An Anomaly in a World of Keyboard Warriors

[Image by iAmMrRob on Pixabay.com]

Keyboard warrior. It’s a term most people who have been on the internet are familiar with, like the word “troll”. The idea being that a person is more likely to make threats or be offensive behind the safety of a screen. I’ve witnessed the phenomenon many times while reading comments on Reddit or Youtube, though I’ve yet to see it on Steemit.

I always wonder what inspires a person to behave in such a way. Don’t they know that everything they do on the internet is permanent? Don’t they know that making threats is a felony?

A sense of anonymity is always the cause people point to, and of course that plays into it. In real life, there are social consequences for such behavior, but online all you get is attention. Unless, of course, somebody takes you seriously and reports you to the FBI.

I live in political circles of the internet, where debate and dialog are neglected but trolling and dogma are rampant. Politics are getting more divisive and less civil, but debate and dialog have long been essential to democracy and politics.

Being an anomaly

I strive to be the anomaly, the voice of, not always compromise, but at least civility. I always try to hear people out, and never attack people on their beliefs. When I respond directly to people, I often use qualifiers like "I think". This isn't good strategy for debate, but it helps show that I'm not attacking them. I also try to focus on facts, rather than emotional appeals. A heavy dose of logical reasoning doesn’t hurt either.

In real life I’m much more dogmatic, which can be fine. I make effort to be more civil in text because it’s easier for a person to stop reading than to walk away from a conversation. I also get more time to choose my words in text than I do aloud. That allows me to write in a way that won’t turn people off of my ideas. This is possible without sacrificing ideological integrity. You can debate opinions and trade facts in a way that is not based upon character attacks. It’s not even hard. The trick is to be open to being wrong.

Civility is a win-win-win situation

In a debate between two private individuals, there is little consequence. The worst possible outcome is learning. The best possible outcome, oddly enough, is also learning. Allow me to explain:

If the opposing argument is compelling enough to change your mind, you learned something new. This is arguably the best outcome, at least with regard to learning. It takes a lot of new information to change a person’s mind.

On the other hand, if neither argument prevails then you have gained an understanding for how a person views the world. You can use this to have a more open mind, and to address others views with sensitivity in your daily life. Those with an interest in debate can use this outcome to conduct more research to win the argument the next time it arises.

The last option in a debate is, of course, victory. This is the most satisfactory end to a debate, yet, it is the least productive in terms of learning. You have likely learned little about the subject of debate. The only thing you may have learned is how to win the debate with others, should it arise again.

Civility and falsehoods

Being civil does not require the acceptance of falsities. If you are confronted with an argument based upon false information, you have a duty to correct the inaccuracy. It is difficult to flat out tell somebody they are wrong without sounding impolite, but I’m sure it can be done. I struggle with this myself. If confronted with a falsehood, my go-to remark is a rhetorical "what the fuck are you talking about?" Obviously, this is not the best method to maintain a civil discussion.

I haven’t ever had the opportunity to correct an inaccuracy. Online, I have a bad habit of ignoring people who believe falsities as lost causes. In person, it’s much more difficult to correct someone. When I’m talking to somebody face to face, I don’t have time to research facts before they throw next argument at me.

I can’t attest to what works for corrections in practice, but I can say what I would attempt. First, I'd try to discern a source that is trustworthy to the believer of false information. If I could find one, I would provide information from that source that refutes their belief. If I cannot tell what sources of information they trust, I would use a source that has a good reputation across the spectrum of politics. For this, I would avoid publications such as Fox News, CNN and the like. Most people trust Snopes, but there are other good sources that many find agreeable. I also use Reuters or the Associated Press as reliable news sources. Both agencies license articles to major publications on all sides of politics and are renowned for their lack of bias. Fox News and the Huffington Post both run Reuters and Associated Press stories, even though they are known for having opposite biases.

Sometimes it is impossible to convince somebody that something is untrue. In that case, it is best to end the debate in as polite a way as possible. You must also make it clear that you are not conceding the facts. That part is a balancing act.

For the love of God, be civil

If I find myself getting too emotional in a debate, I take a moment to breathe and let go of my emotional reaction. It’s important to remember that you have this luxury online. Arguing on the basis of emotion will never lead to a productive discussion, only deep disagreements on morality and ideology. Saying something in the heat of the moment is the easiest way to slip up and say something that is either incorrect or counterproductive.

If your goal is to blow off steam, don’t seek out debate, journal. After you’re satisfied, you can either go through and rewrite everything for later publication or burn/delete it. Using another person to vent, unless agreed upon, is selfish and counterproductive. It may seem harmless if the person is a stranger, but hostility could reaffirm whatever prejudices they already hold

It’s important to remember that personal attacks have no place in civil discourse. Emotional appeals, while having a place, are unlikely to change minds. Arguments should always be rooted in fact or logical reasoning in the absence of hard information. If you begin resorting to insults and emotion in a debate, you should take the opportunity to listen to what others have to say. Opinions on issues like laws and governance should not be held out of pure emotion.

It is equally important to remember that some questions of morality are subjective. Things like these are difficult to debate on the basis of fact and often those who try deteriorate into personal attacks. You have to rise above it. Be an anomaly in a world of keyboard warriors.