I've engaged in my fair share of Internet arguments. It's very difficult for me to ignore someone being Wrong On The Internet. It pulls strings in my brain that are connected directly to my typing muscles, and often before I think about it I've already composed two-thirds of a scathing response to explain that just because Planned Parenthood gets some money from taxes doesn't mean that your tax dollars are paying for abortions.
I've been forced to reexamine several of my presuppositions in the last several months as I have become more involved with the fine art of Arguing on the Web. I am perfectly capable of reading a rebuttal or response, and evaluating it for merit.
I was recently referred to the following website from a debate about whether or not the use of the word "crazy" constitutes a slur: http://www.derailingfordummies.com/ This is a list of ways "privileged people" try to spin arguments to make themselves look less like oppressors or bigots. The website, as you can probably infer from the URL, is rather abrasively sarcastic, but the information is presents is, for the most part, good. However, there are two methods of derailment listed that violently offend my sensibilities, and in examining them I have finally been able to articulate a problem I keep encountering.
The articles in question are the first two: If You Won't Educate Me, How Will I Learn? and If You Cared About These Matters, You'd Be Willing To Educate Me. Here's an example of what they mean:
Person A: Haha, Azula is so crazy because she torments baby turtle-ducks and tries to kill everyone!
Person B: When you say "crazy", you actually mean "evil" or "bad". It's offensive to persons with mental health issues for you to equate them with a dictatorial sociopath. Don't do that again. It's offensive and rude.
Person A: Dude, I didn't know! Chill out! What do you even mean?
Because Person A didn't understand the impact his use of the word "crazy" could have, Person B corrected his usage. Person A attempted to justify his actions by pointing out his ignorance and asked Person B to explain.
The "problem" here is that Person A is putting all the onus of explaining why a certain thing is offensive on Person B, instead of finding out for himself. In many situations, this is a trick to send the conversation going in a different direction, hiding the fact that Person A was, indeed, offensive.
HOWEVER.
In my explorations of the Internet (warning: stay away from ducks you find in dungeons) I have come across a few communities where I was put in the place of Person A. Here's an example.
Moderator: I am going to be deleting any comment that meets the following criteria: X, Y, Z, Q.
Me: I don't understand why Q is a reason to delete a comment. It seems kind of like a double standard. Can you please explain to me why it isn't? I'm not trying to be rude, I just genuinely don't understand.
Responder A: You don't understand what we're talking about at all. Don't open your mouth if you don't understand.
Responder B: www.lmgtfy.com/Q
Responder C: I agree with "Me", I don't understand why that's a problem.
Responder D: Well, C, you'd understand if you bothered to do any research.
Moderator: *deletes my original comment*
This actually happened. While I am paraphrasing and quoting from memory, every single one of these statements or actions was made. Now, one or two other commentors did take the time to explain to me why Q was not a double standard, and I made some inquiries of my own outside the scope of the message board and came to a similar conclusion. But my treatment by the members of the message board, and especially the callous disregard of my curiosity and desire to understand by the moderator seriously bothered me. I was never really able to articulate why until I read the Derailing for Dummies list.
One of the most infuriating parts of Arguing on the Web is running across people who say things that are flat wrong, or make exactly zero logical sense. For example, I once had a discussion with someone who stated she could conclusively prove that all religions other than Christianity are false. I asked her to do so. She gave me a list of quotes from the Christian Bible. I pointed out that it is impossible to prove a religion true by using its own Scriptures, and she refused to even entertain the idea. I have run across this phenomenon more than once, and I found myself each time saying "if only they would realize that they don't understand something, and be willing to listen!"
And that's what happened to me. I disagreed with someone, but instead of arguing blindly, I set aside my preconceptions and humbly asked to be corrected, doing my very utmost to get across that I genuinely wanted to learn. And I was treated like trash.
Is it anyone else's responsibility to teach me about social justice? No. But I should not be met with the same kind of caustic hatred that a troll, hater, or bigot might receive when I am genuinely seeking to understand something. Maybe it's the teacher in me, but I feel like denying someone who seeks to learn is a terrible act.
No comments:
Post a Comment