Sunday May 27, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Why are so many people unable to debate contentious issues such as whaling, gun control, politics and so on without getting acrimonious?

Have Your Say Jan. 13, 2011 - 08:07AM JST ( 34 )

Order by Time Order by Popularity

34 Comments

0

smartacusJan. 13, 2011 - 08:15AM JST

In a word, intolerance - one of the biggest blights in every society today. It's all about me, me, me. We all think our opinion is the right one. Another factor is that society is becoming polarized on just about every issue you can think of.

I remember my university debating club. We used to have really invigorating debates on all sorts of topics and there were no insults. I remember my professor instilling in us the idea that we may find the other side's point of view abhorrent but we must be willing to listen to it, not insult them and perhaps try and convince them how they are wrong.

I'd like to see Japan Today readers debate that way. Fat chance, though.
0

sarahsuz25Jan. 13, 2011 - 08:49AM JST

I think the internet encourages a kind of debating style where people just relentlessly spam their opponents with comments in an attempt to get the last word. Rarely does one find people who want to exchange ideas with people who disagree with them anymore--it's all about winning, and it's all personal. I too enjoyed debating club in school and I enjoy thoughtful debate with friends on occasion, but there are too many people who get all emotional and take it personally whenever anyone disagrees with them. Also on those issues mentioned above, many people think there is one right and moral answer to every question, and so anyone who disagrees with them is immoral or a bad person. Which is just silly--unless you are debating the rights and wrongs of murder or baby-raping, there isn't going to be one right answer. Whaling and gun control are not moral issues in and of themselves.
0

arrestpaulJan. 13, 2011 - 10:16AM JST

With the invention of the internet, people have learned that they aren't held responsible for their words.

If the same conversations were held within arms reach of each other, everyone would be much more polite.
0

knewsJan. 13, 2011 - 10:28AM JST

I never get acrimonious. Never!
0

cleoJan. 13, 2011 - 10:43AM JST

Because the people arguing the other side are so obviously wrong.
0

cleoJan. 13, 2011 - 10:44AM JST

Before folk start getting all acrimonious, that was meant as humour.

:-)
0

ExportExpertJan. 13, 2011 - 10:45AM JST

The people with the opposing view are always so damn ignorant!!!
0

graftonJan. 13, 2011 - 10:53AM JST

People don’t want to be wrong so don’t really listen (read) and being self opinionated brain dead freaks they never take my word for gospel so turn acrimonious as the only way they can try and get their point across, not that I pay them any attention given that they are of course wrong.
0

umiosoJan. 13, 2011 - 10:56AM JST

The answer is simple. We are human and we are not saints . . . yet. Human beings who are not yet saints can see only PART of problems. When they evolve to a certain point they see THEMSELVES in the problem, (the BIG picture.) An apt analogy is that when someone points a finger of blame at someone else there are three pointing back at the blamer.
0

BholderJan. 13, 2011 - 11:06AM JST

i think one big reason is that they themselves are not too clear on the basis for any belief or opinion they hold and simply could not defend it in a rational and calm manner at all. however, not being too sure about foundations of their beliefs rarely ever gets them to start reconsidering those beliefs though.

simply, people who get too emotional in a debate are holding onto their opinions emotionally rather then rationally and that is why it's the only way they can "debate"
0

Zenny11Jan. 13, 2011 - 11:12AM JST

Adding to what is said. Many people today are so used to get info from sound-bites, etc.

So they will often quick read something till something stand out and they will post, act on that info.

We see it here often when a poster will say X is in article when it isn't or said poster Y claims Poster X said something when it was poster Z that said it.

Ditto for a poster raises 3 points and only one or none get replied to.

Of course when those things are pointed out people get defensive and start slashing out.

Just my 2 cents worth of Mustard.
0

linroJan. 13, 2011 - 11:17AM JST

Problem lies where minority dictates to majority!
0

smartacusJan. 13, 2011 - 11:20AM JST

I think the anonymity of the Internet fuels the fire. I've got lots of friends who hold opposite views on whaling and gun control. One of my good friends often eats whale meat but I have never felt like insulting him or even chastising him.

