Home
Forums
New posts
Contact Us
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Search All
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Contact Us
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Really good
Life
The New Science of How to Argue—Constructively
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cheryl" data-source="post: 1031" data-attributes="member: 1"><p><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/erisology-the-science-of-arguing-about-everything/586534/" target="_blank"><strong>The New Science of How to Argue—Constructively - The Atlantic</strong></a></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Disagreement is central to our lives online. ‘Erisologists’ want to study it more systematically.</strong> </p><p></p><p>In the early days of the internet, way back in the 1990s, tech utopians envisioned a glittering digital future in which people from very different backgrounds could come together online and, if not reach consensus, at least learn something from one another. In the actual future we inhabit, things didn’t work out this way. The internet, especially social media, looks less like a dinner party and more like a riot. People talk past one another, and the discussion spirals down accordingly. </p><p></p><p>Some of this has to do with, well, people from very different backgrounds coming together online. A common trigger is when specialized terms once restricted to certain corners of academia—think <em>neoliberal</em> or <em>intersectional</em>—leak out into the broader public discourse without everyone agreeing on their precise definitions. If an academic uses the term <em>white privilege</em> on Twitter in an exchange with a nonacademic, for example, some level of animosity might arise simply through a lack of shared understanding over what the term does mean—that white people, on average, enjoy certain benefits relative to other Americans—and what it does not: that all white people are “privileged” in some absolute sense. If you Google <em>no such thing as white privilege</em>, you’ll see a lot of people responding not to what the term actually means, but to a misunderstanding of it. To take one of countless examples, the conservative commentator Brigitte Gabriel once racked up 5,000 retweets by tweeting “I’m an Arab Lebanese born American immigrant with 3 best selling books and a national organization that I founded. There is no such thing as ‘White Privilege.’” She was met, of course, with plenty of repliers who explained angrily that she was misinterpreting the term.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cheryl, post: 1031, member: 1"] [URL='https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/erisology-the-science-of-arguing-about-everything/586534/'][B]The New Science of How to Argue—Constructively - The Atlantic[/B][/URL] [B] Disagreement is central to our lives online. ‘Erisologists’ want to study it more systematically.[/B] In the early days of the internet, way back in the 1990s, tech utopians envisioned a glittering digital future in which people from very different backgrounds could come together online and, if not reach consensus, at least learn something from one another. In the actual future we inhabit, things didn’t work out this way. The internet, especially social media, looks less like a dinner party and more like a riot. People talk past one another, and the discussion spirals down accordingly. Some of this has to do with, well, people from very different backgrounds coming together online. A common trigger is when specialized terms once restricted to certain corners of academia—think [I]neoliberal[/I] or [I]intersectional[/I]—leak out into the broader public discourse without everyone agreeing on their precise definitions. If an academic uses the term [I]white privilege[/I] on Twitter in an exchange with a nonacademic, for example, some level of animosity might arise simply through a lack of shared understanding over what the term does mean—that white people, on average, enjoy certain benefits relative to other Americans—and what it does not: that all white people are “privileged” in some absolute sense. If you Google [I]no such thing as white privilege[/I], you’ll see a lot of people responding not to what the term actually means, but to a misunderstanding of it. To take one of countless examples, the conservative commentator Brigitte Gabriel once racked up 5,000 retweets by tweeting “I’m an Arab Lebanese born American immigrant with 3 best selling books and a national organization that I founded. There is no such thing as ‘White Privilege.’” She was met, of course, with plenty of repliers who explained angrily that she was misinterpreting the term. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Really good
Life
The New Science of How to Argue—Constructively
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top