3mo ago

Is it normal to feel attacked and attack when argue on the internet?

I rarely feel attacked when I talk with people in person. And we all take people feelings into consideration enough so no one is trying to attack anyone.

I was not actively commenting on social media since I was 13. But when I joined Lemmy i saw the statistics only 1% of people are actively posting and commenting on social media. And since I knew I was in 99% of people who are only consuming and really wanted Lemmy to take off I tried to be more active.

But now I find myself way too often attacked and attacking. And I always judged people that are attacking others on Xitter or Facebook.

55 comments

There's a loud toxic minority online. The block feature is best friend.

Lots of people here missing the "and attacking" part.
Breathe, chill. That commenter you're about to yell at is just another idiot, like you. We're all just idiots bored on the internet. Relax, it's not that deep.
Also:
NO, FUCK YOOUUUUUUU
- You’re wrong and FUCK YOOUUU 🖕🏻

Mike Tyson once said "Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it." There are things people would only say behind a keyboard.
It can be hard not to get upset over mean comments but I try to remember I have hundreds of pleasant Interactions with people daily and I shouldn't put so much weight on the few negative interactions with random internet people.

It might be worth it to consider what tone you, yourself, are placing on the text you're reading. Words being spoken in anger or not will look exactly the same when they're written down.
- Yeah, this is a big thing. A sentiment that comes to mind is "we judge other people by their actions, but ourselves by our thoughts". Sometimes I reread past comments of mine and cringe at how ambiguous the tone is.

All the people here saying, "Just block them" - personally I just can't help suspecting that these are the same people who themselves are insulting and abusing others, who in turn are saying "Just block them".
The solution is not that everyone blocks everyone else. The solution is that we behave civilly and respectfully to each other.
- The solution is that we behave civilly and respectfully to each other.
  Is it an achievable solution? Because I have no idea how we could make that happen.
  
  On reddit I was once literally told to go fuck myself for saying it was a nice day.
- The solution is that we behave civilly and respectfully to each other.
  is this your first day on the internet?

Block them. Trolls are not worth the trouble.

I used to have this problem all the time, I think it's pretty normal. I did many years of therapy, and part of what I got out of that was an understanding of how people deal with pain and anger. The best way to change someone's mind is to try to empathize with their position and show your understanding. Once you share context with them, you can gently explain why you feel the way you do. Sometimes, you do this and find that the other person's point of view is a more accurate reflection of your values and you change your mind instead.
Don't do this with bad faith actors though. just block them.

there is nuance in personal interactions that is stripped away via text so it's very easy to type something you think is perfectly innocuous in spoken word that doesn't translate at all and because you know what you mean the return attacks don't make any sense. The only way to stay sane in these environments is to be as objective as possible and be prepared to take on new information and be wrong.
all that aside, if someone is personally attacking you they aren't worth any time beyond hitting block, and the quicker you get at it the better your online experience.
- there is nuance in personal interactions that is stripped away via text so it's very easy to type something you think is perfectly innocuous in spoken word that doesn't translate at all
  Good point. I will add that on the internet you are not even sure the person is a native English speaker. Which add another barrier.
  And now that I think about it, they may be even cultural differences that can have an impact on subjects like politics.
  All of that will some groups try to brainwash us into buying their products or their hateful ideology.
  But there is something I liked about the old Reddit and here on Lemmy/Mastodon is that we still can some self introspection like Op did

Normal, yes; healthy, no.

When I start to feel irked I imagine it's Colin Robinson on the other side so there's no reason to engage.
- That made me laugh, thank you for reminding me of that episode!

Some people do, some people don't. One big difference online is that projection is a lot bigger of a thing. Because letters don't tend to have a face or tone of voice, so your brain has to fill in a lot about what's being said.
Things like these, that your brain does automatically, can change. And you can control how. Practice trying to see things in a different manner, and you might find it changes how things you see tend to 'seem' to you at first sight.

Yes...