I decided a long time ago that on issues such as whaling, gun control, abortion, etc, that neither side has the moral high ground, even though they both claim to at times.
0

yokomocJan. 13, 2011 - 03:54PM JST

I think it's more the anonymity of the person you're arguing with (rather than your own) or more specifically the depersonalizing way they're reduced to a simple moniker that leads people to argue this way. Going a step further I'd suggest it's then the ability to form your own idea of who your 'opponent' is - a 'leftist', a 'wingnut', a 'denier', a 'zealot' etc. leading to people arguing against an image & personality they've created, and since this image becomes your first impression it can endure even when the person's arguments don't fit with it. Notice that even just having your photo as an avatar affects the way people will treat you.

Interestingly, since people have largely a blank slate to work off they often tend to project their own personality onto others, and so the way these assume others to be largely gives you an idea of the kind of person they are.
0

NoripinheadJan. 13, 2011 - 05:18PM JST

Because people are programmed to defend their positions no matter how flawed or wrong-headed they may be.
0

MonkeyzJan. 13, 2011 - 05:20PM JST

These discussions remind me of a family member of mine. She agrees with me on most everything, but trying to discuss any topic is frustrating because she can't talk without taking things to extremes, exaggerating, misrepresenting facts, and so on. She will lie if she thinks it will win her argument.

There are several factors here. There's a desire to always be right and to get defensive if she feels someone is accusing her of being wrong. There is a fear of being wrong. There is a sense of "No one can tell me what to do!" which stems from a feeling of superiority over others. "My view is the correct one and all others be damned!" As well as a lack of ability to see past one's own nose. Something like that. And this all breeds inflammatory responses and heated rhetoric.

It's something you see across the political spectrum, but seems more common among conservatives and especially libertarians (that's the epitome of being unable to see past one's nose). Which is why it seems like a lot of hot topics for conservatives (gun control, environment, sex) get the biggest flamewars.
0

FoxieJan. 13, 2011 - 07:22PM JST

One can only debate if one has the correct background knowledge and a lot of time. People nowadays seem to stress themselves with all kinds of unnecessary things leaving no more time to actually listen to what someone has to say thus giving fast, unthoughtful answers. We have to do something to bring socializing back again into this world otherwise more and ore misunderstandings are bound to be happening.
0

theFuJan. 13, 2011 - 07:26PM JST

The tone of a statement isn't usually included in the text, so the comments are open to misinterpretation. We often read the words as argumentative and respond in kind.

When we critically read an opinion, we're looking for items to disagree about or correct, even if the original post wasn't meant in that way.

Text is easiest to misinterpret, but teleconferences also have the issue of misinterpretation since the other person's facial expressions aren't known too.

All of us could do better to expect our online acquaintances are nice people to begin, until proven otherwise.
0

biculturalJan. 13, 2011 - 07:27PM JST

In a word? It's because people are narrow-minded. Having lived in another country or environment doesn't count. It's easy to say "put yourself in someone else's shoes" but it's really difficult to actually do that. I knew what it meant, but I was unable to do that until I got married. Try to understand how the other side thinks and how they might feel. Imagine you are them. If you feel an emotion such as sadness or anger rising in you towards the opposite side (your side), then you have truly put yourself in another's shoes.
0

Mark_McCrackenJan. 14, 2011 - 12:03AM JST

Inability to adequately express thoughts. They turn to personal attacks instead.

Lack of background knowledge, unwillingness to research, unwillingness to accept data from others.

Use of online user names, rather than actual names, which reduce accountability for what people say.
0

gonemadJan. 14, 2011 - 01:46AM JST

The brain tries to connect all the small pieces of information it gets in order to come to a representation of what might be the bigger picture behind. When there is a lack of reliable input data or reaction speed does not allow for analytical processing, the brain uses the same way which is used for motional and emotional processing, which is located in the evolutionary older parts of the brain. It seems it actually does not simply duplicate the function, but uses or at least involves exactly the same regions. Thus there is a strong feedback path to our emotional state. Of course, some filtering is taking place, e.g. based on relevance.

