Some Thoughts on Conversation

I wrote a huge comment on a   post down below and it spurred me to think about online conversation. It’s no big secret that online conversation is often acerbic, tough and sometimes hateful. I do not buy into the cult of “nice”, so I am fine with the rough and tumble of online settings, 1)I believe in the Serrated Edge. however, I do have some principles that I try to stick to. Off the top of my head, they are things like:

1. A conversation requires that we answer each other. If I take the time to respond to everything you say and then you ignore what I just wrote and move to something different, we are not having a conversation.

2. If a sentence has a question mark after it, answer it! Unless the question is obviously rhetorical, then answer it. That strikes me as a fundamental and polite way of talking *to* each other and not past each other.

3. We cannot make any progress if do not deal with specifics. I might say, “John Rucyahana was fundraising for M23.” That is specific. Someone may respond, “I am sorry it is beyond reason to believe this report from the U.N. (and I am not anti-U.N.) concerning the Bishop knowing that his life has been that of peace, reconciliation and hope in the face of genocide.” This is a generality that in no way refutes a specific charge but refers to feelings about someone. It fails to deal with the strict methodological evidentiary standards from the 2006 report of the Informal Working Group of the Security Council on General Issues of Sanctions and instead deals in generalities. It is not adequate for arriving at a conclusion.

There is a problem here of epistemology, facts, how we arrive at knowledge and indeed, if we are interested in the truth at all. Is my interlocutor interested in having a discussion in order to arrive at the truth or is she rather interested in defending a point of view at all costs?

Discussions that ignore evidence, are hysterical, illogical, change the subject, etc. are not profitable discussions. Of course, if we do not agree on the starting point and if we fail to define our terms, most of what we are doing is posturing anyway. I am certainly not the model citizen when it comes to these principles, but I usually do try to put in the effort to respond to what is being said to me. When that is not reciprocated, I lose interest in continuing.

 

References   [ + ]

1. I believe in the Serrated Edge.

1 thought on “Some Thoughts on Conversation”

  1. When we were on different sides of an issue some 24 to 30 months ago, I’d say you followed these principles. I remember once you said something about +Dobbs that did not make sense to me and I asked for a truce and asked an honest question and you gave an earnest reply than then we went back to it, kind of like Ralph and Sam. I can not say the same of my other antagonist (man, his word phrasing was so much like someone I’ve met, but rule there was not to call out RW names, so won’t here).
    —-
    If outside the US and do not get the cultural reference:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wolf_and_Sam_Sheepdog
    —-
    Actually, I had faded out of blogs at that time, only on due to a VERY tardy opinion on a case that I happen to be on during that time. When the opinion did come out six month past due, there was a post here that I read as very callous on that situation, I was mad and going to respond, but thought better of it, figuring it only hit me wrong and my sensitivity of the subject — mostly the character demonstrated in those past debates.

Leave a Reply to An Observer Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.