so the discussion therefore becomes about understand "why" the other party finds those highlights paramount to form their opinion.

i think another value here we might be forgetting is respect. if you have a discussion with someone that either cannot articulate themselves properly then you'll either 1). lose patience with them or 2). lose their respect
this is of course, assuming you actually had these to begin with

i think when one of these 2 values is lost we see an argument arise either in the name of name calling, belittling, calling out the other person's validity or even bringing into question their intentions-

but when the discussion arises when one of the parties doesn't have these values to begin with, it's easy to notice the choice of vocabulary or "stiff upper lip" used

[GroobyKrissy]

Arguments have gotten a bad rap. Mathematicians give arguments all the time to establish one proposition or another, and they very rarely raise any tempers. Same thing goes on in many other areas of discourse as well.

If two people disagree there is nothing wrong in presenting arguments and counter-arguments to describe, press and defend their positions. In fact this is what I think people ought to do to mutually explore difficult issues. Good arguments move rational listeners, not always, and certainly not always immediately. But sometimes I will find my own positions shifting weeks after I heard a good argument and had time to digest it.

Arguments go sour when they degenerate into name calling, ultimatums, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. I don’t think it’s wrong to return fire when subjected to such behavior but not in kind; i.e. answer name calling with logic, lies with honesty, ultimatums with reason. I usually fail miserably at this myself.

Mathematics though is a hard science... meaning it is [largely, besides a few fringes] based in hard facts that cannot be disputed. Thus you are either wrong... or right as long as you can prove your theorem.

Once you add opinions, and especially experiential ones, into the mix, I think you've added an element (haha) that the sciences don't really have to deal with.

I don't believe in a discussion you should become a doormat for the other to walk all over. Civility is nice in a discussion but I think you can still have a discussion, without it being an argument, without being entirely civil as well.

[RallyCola]

There is very little difference in everyday conversation and almost no difference here because people are so entrenched in their POV that discussions quickly devolve into unless arguments. No one is here to cede a point to anyone else. Forums such as this allow people to disseminate their opinion without interruption and mentally masturbate about how awesome their POV is. unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

[GroobyKrissy]

actually i think it's very possible. my best friend and i disagree on a lot of things: from personal believes to even things as simple as "did you think that film was good/entertaining?"

the strange thing is, we see each others point of view but either we agree that those things (that made the other person find said article of discussion interesting/important) weren't as paramount for us individually. therefore, it's easy to see why the other party loved it or held their point of view.

so the discussion therefore becomes about understand "why" the other party finds those highlights paramount to form their opinion.

i think another value here we might be forgetting is respect. if you have a discussion with someone that either cannot articulate themselves properly then you'll either 1). lose patience with them or 2). lose their respect
this is of course, assuming you actually had these to begin with

i think when one of these 2 values is lost we see an argument arise either in the name of name calling, belittling, calling out the other person's validity or even bringing into question their intentions-

but when the discussion arises when one of the parties doesn't have these values to begin with, it's easy to notice the choice of vocabulary or "stiff upper lip" used

Oh, I'm not saying it can't be done... just that it isn't possible always.

All the rest, good points.

[trish]

Mathematics though is a hard science... meaning it is [largely, besides a few fringes] based in hard facts that cannot be disputed. Thus you are either wrong... or right as long as you can prove your theorem.

Once you add opinions, and especially experiential ones, into the mix, I think you've added an element (haha) that the sciences don't really have to deal with.

I don't believe in a discussion you should become a doormat for the other to walk all over. Civility is nice in a discussion but I think you can still have a discussion, without it being an argument, without being entirely civil as well.I agree about the hard science versus opinion distinction. Though I still think good argumentation is a way to make progress toward a consensus view. But not when it turns uncivil. Another good way to move closer on issues that are more opinion/experiential than science related is story telling. Just exchanging experiences can make a for an enjoyable and often enlightening evening. Though again, my life is pretty dull, I do better at arguing than telling stories. But probably stories and novels have done more to progress social justice in the world than all the argumentation of politicians and philosophers...and I'm willing to argue that point. :)

[GroobyKrissy]

There is very little difference in everyday conversation and almost no difference here because people are so entrenched in their POV that discussions quickly devolve into unless arguments. No one is here to cede a point to anyone else. Forums such as this allow people to disseminate their opinion without interruption and mentally masturbate about how awesome their POV is. unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

I would wholly disagree that there is little difference in everyday conversation. I have discussions with people every day at work that don't devolve into an argument. My friends and I meet weekly for "discussion and debate" around wine and we never let things devolve into an argument.