In simple words, there is a strong correlation between lack of knowledge and the emotionality of a debate. Now looking at places like this, where articles are more than often incomplete or inaccurate and people often have a lack of background information, you can guess what the result will be...
0

SmorkianJan. 14, 2011 - 07:59AM JST

Pick a heated topic - say 9/11 - and get a person who buys the official line and one who buys the conspiracy theories. These two viewpoints are pretty much mutually exclusive. If it's your buddy you are arguing with you probably won't get so contentious but some random person on the internet? They MUST be defeated!
0

cstaylorJan. 14, 2011 - 10:50AM JST

Kierkegaard said it best: "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
0

cstaylorJan. 14, 2011 - 10:54AM JST

And for Cleo: "Thinking is what a great many people think they are doing when they are merely rearranging their prejudices" - William James
0

herefornowJan. 14, 2011 - 10:58AM JST

IMO, as other's have said, it is because "fact" and "opinion" get blurred on the Internet. Bloggers can state pretty much whatever they want, as fact, which causes folks on the other side to get emotional, because they now have to refute something that is possibly just plain wrong. Also, let's not ignore the basic issue that under-pins many of these debates -- the concept of morality and "right" vs. "wrong". Particularly among people who are either very pro-religion, as well as those that are very anti-religion, it is difficult for things not to get emotional, since the issue may hit at the very core of their belief system, like abortion.
0

cleoJan. 14, 2011 - 11:55AM JST

cstaylor - lol Why for me? Worry not, my prejudices are rock-solid, no discussion board on the Internet is going to change them. It's the other folk - the ones who are wrong, you know - who need to change.

:-)
0

GWJan. 14, 2011 - 12:06PM JST

problem is too many either just dont think before they spout, & they dont remidy that by checking things & they spouting

Combine that with all the talking heads, biased tv news, rich & poor pushing their own agendas & the net & here we are with a bunch of people who know they are right but too many have no idea whats whats & prefer to just spout there fav sound bites with minimal thought.

Bottom line is common sense is going out the window folks
0

EyeblackJan. 14, 2011 - 01:38PM JST

I thibk people get "acrimonious" because they believe the issue matters. If people would just realize that nothing they believe actually matters then they could be happy and relaxed.
0

porterJan. 14, 2011 - 03:00PM JST

Lack of communication ability creates frustration in self. That frustration turns into negative emotion. Often intimidation via anger emotion is used in place of vocabulary.
0

woundedsamurai1Jan. 14, 2011 - 03:48PM JST

@GW - I agree. Sometimes we should switch off the noise and think for ourselves. History tends to repeat itself and usually the same players are pulling the strings. Also, people speak of anonymity as being a problem/cause. However, virtually every report or news item on this site is anonymous. In my opinion we should leave the internet as it is - it doesn't need fixing with regulations. Though no doubt it is coming - first it will be voluntarily of course. Freedoms are usually taken little by little.
0

GWJan. 14, 2011 - 09:59PM JST

I shud have added that debating on the net & in person are COMPLETELTY DIFFERENT, & of course whether it is a formal debate with sides, a mod(good ones haha)or are we talking shooting the you know what with friends etc in public

Anyway, in general its overall being severly dumbed down & we are all starting to suffer because of it
0

KansaiTruthJan. 14, 2011 - 10:11PM JST

b/c the other, stupid arguers insist they are right!
0

dontpanicJan. 15, 2011 - 12:31AM JST

Because people are invested in their opinions. They arent perfect and the issues they discuss arent perfectly black and white either. A debate requires a level og guidance, someone to chair it and limit individuals input so that everyone gets a say. Without that you get the repetitive browbeating that characterises many contentious discussions on this board and others like it.

Theres nothing wrong with open discussions like these, its just important to avoid taking what people say personally.
0

ca1ic0catJan. 15, 2011 - 02:37AM JST

Because the web is anonymous and so people can spout drivel without losing friends. It's the same with bad behaviour on trains or driving in cars. Who cares if you flip off the guy who cut you off; you'll never see him again. It's not likely that cleo and I will ever sit down for a beer. It makes it easy to insult someone because they are unimportant to you. In other words, we don't value the people around us unless they are a physical and persistant presence. Guess we're all a bunch of pretentious slobs - or behave like one when we spout off at fellow posters.