Reject Convenience Forum

My friend (below) and I (above wrote: ‘Nobody has ever taught me how to disagree with people, especially acquaintances or near-strangers, online.’
‘Now that I think of it, I don't think it's taught at all.’

I have often found myself in unwanted debates with wrong people on the internet. I do not seek them out, and have been better at avoiding them since the beginning of this year, but I can sleepwalk into them rather easily. The closest advice I have ever actually heard about this is the canonical: ‘don’t feed the trolls’, but this does not address cases where one is dealing with people one sees often enough in the same chatroom to know they are not trolls, but honest dissidents. Disputed themes can involve matters of fact, where I expect us to disagree over method also. Nobody changes his mind after quarrelling with an online stranger for a while, so I never expect or even try to persuade; it feels more like being called to testify.

A New Zealander site for youth offers the most comprehensive advice I have been able to find, but even it only says ‘[s]ometimes it's best to ignore people who are wrong on the internet’ and ‘[n]ot everyone is open to having their mistakes corrected. That's OK!’ I do not know how to ignore someone wrong online, and slang expressions like ‘OK’ always confuse me, for I do not know how to translate them into intelligible, formal English. Neither instruction gives me clear, concrete steps of what to do. A friend once suggested ‘disengage’, but that still does not tell me how, that is, what to do. I need positive directions: ‘do nothing’ and ‘do not do xyz’ do not suffice for me, while ‘leave the discussion and do some other activity’ gives anyone the power to force me out of a conversation by saying something false. What should I do when somebody, either in reply to me or otherwise, expresses some innocent falsehood in a chatroom where I am present, so I can avoid falling, again and again, into this pit?

The first step is intellectual honesty: don't be so sure that the other person is wrong. You can be mistaken, too. Starting from that perspective should disarm your immediate emotional reaction to someone stating something you don't think is true. You should orient yourself with the goal that everyone in the conversation approaches the truth, even if that means you're the one who's mistaken.

That said, I disagree with the perspective of that article that it's "OK" for people to not be open to receiving corrections. If you state a position in public (especially a matter of fact), you should be open to challenge, or else you are wilfully ignorant, which is dangerous to society.

I think the best way to respond to people with whom you disagree is by asking honest and genuine questions. Probe their knowledge by trying to get to the bottom of why they believe what they said. Your goal should be to understand the other person's perspective out of genuine curiosity, and you should be open to the possibility that they have good reasons for their belief. This practice is called street epistemology, and it usually comes up around the topic of religion, but I have applied it with respect to politics as well.

It may also help you to ask yourself what you hope to gain by arguing with someone on the internet. Do a simple cost/benefit analysis to decide if it's worth your time.

I don't think there's any silver bullet for this problem. People are going to be wrong on the internet, and if you can't bring yourself to ignore it, then you're going to get swept up in arguments with them. I think the best you can do is try to at least make it as productive as possible.

I now find myself in the ironic position where I disagree with many (not all) points you raise in your post. Perhaps I might, with any luck, achieve some insight into how to go about my original problem trying to frame a polite response to it.

zonk wrote: Thu Jun 12, 2025 2:12 pm …don't be so sure that the other person is wrong. You can be mistaken, too… everyone in the conversation approaches the truth, even if that means you're the one who's mistaken… you should be open to the possibility that they have good reasons for their belief.

My disputes often sprout from philosophical themes. For example, having been the only idealist in a room full of materialists has sometimes indirectly led to conflict, naturally about indirectly related matters, notably when they presume materialist principles in other statements which I then have reason to reject. My reasons are a priori and a casual conversation cannot overturn them. With most people, I cannot expect even meaningfully to discuss the underlying cleft, although I know full well it is there. (If I want to weigh the merits of rival ontologies, I would rather read an academic philosopher than some random layman with an internet connexion.) The discussion must therefore remain superficial, which I think engenders much of the problem I face, although I think it would be at least as bad if we proceeded to quarrel over metaphysics or whatever else.

I think the best way to respond to people with whom you disagree is by asking honest and genuine questions. Probe their knowledge by trying to get to the bottom of why they believe what they said. Your goal should be to understand the other person's perspective out of genuine curiosity…

Oddly enough, this is what I tended to do until this year: seeking to understand them on their own terms. This approach went far worse for everybody involved.

This practice is called street epistemology, and it usually comes up around the topic of religion, but I have applied it with respect to politics as well.

I recognise, and have indeed read in full, the book you have most likely got in mind. A street epistemologist is as insufferable as his evangelical equivalent, the presuppositionalist. Both promote only the kind of religious intolerance that I wish to flee. I do not want to be a gadfly.

…ask yourself what you hope to gain by arguing with someone on the internet. Do a simple cost/benefit analysis to decide if it's worth your time… I think the best you can do is try to at least make it as productive as possible.

I never hope to gain anything. The profit motive itself is absent in me. Words like productive and useful ring in my ear like mean and base. I think I could ignore things if only I knew how. This social skill, for somebody for whom this is not obvious or easy, is perhaps complex like learning to play an instrument, but I believe it can be taught.

I paused often when writing this. Writing on a bulletin board, where the pressure to reply in real time disappears, has felt less distressing than something like this would have been if I were in a chat room and therefore pressured to answer comments as they arrive. I also find myself revising, even cutting some segments after posting to avoid my phrasing seeming too barbed. The quick pace of a live chat might be the biggest problem.
Like before, I am using this sham break. Perhaps I should just use an em dash in future instead.
As a precaution, I have edited my Discord profile, where these unsought quarrels tend to occur, to include the statement:

I wrote:Volatile: please do not reply if we disagree about something, to avoid quarrels.

Moderators where I belong have also told me they will quench such sparking conversations before they burst into flame, but admit they cannot always be present. I also wish to avoid the threat of charges of hypocrisy if somebody else says something disagreeable. This remedy is incomplete, and I am open to further suggestions on how to prevent online strife.