Dis Agreement

[bcholmes]

I was thinking, recently, about a topic that I recall being discussed in the old Usenet days: that the dominant social mode, for in-person conversation, is to agree. Either through direct statements, or through body language or other verbalizations. And that when discussing things online, there’s a stronger bent toward disagreement. If you agree with what someone else has said online, there’s no need to add anything; you’d only reply if you quibble with something or outright don’t accept an assertion.

I remember folks saying that a lot of people interpreted Usenet forums as “hostile” because they expected the same sort of social norms as in-person conversation: that they could say things and mostly expect to hear agreement, and instead being confronted with people’s critiques. I feel like I haven’t seen that kind of analysis out of all the “the world is more polarized than ever” thinkpieces that keep popping up.

The Internet is a different place, now, what with weaponized hate engagement and all that. But it felt useful to recall that discussion.

Mirrored from Under the Beret.

Comments

[sabotabby]

That is a very insightful observation. I never framed it like this but (ironically) I agree.

[bcholmes]

I think it's interesting that "(ironically) agreeing" and "ironically agreeing" have such different meanings. The power of parentheses.

[altamira16]

That's interesting and true. My desire to instinctively fight everyone has lessened since leaving Twitter.

[disastrid]

That's insightful af, and explains so much about both the online and real worlds.

[lcohen]

that makes a lot of sense. though i have been known to disagree with people in person, in my day. (i'm thinking of my former father-in-law who was a knee-jerk Republican who didn't seem to realize that he was voting against his own daughter's best interests (to say nothing of mine).)