Hey guys. This is a topic that has had my interest for awhile now.
Intelligent discourse is a rare thing in the digital world. Forums are one of the few places where it can be had, and even then it isn't guaranteed. I agree that it's a controversial topic, as it puts into question various things concerning how people communicate online. However, I also feel that intelligent discourse is vital to gaining knowledge and sharing it. The problem that I wish to discuss is the lack of it.
I'm a firm believer in discourse for the reasons above. Back-and-forth debate and the refinement of perspectives that constructively help to establish objectives and stances is what I strive for. The lack of it is something that truly irks me, and I ultimately don't feel frustration at many things. This holds a special place however.
Mob mentality, as shown in media and other outlets to be negative, is the foremost impediment to discourse. Letting each side speak in order to begin the exchange needs to be respected, but far too often do I see people fail to do so. I appreciate the majority of this forum for respecting such and creating entertaining discussion on a constant basis, but this state is sadly prevalent.
An example I can give lies in my cross country team. There are, give or take, four people on the team that are never given a chance by the majority. While I encourage the judging of other people based on their actions instead of their wiring, the fun is poked by the latter. Inclined to assumptions, the team has labeled two as "dumb" and the other two as being of a mental disorder, both of which are pretty hasty and biased conclusions. While I logically agree that the two of the latter may be diagnosed with such based on how I have conversed with them, I can't confirm that, and I disapprove of the mob mentality that is portrayed by these judgments. There is no second chance coming from the team. Each time any of the four says something, there is a high probability that "Shut up, *name here*, you're dumb!" will be tossed up, followed by immediate agreement by everyone in the vicinity. Unlike them, I bother to talk with these four and don't brush them off because of perceived incompetence. Instead, I allow them to bounce ideas off me, get my feedback, and whatnot, and sometimes I even ask their opinions of things or give them running advice when they don't ask. I have discourse with them. On a bigger spectrum, this is also a key component of the team being what it is; I try to involve these four when everyone else rushes to do the opposite.
Why do people fail to have intelligent discourse so often? Why do these mob mentalities form to begin with? Is it to make up for something? Is it to fit in? Is it something fun? I fail to understand the motives behind vulturous attacks on people because they carry a different opinion or state of being. This happens on a daily basis, especially online. Certain other forums I am a member on are far more lenient on topic quality, and the generic one-liner that can be interpreted as "No. Shut up. You're wrong," is more common a response than a rational paragraph.
What do you guys think?
Intelligent discourse is a rare thing in the digital world. Forums are one of the few places where it can be had, and even then it isn't guaranteed. I agree that it's a controversial topic, as it puts into question various things concerning how people communicate online. However, I also feel that intelligent discourse is vital to gaining knowledge and sharing it. The problem that I wish to discuss is the lack of it.
I'm a firm believer in discourse for the reasons above. Back-and-forth debate and the refinement of perspectives that constructively help to establish objectives and stances is what I strive for. The lack of it is something that truly irks me, and I ultimately don't feel frustration at many things. This holds a special place however.
Mob mentality, as shown in media and other outlets to be negative, is the foremost impediment to discourse. Letting each side speak in order to begin the exchange needs to be respected, but far too often do I see people fail to do so. I appreciate the majority of this forum for respecting such and creating entertaining discussion on a constant basis, but this state is sadly prevalent.
An example I can give lies in my cross country team. There are, give or take, four people on the team that are never given a chance by the majority. While I encourage the judging of other people based on their actions instead of their wiring, the fun is poked by the latter. Inclined to assumptions, the team has labeled two as "dumb" and the other two as being of a mental disorder, both of which are pretty hasty and biased conclusions. While I logically agree that the two of the latter may be diagnosed with such based on how I have conversed with them, I can't confirm that, and I disapprove of the mob mentality that is portrayed by these judgments. There is no second chance coming from the team. Each time any of the four says something, there is a high probability that "Shut up, *name here*, you're dumb!" will be tossed up, followed by immediate agreement by everyone in the vicinity. Unlike them, I bother to talk with these four and don't brush them off because of perceived incompetence. Instead, I allow them to bounce ideas off me, get my feedback, and whatnot, and sometimes I even ask their opinions of things or give them running advice when they don't ask. I have discourse with them. On a bigger spectrum, this is also a key component of the team being what it is; I try to involve these four when everyone else rushes to do the opposite.
Why do people fail to have intelligent discourse so often? Why do these mob mentalities form to begin with? Is it to make up for something? Is it to fit in? Is it something fun? I fail to understand the motives behind vulturous attacks on people because they carry a different opinion or state of being. This happens on a daily basis, especially online. Certain other forums I am a member on are far more lenient on topic quality, and the generic one-liner that can be interpreted as "No. Shut up. You're wrong," is more common a response than a rational paragraph.
What do you guys think?