It's easier to be an asshole to words than to people.
xkcd #438 (June 18, 2008)
Personally, I think that we (humans) haven't really socially adjusted to digital communications technology, its speed or brevity, or the relatively short attention span it tends to encourage. We spent millennia communicating by talking to each other, face to face, and we're still kind of bad at that but we do mostly try to avoid directly provoking each other in person. Writing gave us a means to communicate while separated, but in the past that meant writing a letter, a process that is generally slow and thoughtful. In contrast, commenting on social media is usually done so quickly that there isn't much thoughtfulness exhibited.
We've had three-ish? decades exchanging messages on the internet, having conversations with complete strangers, and being exposed to dozens, hundreds, even thousands of other people reading and responding to what we write... less than one human lifetime. We're not equipped for this, mentally, emotionally, historically. Social and cultural norms haven't adapted yet.
- Totally agree. Seeing how "Internet like" communication existed before the Internet is always fascinating to me. Whether it's fanclubs, wargaming zines or Enlightened era correspondence, people have had written interactions with effective strangers for centuries. But it was incredibly different before.
  The very act of sitting down to write, paying some money and effort to literally post it probably had a huge calming effect on idle bad faith takes. And I imagine that getting a letter with someone telling me names for thinking McCoy is better than Spock would probably make me feel derisively sorry for the poor nerd who went to the effort.
  
  Yeah, and if you wrote some feedback to a magazine article, the editor might write a response to you and publish both in next month's issue, but that would be the end of it. No one who read your feedback as published in the magazine could respond to you directly - it's not really a conversation, it's slow and limited by the format. You could write another message to the editor responding to their response, but that wouldn't get published in the following issue so at most it would just be a one-to-one communication.
  This is very different from writing a post on an internet message board and getting twenty responses from twenty different people in a span of minutes. The closest past equivalent I can think of is literal soapboxing, where you go stand on a street and talk at people walking by, and they can immediately respond to you if they choose - but then that's in person, face-to-face.

Is it normal? Kinda. Is it healthy? No

It's taken a while for me to get to the point where I'll write a comment, and think "do I really want to kick this potential hornets nest?" And delete the comment.
I find myself having a much better time hanging out and interacting with the folks in the asklemmy communities versus those in political threads.
- Same experience. And it's a shame.
  And yet I've found that, occasionally, after I brace myself for the blowback, instead there comes a thoughtful reply which assumes good faith. It's those occasions which keep me coming back.

I used to have this problem all the time, I think it's pretty normal. I did many years of therapy, and part of what I got out of that was an understanding of how people deal with pain and anger. The best way to change someone's mind is to try to empathize with their position and show your understanding. Once you share context with them, you can gently explain why you feel the way you do. Sometimes, you do this and find that the other person's point of view is a more accurate reflection of your values and you change your mind instead.
Don't do this with bad faith actors though. just block them.

There's a couple things at play here when you talk to people online.
Ultimately, there's a difference between feeling attacked and being attacked. Both are common in online discussions.
Why do people attack people?
The anonymity and distance of the internet makes it easier for people to share strong opinions - for better or worse. There's a certain amount of psychology around the design of social media that pushes people towards confrontation.
Sometimes aggression is the default state for people. Depending on your world view that might be either sad or necessary.
That said, I believe there's a difference between a justified attack and an unjustified one. If someone is spreading hate, we all owe it to the community to fuck that person up with our words. If someone shares a harmless opinion then there isn't much call for a personal attack.
Why do I feel attacked?
If you feel attacked on the internet, there's ultimately two possibilities: you're being attacked or you're mistaken. For the sake of this section, let's say you're mistaken.
Non-verbal communication is an essential part of communication between humans, and is something that's hard to replicate in text. Ultimately, our non-verbal cues set an expected tone.
Sometimes when writing we recognize this and use a tonal indicator to set expectations. Emoji 🙄, gestures rolls eyes and, appending flags /s are all ways that we might set tone. These three examples all indicate "sarcasm" which for many people seems to be the default way to express themselves.
Sarcasm in particular is problematic because it often inverts the meaning of what was said. The phrase, "oh yeah, brilliant idea" has opposite interpretations if you're being sarcastic. Sometimes the writer assumes the reader will know what they intended because they were feeling sarcastic when they typed it. Of course, as a reader we have no way of knowing what the writer's feelings were at the time of writing.
Another element at play here is that a good deal of conversation on the internet is debate. Some people equate disagreement with condemnation, so if your feelings are hurt by that it's common to lash out. Many debates on the internet start civilly enough and then deteriorate to name calling and cursing in short order. It's wise to try to be the bigger person and assume no malice, because once it gets out it's hard to put back.
Statistics and Bias
You probably had the right idea that only about 1% of users are active commenters. Similar to that, there's also a phenomenon where the most vocal (and often inflammatory) users represent a similarly small portion of the group.
Our brains are evolved for survival, so they pay special attention to negative stimuli. Basically, they're always looking for trouble, and if you're looking for trouble you're likely to find it.
What this ultimately means is that we remember the bad things far more memorably than the good things. It also means that even if a small percentage of people are attacking others, because they dominate the conversation we start to believe that everyone carries that opinion. But as you point out, 99% of users aren't even commenting, so we really don't have a good grasp on what the larger population is like.
It also means that if you exercise your block list, you don't have to put in too much work to remove the most hateful people from your feed.
Closing
Anyway, I think you have the right idea. It sounds like you don't go looking for fights.
I try to keep a similar philosophy. If I disagree with someone then I'll seek to empathize or educate. However, if someone is vocal about my erasure or directing hate and violence towards people then I'll let them have it. I figure those people are looking for trouble and by golly I'll give it to them - it's always morally correct to punch a nazi.