I do like your "mentally masturbate" line though. Points for originality.

[trish]

I know people you come here to actually masturbate.

[runningdownthatdream]

I disagree. I think there were times when you could engage in a discussion with people and they were MUCH MORE willing to listen and understand your point of view... especially in a written format. And it is almost incredible to believe that we're a more "polite" society than we used to be.

I type long entries... I know that I do this and people tell me about it all the time. Take an entry of mine though and READ IT ALOUD. I should take you all of 20-30 seconds. So basically we are to the point where we cannot abide to read something that cannot be digested in one or two lines, yet we carry on conversations with people where one party will talk for 2-3 minutes. That is lazy at best.

Having a discussion has little to do with being polite, educated, or industrious. It has everything to do with being willing to take the time to understand what the other person is saying and refute it directly. Then having the other person take your points and refute them directly.

Impolite people can have discussions. Uneducated people can have discussions. Lazy people can have discussions. We're now people though, who don't have the time, capacity, or willingness to have a discussion in a written format.

And, while we're on the subject of being polite... when was the last time you heard these words...?

"Oh... good point! I hadn't thought about it that way."
"You know what... you're right. I have to rethink this a bit and flesh out my thought process."
"I'm sorry I said that."

I don't believe we're a more polite society at all. In fact the ability to air one's opinion - no matter how erroneous - is one of the factors that has led to society being more IMpolite. Nor am i suggesting that one needs to be polite, educated, or industrious to engage in a discussion - I was just addressing your earlier point - which you make here again - that there were times past when people were more willing to listen and learn, etc. I don't think such times existed - perhaps the circles you moved among in days past were like that but generally human nature is what it is. You may be thinking that people are more argumentative now simply because your circle of acquaintances has broadened or there are simply way more people from disparate environments now a part of your life - for example as your internet presence has grown so too has the number of people you interact with.

I agree with you that our society is more hurried now - there isn't enough time to engage in the mundane things that seem to interest people (such as watching sports or playing online games or posting endless tripe on innumerable blogs or twittering) so when they do engage in a real conversation they really have no time to actually think about what they're discussing.

As for the points you made about acknowledging when others make good points, etc well I'm proud to say i do it all the time. I try really hard to reject dogma and am always open to new ideas.

[trish]

It's often said that online discussions devolve because of anonymity. You lose friends in this context it doesn't matter so much. Losing friends in the real time world can be more consequential. I'm not sure I agree, but that's sort of how the "argument" goes.

[GroobyKrissy]

I agree about the hard science versus opinion distinction. Though I still think good argumentation is a way to make progress toward a consensus view. But not when it turns uncivil. Another good way to move closer on issues that are more opinion/experiential than science related is story telling. Just exchanging experiences can make a for an enjoyable and often enlightening evening. Though again, my life is pretty dull, I do better at arguing than telling stories. But probably stories and novels have done more to progress social justice in the world than all the argumentation of politicians and philosophers...and I'm willing to argue that point. :)

At what point though, do you think that becomes manipulation? Sad stories are great but they are highly subjective and for every sad story on one side, there are two for the other. This falls into the realm of politics a lot, don't you think?

One side drags out poor grandma losing her insurance... the other drags out poor grandpa who just got his hip replaced for free.

I do love hearing stories though. People live such interesting and fascinating lives. Truth stranger than fiction and all that.

[GroobyKrissy]

It's often said that online discussions devolve because of anonymity. You lose friends in this context it doesn't matter so much. Losing friends in the real time world can be more consequential. I'm not sure I agree, but that's sort of how the "argument" goes.

And... bingo. I think that is a huge point, indeed.

[trish]

At what point though, do you think that becomes manipulation? Sad stories are great but they are highly subjective and for every sad story on one side, there are two for the other. This falls into the realm of politics a lot, don't you think?

One side drags out poor grandma losing her insurance... the other drags out poor grandpa who just got his hip replaced for free.

I do love hearing stories though. People live such interesting and fascinating lives. Truth stranger than fiction and all that.
Yes, there is always the problem of sorting out the truth. I suppose I'm merely saying stories are effective. A novel can be propaganda or an honest portrayal of life. If the reader pre-inclined to be persuaded by the propaganda may not be able to distinguish the difference. We might be that reader. We can only listen, think and criticize our own processes honestly.

[dderek123]

I don't think you can always "agree to disagree". Sometimes the point is so significant it is a, "if you can't concede that your point is unsupported and therefore invalid - we can't continue the discussion". Which I guess is, in a way, agreeing to disagree.

