effective online dialogue
This is a special tribute post to my blog ‘buddies’ The Ark and myatheistlife. Both are finely versed in the subtler shades of anti-theistic arguments, quick of wit and sharp of tongue. While I enjoy the game they play often as much as they clearly do themselves, I have a couple of suggestions to take them to the next level. So I don’t have to do the explaining, I’ll point you to this fine post, which gives at the end, in my opinion, six universal rules for effective online dialogue. Please read these ideas, indulge in some time of self-reflection, and, if you have the inclination, let me know if you ever break these rules and what the results may be.
If your intent when discussing beliefs with fellow bloggers is to repeat points you make on countless other pages, aggressively misinterpret comments, call people stupid and push them further into their ideological corner, I think you’re doing a grand job. If you actually want to make people stop and think about why they hold certain views or indeed maybe learn something about why you hold certain views, then I would recommend attempting to implement a measure of the aforementioned six handy ideas.
Feel free to give me any hints to enhance my online dialogue skills. I’m all about self-improvement. 🙂
Yeah, I’m good with all of these… uhm, except #5 ROFL
LikeLike
Don’t get me wrong, you’re welcome to jump in, especially when it comes to theological points I have no interest in. I just think your points would be better made without calling people ‘stupid’ or ‘trolls’ because they don’t communicate the way you do. You aggressively jumped down one the throat of Clare by skim reading (presumably) and misunderstanding her comment then petulantly call Chazlng a troll because of his manner of approaching things. If you read some of his posts, you might understand he/she doesn’t follow similar lines of thought to you and me (and I don’t mean beliefs).
LikeLike
Chazing communicates like a chat-bot troll. That was not simply name calling. I did invite him to set a starting point, not simply call him stupid dismissively.
For Clare, I misunderstood through (in my defense) missing context that I could not gather from her comment and OP etc.
Not to say that I’m never an asshole. I do take the advice kindly.
Thanks
LikeLike
“Chazing communicates like a chat-bot troll” That’s one way of putting it. He could easily also have Aspergers or some other human characteristic that makes this his genuine personality. He could also be putting it on. But he’s very consistent. You were using that ‘troll’ line as an insult and to belittle what he was saying. I just can’t see how, wherever he’s coming from, it’s effective. The tag wrestling atheist onslaught sometimes feels like it gets a little too personal against the Christians and a kind of back-slapping, bullying exercise for the atheists. Just my view. 🙂
LikeLike
What then, is your tactic for dealing with what for all intents and purposes is behaving like a chat-bot troll?
LikeLike
1% chance it’s a chat-bot. 34% it’s a troll. 65% it’s a human being who talks exactly like other real human beings I know. I’m dismissing the 1% (although interestingly enough one of my first comments on her/his own blog when she failed to get my sarcasm was that I had been unaware I was talking to a computer). If it’s a troll, then it’s interesting to see how far it can go and understand why she would go to such lengths to set up that blog. But overall, given the consistency and earnest nature of the character, I’m given to assuming it’s just someone who doesn’t think like me. And I’m interested to know why he’s pursuing the information gathering exercise she’s undertaken. My tactic is talk to them like I’d talk to anyone else I’m interested in.
LikeLike
Fair enough. Information farming via chat-bots is not a fantasy. I have not seen anything yet with which to judge character, but I do not find harm/wrong in persuing the idea that it is a chat-bot. So far, there has been no denial of this…. hmmmm
LikeLike
Hey … I’m loving the percentages. Seriously, I get pumped to see you thinking like this. This is the way our governments think. Of course, they aren’t inclined to share that with us. They prefer us jumping to conclusions and absolutes … falling in love with our “opinions” — so, we think we are free.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s funny how naturally random numbers are slipping into my comments these days! I’d better be careful I don’t start believing myself …
LikeLike
Smile…While I acknowledge the subtle smack over the knuckles with the ruler, there is also the implication that the person on the other end is due respect and a reasonable response.
Here I disagree entirely and the sooner they are kicked out of the sandbox, or covered with sand as is perfectly legit, the better.