Good question. I think it has to do with empathy. When arguing on the internet, you dont have an actual person in mind that you are talking to. Also, anonymity gives you safety. You dont have to worry about not hurting someone because it wont have adverse effects on the relationships with people around you, aka your tribe. This was essential for survival some time ago and sits deep within our subconcious.

Yeah, I think this is fairly common. I'm pretty good at not being overly adversarial online, but that takes me a bunch of active effort. Sometimes that means taking a big breath and moving on.
I think it's admirable that you care about contributing through commenting; I saw a similar stat when I moved to Lemmy and I have also been more active in commenting. However, if you're not enjoying how you're typically engaging, perhaps a different framing could be useful: rather than (or in addition to) thinking about commenting as you contributing to the community/platform, think about it as something that you're doing to enrich yourself. For example, sometimes when I do get into spicier discussions, it's because I am responding to someone I disagree with, but whose points have caused me to think differently. Or maybe I am enjoying the practice in articulating my views on a complex matter. Or maybe it's cathartic. Thinking about what I hope to gain from a discussion helps me to avoid unproductive discussions where it's just mutual attacks.
If you can't find a middle way, it's also okay to not comment on things. My opinion is that we do owe a duty to the communities we inhabit, and in the online world, that might imply that it's good to be contributing via commenting. However, informational self-care is incredibly important nowadays, and it's so easy to become burnt out. It's okay to not engage in behaviours that cause you harm (or aren't encouraging you to grow in the way that you would prefer).
- It's especially silly when you're like 3-10 comments deep and you know it's just the 2 of you arguing about some tone or something else stupid...
  I try to only post when it's helpful. Like for others that got there, or to show another perspective if I disagreed with them.
  But I'm starting to write and then cancel my post. Its kinda unlikely that this one was posted at the rate I've been canceling them these days.
  
  starting to write and then cancel my post.
  I get what you mean, I do a lot of that myself. Although it's unfortunate that I often find it easier to hit send when replying to internet strangers than I do when messaging my friends. I suspect it's because online feels far lower stakes, even though my friends would be far more charitable to a poorly articulated idea than the internet would.
  If it helps, I don't think you should feel bad about cancelling unwritten messages. Maybe sometimes you don't actually know enough to have an opinion on a topic, so refraining is the wise thing. Maybe other times, you have Thoughts, but they're still sort of fermenting in your head and they're not quite ready yet. Or maybe you've distilled your Thoughts down so that you know what message you want to convey, but you don't think that this particular conversation is the right time or place for them (possibly due to realising you're in conversation with someone who isn't arguing in good faith and continuing would be unproductive). These (and more) are all valid and good reasons to not actually submit a post or comment you start writing.
  The advice that I try to give myself is that we're under enough pressure as it is without helping more on unnecessarily. Sometimes that pressure is because we have something that we desperately want to say, but it's hard to articulate it in a way that doesn't feel like we're dishonouring the meaning of what we intend. That pressure is hard to counter because it's coming from the weight of the thing we want to say, but I ease it by reasoning that the important ideas will find their own way out of our heads and into the world, if given time, and that they will still be important.
  I figure that there's an infinite array of conversations on the internet that could've happened but didn't. It'd be a shame if we let the conversations that never ended up happening distract us from other conversations that we're actually having. Which is all to say that it's okay if you start replying to this comment and cancel it. Maybe in the next ~~life~~ thread, eh?