Perhaps I should just start stating that. I guess I get stuck when I feel that the point I am making is outlined so logically that it cannot possibly be wrong. Obviously, some people don't, can't, or just won't see it that way and I should start realizing that sooner.

Yep totally hear you on that one. This will sound insensitive but in a discussion I've found myself feeling that I don't really care if the other person doesn't agree with me. I'll add my 2 cents and if the other person is just being a stubborn and not adding anything to the discussion I'll just move on. If I don't do that we'll just end up talking around and around in circles. Then both of us will eventually feel frustrated and the discussion turns into something else.

I really enjoy having a fruitful discussion on something interesting. Like when you, me and Miranda were talking about gaming a while ago. I really enjoyed that. But if I feel like some anonymous person on the internet is wrong about something I'll just shrug my shoulders and move on.

[bluesoul]

It's often said that online discussions devolve because of anonymity. You lose friends in this context it doesn't matter so much. Losing friends in the real time world can be more consequential. I'm not sure I agree, but that's sort of how the "argument" goes.

i honestly don't agree with this. anonymous has managed to work pretty well when it wanted to like in the project chanology or vs the steubenville ohio rape case and this is even despite having an actual hierarchy or any form of leadership with members choosing how or if they're even anonymous

[ladd3rfr3ak]

Yet another thread to have an argument.

[GroobyKrissy]

i honestly don't agree with this. anonymous has managed to work pretty well when it wanted to like in the project chanology or vs the steubenville ohio rape case and this is even despite having an actual hierarchy or any form of leadership with members choosing how or if they're even anonymous

Oh, I would agree with the premise that anonymity furthers the breakdown of polite conversation 100%.

being anonymous really just provides for unaccountability. I think it has already been mentioned here that given unaccountability, humanity does, largely, devolve.

You can see this played out time and time again when people who are good at snooping track someone down who left a rude FB post, Twitter post, or etc. and call them out. When faced with the revealing of who they are, they typically will back down, back track, or "clarify" their comment.

Didn't some famous person actually do this on Twitter a while ago and show up on the guy's doorstep and the guy who wrote the nasty comment basically had to get the smelling salts out?

[bluesoul]

Oh, I would agree with the premise that anonymity furthers the breakdown of polite conversation 100%.

being anonymous really just provides for unaccountability. I think it has already been mentioned here that given unaccountability, humanity does, largely, devolve.

You can see this played out time and time again when people who are good at snooping track someone down who left a rude FB post, Twitter post, or etc. and call them out. When faced with the revealing of who they are, they typically will back down, back track, or "clarify" their comment.

Didn't some famous person actually do this on Twitter a while ago and show up on the guy's doorstep and the guy who wrote the nasty comment basically had to get the smelling salts out?

i think there are 2 points here:

1). nobody is really anonymous on the internet. it's really a matter of how visible you are (like you said, there are those who are able to track ppl that make rude comments on fb, twitter etc)

2). it's a question of the individual's own mentality rather than anonymity that causes this bad behavior: eg. people that steal then post evidence on fb, or the fraternity that had the racist martin luther king jr. day party (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/an-asu-fraternity-was-suspended-after-throwing-a-super-racis)

i do think there are those that take advantage of being anonymous to do certain things so i'll definately agree that it does present it's problems, but i also don't believe in visibility on the internet unless one wants it, and champion anonymity

i suppose then we can say, the types of discussions will reflect the mentality of that community

eg. how many times when someone posts a joke here do they have to issue a warning there is an incoming joke to avoid "an argument"?

[GroobyKrissy]

i think there are 2 points here:

1). nobody is really anonymous on the internet. it's really a matter of how visible you are (like you said, there are those who are able to track ppl that make rude comments on fb, twitter etc)

2). it's a question of the individual's own mentality rather than anonymity that causes this bad behavior: eg. people that steal then post evidence on fb, or the fraternity that had the racist martin luther king jr. day party (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/an-asu-fraternity-was-suspended-after-throwing-a-super-racis)

i do think there are those that take advantage of being anonymous to do certain things so i'll definately agree that it does present it's problems, but i also don't believe in visibility on the internet unless one wants it, and champion anonymity

i suppose then we can say, the types of discussions will reflect the mentality of that community

eg. how many times when someone posts a joke here do they have to issue a warning there is an incoming joke to avoid "an argument"?

I am definitely for people being as anonymous as possible and usually respect a person's privacy unless they're going out their way to be a jerk. In which case, I may do some digging around on them and see where else they pop up... but I rarely reveal that I know that information about them.