That I will invariably get banned from a Christian’s site is par for the course. I take that as a given and after a fashion, a compliment, not that I set out to achieve this end, you have my word, but because of the nature of the topic, it all ends up a matter of faith and not the supposed ‘facts’these idiots like to tout.
This is where they pull the plug. I am just waiting to see what answer/reaction myatheistlife gets from out newest fundamentalist pal.
We are all different. And if you have seen Life of Brian you will know why that line is, in context, quite funny.
May your god go with you….;)
LikeLike
Ahh, I should’ve known you were a Monty Python freak. Did I already know that about you? I forget.
If it weren’t for Monty Python, I might’ve ended up contently married to some boring, Catholic fraud, raising a couple of fraud kids … might’ve even been happy. Thanks Monty!!!
LikeLike
Caught out…well it was coming I guess. As a certain J. Cleese said in said movie, Your fu***** nicked…”
There’s no Messiah in here. There’s a mess all right , but no Messiah.
Sorry, Chris, I can’t resist,
LikeLike
I think all children should be forced to watch The Meaning of Life … A Clockwork Orange style.
LikeLike
“there is also the implication that the person on the other end is due respect and a reasonable response” Don’t be ridiculous! Everyone is due respect and especially online, when we’re lacking 99.73% of our full communication skills. You’re just as bad as fundamentalists if you think otherwise. 🙂
LikeLike
Ah.. so If a certain Charles Mason got online you would give him due respect, would you?
Or maybe a Hannibal Lechtar type…and I am sure there are a few out there.
And some of the more extremist religious folk…like those who brought you 9/11 (Slly my lickem) or those cheery lot from Waco.
Ah yes, let’s hear their story of how their mothers stopped breast feedoing too early or how they went loopy after their favorite cartoon was cancelled on Saturday. Hmmm stuff that for a game of soldiers.
”You’re just as bad as fundamentalists if you think otherwise.”
No, because if I am yanking your chain I will say so. Eventually. And there is a difference between a person cultivating being nuts… and the type of person you new blogpal Chazing is.
And you will be sent to the corner any minute now if you don’t behave…
Sometimes…honestly.
LikeLike
Charles MANSON even…
LikeLike
I want to hear more about Charles Mason. Charles Manson/ Perry Mason hybrid.
LikeLike
Don’t you bloody start! I am already getting an earful from Violet, who may soon include the ‘N’ in her name.
LikeLike
Ok, Ark, you absurd bastard, what do you mean by this “n” … Oh, Violent?? She’s not violent. Dog Whisperer, Cesar Milan, could not ask for a more calm & assertive owner.
LikeLike
Oh my goodness, you couldn’t have proved my point any more! This is EXACTLY the same place I found my conversation with a fundamentalist. ‘What about Charles Manson…?’ They think he’s a two-dimensional sin monster worthy of no respect and you think he’s a two-dimensional (what?) monster worth of no respect. People are a direct consequence of their genetic inheritance and their experiences in the world. So no, I do not ‘blame’ people for absolutely horrible and vile actions. I leave that to the Christians. I like to think I have a more balanced view of the world that tries to learn why these things happen and how to act to limit them in the future. And the Christians come back at you, ‘well I’ve had a hard life so far and I’m behaving with God’s help’ line. What’s your line? It’s not one isolated incident that leads people to become murdering psychopaths. A chain of people writing them off as not worthy of respect undoubtedly contributes to it. Why do you have so much hate Ark? 🙂
LikeLike
Then maybe your idea of respect is different from mine?
If the likes of Manson were to come on to blogsville and try to explain his actions, I would not give him the time of day.
This is like affording Adolf time to explain his side of the story re The Holocaust.
I have an uncomfortable feeling this is venturing into some really weird shit murky ground so let’s bring it back a tad and I will try to clarify my POV before the midden hits the windmill.
I have no respect whatsoever for the likes of our friend ethnicmuse or whatever he wishes to call himself.
His views are more than bit off kilter and not in a nice way and there is an uneasy quality to the way he addresses certain issues. That he is a fundamentalist Christian is also cause for concern and I have NO respect for his ilk. NONE.
