I appreciate that some people don't like any conflict, and will run a mile rather than to get involved in a conflict situation, but I personally love a good argument. I believe that arguments are a good way to learn new things. However, that does require one to be open to changing one's mind in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of the position that one holds. Many, if not most, discussions that I see online are not about "facts" but about "opinions." Those opinions often have no basis in fact, but are ideological positions on which people will never shift. This is especially true in the case of politics, religion, abortion (all of the subjects that are taboo here on SFFChronicles) but also Sport, Veganism and other subjects. Just as
@Toby Frost described in the previous post, those people often are not arguing at all, but simply "telling" or "lecturing."
In any case, in the real world there is never one single "truth"; no black or white, but rather a wide range of different greys of lighter or darker shades on which people can take up a position depending upon their own life experience, or by manipulating statistics. So, I see nothing at all wrong with a civil argument or a heated discussion, provided that it is the real thing, with evidence submitted to back up the positions. If not, then it is simply that
Monty Python's Flying Circus sketch where the argument is merely "contradiction" and "the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."
Why is SFFChronicles more "civil" than other parts of the internet?
I agree, that is down to the work of the moderators. There is an incredible amount of work that goes on behind the scenes to keep it so. I think that the internet, and in particular "social media" is just a reflection of the real world. However, I agree that people online say things they would never shout out in the street; that they feel anonymous enough online to spew hate and abuse that they would never do in a town centre High Street, but they still hold those views. Without the internet to channel them, they would still hold those views in private and say them to the like-minded. Social Media is simply very good at connecting together like-minded people and producing echo-chambers where they can believe that "everyone" thinks exactly as they do. However, that is surely an argument for having more places like SFFChronicles where views have to be backed up with evidence within a civil discourse?
Also, "ad-hominem" attacks, against the person rather than the argument, are a sure sign that the argument has been lost, so they never worry me. The kind of "troll," who deliberately writes to inflame others, merely because they enjoy stirring the pot, and seeing the reaction they cause, I think that might be a new phenomena, never seen before in real life. On the other hand, I have heard family history stories of a great uncle who would listen to the Communists proselytising on Newcastle Town Moor, and come back a week later to debate the Fascists with those arguments. He would then return the following week to debate the Communists with the alternative Fascist arguments. Does that not count as the same?