I love having to say, "j/k"... it really makes that punchline stick... or having to explain a joke to someone who clearly doesn't get it. Yeah, humor is definitely something that doesn't always translate well across the Internet sometimes.

In another thread, I just implied that Dino fucks chickens... some person who is totally new or doesn't know me may actually think that I'm being mean and saying that Dino engages in chicken-fucking when in reality we all know that he prefers fucking Chinks.

[bluesoul]

Yeah, humor is definitely something that doesn't always translate well across the Internet sometimes.

tbh: i think humor translates fine. it just depends on the individual's humor or language barriers (often their geographical location will also either display their humor)

i'm one of those people who feels like if you have to announce a joke- or point it out, then it's not a joke. it's like a comedian getting on stage and going "here comes the joke everyone"

its like when people are in a discussion and they say "i'm not trying to be rude, insulting, or disrespect anyone". i mean, saying that doesn't mean you're magically dissolved from insults if you actually issued an insult. in most cases, it just means you can't write clear enough or your audience is the type that needs to be told what to think

[Dino Velvet]

In another thread, I just implied that Dino fucks chickens... some person who is totally new or doesn't know me may actually think that I'm being mean and saying that Dino engages in chicken-fucking when in reality we all know that he prefers fucking Chinks.

The China people just tug on my wiener but you Koreans are easier to get under control for some full service. 60 dolla

[Dino Velvet]

My mother always told me to consider the source. My dad, the cop, encouraged me to categorize people instead to save time.

[zerrrr]

The Internet as a whole has brought us closer together. We can sit at a laptop or tablet and access information and chat with people in real time around the world.

For better or worse it exposed all of our hidden faults.

The real problems stem from one person feeling so aggravated by something that they feel the need to express why they are right and why you are wrong.

When you meet those people they are so stuck in their opinions with their blinders on that they cannot see any other viewpoint other than their own. No matter what you say they are right and you are wrong.

It is the Internet which has become a lot like society itself. There is no moderate ground, only the extremes.

[francisfkudrow]

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." --Godwin's Law

Notice that Godwin's Law doesn't say "online argument". It says "discussion"... Any online discussion that goes on long enough, eventually becomes enough of an argument that Hitler gets mentioned.

[GroobyKrissy]

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." --Godwin's Law

Notice that Godwin's Law doesn't say "online argument". It says "discussion"... Any online discussion that goes on long enough, eventually becomes enough of an argument that Hitler gets mentioned.

Like, you know, OMG, stop being a facist.

Is there a law that dictates that the more history a word has the less the person using it is going to know what it means or will use it correctly?

[GroobyKrissy]

The Internet as a whole has brought us closer together. We can sit at a laptop or tablet and access information and chat with people in real time around the world.

For better or worse it exposed all of our hidden faults.

The real problems stem from one person feeling so aggravated by something that they feel the need to express why they are right and why you are wrong.

When you meet those people they are so stuck in their opinions with their blinders on that they cannot see any other viewpoint other than their own. No matter what you say they are right and you are wrong.

It is the Internet which has become a lot like society itself. There is no moderate ground, only the extremes.

Has it really though?

I mean... what is "closer" ? Do we interact with more people on a daily basis? Probably. Are we "closer" to them... probably not.

I was thinking about this the other night while I was out walking my dog and seeing the all too familiar glow of TV from house after house after house. What happened to game night? What happened to families eating around the table?

I suppose it is possible that there were families having a good time watching a funny show together... but is that really interaction and fostering "closeness"?

Can you truly become "close" with someone over the Internet only?

[GroobyKrissy]

My mother always told me to consider the source. My dad, the cop, encouraged me to categorize people instead to save time.

or... categorize the source and save even more time.

[zerrrr]

I think the fallout from the Coke commercial shows that the human race as a whole has a long way to go before we achieve some sort of middle ground.

[GroobyKrissy]

I think the fallout from the Coke commercial shows that the human race as a whole has a long way to go before we achieve some sort of middle ground.

Has there been a huge fallout from that? I've kind of been keeping a eye on it but not really.

I thought it was lovely. What's the scuttlebutt on the fallout?

[zerrrr]

Has it really though?

I mean... what is "closer" ? Do we interact with more people on a daily basis? Probably. Are we "closer" to them... probably not.

I was thinking about this the other night while I was out walking my dog and seeing the all too familiar glow of TV from house after house after house. What happened to game night? What happened to families eating around the table?

I suppose it is possible that there were families having a good time watching a funny show together... but is that really interaction and fostering "closeness"?

Can you truly become "close" with someone over the Internet only?