I also have no respect for the likes of William Lane Craig, The Catholic Church, or Jehovah’s witnesses, ( seeing as we are on a religious kick)
‘Why do you have so much hate Ark?’
You do like your little jokes, do you not?
That said, If any of the above is a problem for you then I can quite easily stay away from your blog. No problem. No hard feelings.
LikeLike
“This is like affording Adolf time to explain his side of the story re The Holocaust.” Why not?? Affording people the opportunity to explain their actions and trying to understand something about what their life has been like is the only way you can work towards ensuring terrible things don’t happen again! What are you thinking? There are patterns to behaviour. And (to be cheesy) there’s something to be learned from everyone. Seriously though, if you shut off people you don’t agree with, you are doing just what the fundamentalists do. It’s just not logical.
“His views are more than bit off kilter and not in a nice way and there is an uneasy quality to the way he addresses certain issues.” I agree. But that doesn’t make her a ‘bad’ person. I’m interested in knowing why.
LikeLike
If you feel the need to psychoanalyze the likes of Dear Adolf then you be my guest.
His ilk make enough noise that we do not have to wait patiently for them to explain themselves.
There is a difference between shutting people off merely because I don’t agree and telling people of his/her ilk their fortune. I don’t agree that Justin Bieber is comparable to Mozart – but his fans are not going to inculcate millions who might then go and blow shit up? Or teach that Justin Bieber is the be all and end all of music and Mozart is stupid white man’s music.
Now if the likes of our fundy friend were surreptitiously making allusions to doing bad stuff then one might be better off letting them ramble and if anything manifested, phone your local CIA or FBI office.
‘Oy, this dickhead needs watching’, type of thing.
I despise the type of crap such folk trot out in such an erudite fashion that suggests legitimacy.
It is hogwash, and unfortunately people fall for it and unlike Justin Bieber music truly believe it. These folk are a different kettle of fish and should thus be afforded no respect – because they do not afford you any, you can believe that! Their replies and comments are often outrageously condescending.
We are all different, I agree, but I believe such twits should be told in no uncertain terms that normal people no longer believe the world is flat.
You said ‘she’. Is this confirmed?
LikeLike
You should get off your ‘normal’ high horse. No idea of gender, just alternating at will.
LikeLike
Actually it’s not a very high horse at all. Rather a Shetland Pony.
However I think I will leave our little friend to you as I have a very low tolerance threshold when it comes to individuals of this ilk.
You may find them fascinating, I find that most of them generally have a hidden agenda or ulterior motive for the way they present themselves. Most, in fact, are quite odious.
And for what it’s worth there is nothing I haven’t written here to him or anyone else that wouldn’t say face to face.
I admire straight talk in most instances and especially here, in blogsville,where In the absence of any senses other than our ability to read the written word and maybe ‘intuition’, the onus falls on the writer to ensure their message is clearly understood from the off.
As this whole issue has an indirect relationship to religion, and in this particular case, our little fundamentalist friend, then one must be especially wary of his interpretation.
Double speak and the theological two step, are often blatant attempts to mislead. He has demonstrated such tendencies by his responses .
But, hey, this is me. We are all different. You enjoy yourself.
LikeLike
Okay, I’ll desist from the comedy personal sniping, which you are clearly no longer enjoying. This girl/guy/bot has a blog that looks at research into areas of ethnicity and sometimes sexuality. There is nothing weird about not declaring his religion, or lack thereof, at the outset of any conversation or indeed on her page. And in fact, he is so nonplussed by the issue that he answered me directly when I asked, and she amended her About page when you went into a tizzy. I saw no evidence of double speak. And he is perfectly entitled to hold a belief that the fundamentalist idea is correct but they practise it in error. That is a basis of every difference in every variation of Christianity – nothing new, nothing weird.