I think we are closer in that we can literally reach out to someone around the world in real time. When I moved back to the US from working in China I stayed in touch with my old girlfriend via Messaging programs. We could chat and see each other via webcam.

We remained close and when she married she moved out of China. First thing she did after joining Facebook and friending her husband and family was friend me.

We still are close and keep in touch.

I have good friends in Singapore that I chat with on a regular basis.

I have made good friends with people that I never met. It can happen.

In that sense we are closer. If I want information on a company overseas I can look it up on the Internet where 20 years ago I had to write a letter or go visit. Now a visit is the last step.

In terms of the family breakdown that happened in the 90's when people started working more than 40 hour weeks and spending less and less time at home.

The children took a backseat to careers at that time. People became so focused on their kids making into the best college that they pushed them into activities that they did not want.

Kids were working more than 60 hours a week driven by parents who were working longer hours. Gone was the family night together because the kids had sports, music, clubs, and school.

It is the breakdown of the family as the reason I never got married. I decided early on that if my potential wife was not 100% committed to raising our children since your child is the greatest gift you can leave this planet then I do not want to get married.



Has there been a huge fallout from that? I've kind of been keeping a eye on it but not really.

I thought it was lovely. What's the scuttlebutt on the fallout?

The Internet reared its ugly head calling the commercial unAmerican because they chose to use a language other than English.

http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/75447787843/speak-english-racist-revolt-as-coca-cola-airs

http://www.mysanantonio.com/lifestyle/article/Coke-s-Beautiful-ad-brings-out-ugly-comments-5199872.php

There is a smaller backlash against the Cheerios ad because everyone is so focused on Coke.

[Ben in LA]

Oh, I would agree with the premise that anonymity furthers the breakdown of polite conversation 100%.

being anonymous really just provides for unaccountability. I think it has already been mentioned here that given unaccountability, humanity does, largely, devolve.

You can see this played out time and time again when people who are good at snooping track someone down who left a rude FB post, Twitter post, or etc. and call them out. When faced with the revealing of who they are, they typically will back down, back track, or "clarify" their comment.

And this is why I call out folks who thumb down my posts when I'm saying something positive and such. I've noticed those ratings have declined quite a lot due to that. I'm not that anonymous, hence I don't do such things.

[jobgoblin]

Speaking of which, I had the perverse pleasure of enjoying your discussions recently with Bella on a couple of threads on the meaning and context of words. But now find she's been banned for a month.

An Argument vs. A Discussion vs. A Ban

http://bella-xxx.info/2014/02/05/banned-by-grooby/

[Dino Velvet]

or... categorize the source and save even more time.

My grandfather told me the best way to control the mind of a sorcerer is to remove the sorcerer's head. You can also consume the sorcerer's power by consuming the sorcerer.

[Jo-Boo]

Speaking of which, I had the perverse pleasure of enjoying your discussions recently with Bella on a couple of threads on the meaning and context of words. But now find she's been banned for a month.

An Argument vs. A Discussion vs. A Ban

http://bella-xxx.info/2014/02/05/banned-by-grooby/

What? Bella has been banned for a month. Why? Because she debated and took on about five other people from my memory of last nights debate on the word tranny vs nigger and won. I found kriss to be very amusing with his bullshit circular arguments, dodging the questions, writing dissertations for every response, and contradicting himself. Seriously, Bella gets banned and now we get this fucking guy (krissy) posting his crap like there is no tomorrow. WTF! Just because Bella has a different opinion than kriss that somehow equals a ban.

[GroobyKrissy]

What? Bella has been banned for a month. Why? Because she debated and took on about five other people from my memory of last nights debate on the word tranny vs nigger and won. I found kriss to be very amusing with his bullshit circular arguments, dodging the questions, writing dissertations for every response, and contradicting himself. Seriously, Bella gets banned and now we get this fucking guy (krissy) posting his crap like there is no tomorrow. WTF! Just because Bella has a different opinion than kriss that somehow equals a ban.

Look, I don't speak ill of anyone if they don't have the means to defend themselves. That being said, since you're obviously either her or a stool (wow... odd spelling mistake) of her making...

You know... I've now read all the social media posts that Bella has written on the subject. I find it incredibly odd that she fails to mention any way, in any form, that I, publicly and openly, stated that I would be against any sort of ban or even censorship for anything she had written.

I wonder why that isn't being disclosed anywhere... at all? Seems weird to me.

You'd think that after the way she is going on and on about this ban, and how I caused it... that little fact... would... maybe... be... important... to... include... just in the interests of being HONEST and TRUTHFUL. Of course, I've learned these are both things that don't really interest her at all.