“You may find them fascinating, I find that most of them generally have a hidden agenda or ulterior motive for the way they present themselves. Most, in fact, are quite odious.” Maybe I’ve not been around blogs long enough to generalise quite so freely. The area he is blogging about is completely new to me and I definitely think it’s worth further consideration. I’m suspect you just dislike her because she’s a Christian and has expressed a fundamentalist belief. I value the context but it’s not a basis to view them as odious. If indeed he is publishing these pages directly to support and aid discriminatory points of view, then I will agree, the intent is odious. He’s being very cagey about this, so it’s a distinct possibility. But his tone is very similar to someone with Asperger Syndrome and the vast collection of data points in that direction too. There could be many other reasons for this, but I don’t like to write people off as odious just because they don’t communicate in a manner that I am accustomed to. I’m serious when I say it’s a form of discrimination you should think about. We can’t expect everyone to be the gloriously flawless, intuitive and logical yet emotional communicators we both are. 🙂
LikeLike
A christian viewpoint, and especially a fundamentalist one, irrespective how he wishes to couch the term is going to influence the she presents her opinion. This became clear in her About page where it discusses the issue of atheism with a visitor and then references the bible.I cannot be bothered to mine the quote.
Pop over and see.
I have no objections to your ‘comedy personal sniping,’ I have to get used to other peoples sense of humour.
This is not the case with charmers like Chazing.
There are quite a number of reborn type fundies that come across in a similar fashion.
In fact, Creationist websites are similar in their approach. After all, they want to win your heart and mind not scare the shit out of you with god crap.
Hey, all said and done, I may be way off the mark. It has been known to happen and if I dig deep enough in the recesses of my memory i am sure i could find out when that was.
I am just naturally on my guard with anyone who has a vested interest in the supernatural and calls it real.
As I said, enjoy yourself. ‘Tis your blog, and I have no desire to presume on your behalf.
You like him…I think it is a dickhead.
May your god go with you.
LikeLike
Oh and if being on the ‘losing’ end of all our discussions is becoming too much for you, just say. Don’t pretend de-buddying is my idea. I would prefer that I had the option of spamming you though, should it come to that. It would be kind of poetic. 🙂
LikeLike
There you go again with the ‘losing’ nonsense. How many times must I tell you I do not have arguments so I do not lose.
If you feel a spell in the SinBin (spam) would be poetic justice for me then you go ahead. I realise that with women it is the simple things that bring pleasure. And, after all. I am only here to please, my dear.
Now, your opinion, I would respect….mostly
LikeLike
Try to remember that Ark is art heavy. He’s an artist with philosophical tendencies, not the other way around. Am I off on that, Ark?
LikeLike
I effin hate philosophy. Ooops..I mean I detest it. Sorry..
LikeLike
I treat him with the same respect I afford to all the loonies who visit my shrine to common sense. 😉
LikeLike
Alright, since you’re not into shameless promotion, perhaps I can offer you some in exchange for helping me fine tune this concept a little?
Sorry, after yesterday’s conversation, I can’t help but think you’d have some good ideas.
LikeLike
Yes, I said to John I’ve had a look but never understand where to join in. Have you put up any atheist claims yet and invited Christians to battle against it? You’ll obviously need to get some on side so it doesn’t look like a Christian slamming arena 🙂
LikeLike
THAT is a good idea.
LikeLike
I need to make the process more clear. Not sure how, yet.
LikeLike
I’m trying to think straight, as this freaking puppy is sleeping underneath me with putrid gas, but … I’m glad you are pointing this out, violet. I think of people the same way. We give people too much credit at the same time that we don’t give them respect. NO ONE is immune to influence. We all have a limited reservoir of self-control/will power that we are working with, and we can’t lose site of the effect that another author’s (or any person’s) given circumstances may be having on their CURRENT point of view (capitalized that, as it’s difficult, if not impossible to tell if the personality that we are engaging is the norm or not).
LikeLike
I agree that everyone could be a more effective communicator. But, aren’t it the onlookers who are most likely to be persuaded one way or the other? Do we really have the luxury of being even tempered in discussions given the competition for attention?
LikeLike
I think it’s important to read properly what the other person is saying. If I’m annoyed, I usually try and read some other posts to get a broader idea of the person before jumping in. I think it’s useful and stops misunderstandings before they start. I guess once it properly gets going, there’s more margin for error …
Good point about the onlookers though. There must be so many more atheists in the world due to passive blog argument reading. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, yes, but many of these crafty little buggers are wont to enter into a debate covering their private parts for fear of exposing themselves. ”Naughty Crispyuns. Stop playing with your Rosary, Jesus told you you would go blind.”
LikeLike
Hahaha. Who said anything about genitals?
LikeLike
You misunderstand, Chris. Private parts refer to their christian leanings. You will be getting me into trouble with dear Violet in a mo. A load of balls really..but there you go.
I have a sneaky suspicion that our little friend, may well be a chatbot as myatheistlife suggested.
Most odd….
LikeLike
Of course, I understood this. Nobody gets me. Everyone thinks me stoopeed.
May I please have a link to this kid, so that I don’t have to intentionally misinterpret the commentary to stay interested?
LikeLike
http://ethnicmuse.wordpress.com/
If this doesn’t work, type in chatbot or dickhead.
LikeLike
Ahh, THAT dude. Yeah. Total Douche’. I put the accent on it, so it’s not offensive.
LikeLike
I think it’s important to remember that the people that are being DIRECTLY engaged are the least likely to be persuaded of anything.
LikeLike
Certainly not if you reduce your discussion tactics to name calling.
LikeLike
I will be the first to admit that my own thoughts are difficult (if not impossible) to organize. I do, however, notice a lot of good intentions out there, and I appreciate that you are trying to get people focused.
I might be the most dense person reading this blog, but I cannot help but think that the world is fucked if we don’t get organized in some way. All these good intentions need to be wielded …
I’m sort of trying, I guess, with this defendyourpost idea. But, god, if he existed, would be the only one to know whether or not I have the focus to pull it off on my own. I need help with it, or I need a new, actionable idea to get behind. I can’t even focus on my own work, as I get so disturbed by all of the insane messages that are being propagated.
LikeLike
Number 6 should be in bold, and ten-stories tall. Breath, relax, don’t reply….
LikeLike
MMM … see this is why I think we need a room, where someone disciplined and balanced like violet would moderate. I don’t think the person you engage is the actual target — it’s the reader(s). Any opponent online is JUMPING at the chance to get defensive — it’s their opportunity to take out all the frustrations from their otherwise quietist, waking life.
If you can get THEM writing from their emotions, then isn’t that a good thing (if the readers are the targets)?
I know that as the “thinkers,” we are supposed to be above anything that seems like persuasion tactics — but, do we not need to fight fire with fire (given the state of things)?
LikeLike
Depends on the subject. the conversation going with tom quiner about abortion is, i suspect, about to turn ugly. i’m boxing him into a corner and he will either ban me and delete the comments or loose his cool. I have no patience for rabid pro-lifers. He’s trying not to admit his views are solely religious, but he won’t be able to keep that up. Wait till you see my latest comment… it hasn’t been ‘approved’ yet.
Violet, you might want to get in on this one.
LikeLike
Sounds interesting, will try and have a look. I like the idea of ‘defend your post’ and have had a couple of looks but I don’t know whether I was there before kick-off because I had trouble navigating to the relevant spots.
LikeLike
this discussion is taking place on his blog:
http://quinersdiner.com/2013/03/16/hard-words-from-the-new-pope/#comment-8128
please jump in.
LikeLike
I had a look but I don’t know where to jump in. It’s such a huge issue that it’s impossible to take point by point, and especially when dealing with a white, middle class, bespectacled octogenarian (or thereabouts) Catholic male. I mean, there’s nothing going for him in terms of being able to empathise with reality. I’d be inclined to do a post and pingback and hope he’d read it and comment.
LikeLike
Fair enough
LikeLike
Check out the latest ‘whiner diner’ post. I think you could do something really special on that theme! 🙂
LikeLike
(fruit of forgiveness)
LikeLike
You mean his Planned Parenthood post… i just left a comment, but i think i’ll just leave it at that. As you pointed out, an old white man thinking he has some right to dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do with her body is beyond hope.
LikeLike
No, just a picture of the pope and some very funny words about prayer.
LikeLike
His commentary on population stats is skewed as well. Who is into demography? Ooh, where did I see something earlier … Drenn1077?
LikeLike
Drenn is very cool. Let her/him know about this guy.
LikeLike