Argue bad. Discuss good.

When I realized everyone is just frustrated and venting about the lack of control they have in their lives, things became much easier.

Yes, unfortunately, and it’s healthy to recognize that. Good on ya.

Many people attack if a post does not reflect their world view. I have learned that in most cases, this is primarily an issue of their limited world view, and not one of my post.
Simply ignore the idiots, and, if they escalate, just block them. Don't let them control you.

Many of us actually posting have either too much time on our hands, care about something deeply, or don't care that much and just want to troll. Throw that together into one pot and you get a lot of attacks. It doesn't help that you don't see the person and many people don't understand how different communication is without body language.
So, yes, I think it's easy to feel attacked. The harder part is not to attack and most of us fail that, which is why the web is often so toxic. Personally, I try to care less and block more. Someone calls you a braindead nincompoop? Either block and call them an idiot off-screen, or leave a snarky message and then block. At least that's what I do, and I forget about what happened like 5 minutes later.

You guys use the internet?

Best way to respond to toxicity is with a "lol, loser" and block. Dont even elaborate, not worth typing paragraphs and argue. Or if you want, you could just not reply anything at all and just block.

Debates need multiple consenting participants, so arguing unprompted from out of nowhere is bound to gather annoyance

I believe it's similar to road rage. You are very restricted in your way of communicating and cannot read the other's emotions at all. That means you have to interpret a lot more and that is done in your own state of mind, meaning you can easily take offence where non was meant and the other has no chance to de-escalate as they would in face-to-face communication.
Ignoring trolls and actual assholes, that kind of misinterpretation happens so easily, I've often seen it among friends (via chat) and my own mother raged about an email I sent her (which was then de-escalated by a single sentence in a phone call).
- Oh. That comparison is a really good one. Never though of it that way.

It's normal to attack and be attacked, it's also normal to have a friendly exchange of ideas and it's very normal to communicate through memes and soundbites.
What isn't normal is to communicate through emojis. We need to shun those people! They must not be allowed to propagate a second hieroglyphics age! Archeologists will think it was aliens all over again!
Shun them!
- 😡

It's normal, and frankly as old as the internet (any of y'all remember the term 'flame wars'?). A lot of people here have made great points as to why it happens.
My suggestion? Ignore the attacks, and speak to the content in as even a tone you can manage if you feel the topic is worth discussing. If it gets to a point where the meat of the discussion is lost in the attacks, disengage. Recreational discussion on the net doesn't need to be a combat sport.
The worst you'll get with this approach is an accusation of 'sea-lioning', which makes some assumptions around intent you can't really correct all that well if someone's decided that's what you're doing. Though I welcome any suggestions - good faith is hard to prove online when people are so used to attack/counterattack discourse.

A big problem is that it's just text. In real life tone and body language go a huge way to determining how someone means to make you feel.
If someone is disagreeing with you in real life it's much easier to tell if they just have a different opinion and respect yours or are being a dick.
Often when someone comes across really rude it's meant in a half joking way which again would be easy to tell in an actual conversation.
These misunderstandings lead to things heating up real quick.

That experience hits too close to home.
I think because we choose the topics we engage with on social media, they're usually ones we're passionate about.
But the size of the online community means most folks are anonymous. So, unlike your friends or even a group of strangers, there's a much lower consequence for jerkiness, rudeness etc in response to views which in your eyes may range from insane to evil.

My take is that written communication is hard, unless a) you know each other really well, e.g. messaging friends, or b) you write carefully and with enough detail to help the other person understand fully your position, and they bother reading with the same care.
When you read an essay or article it of often begins by setting out the problem, giving some context and even defining their priorities and approach, before they make a claim or argument. They spend time addressing the obvious criticisms of their argument, and ideally admiting weak spots, and maybe even empathising with why someone might reject their position. This means that when you read an article like that, even if argues against something important to you, you don't feel attacked. It's calm, general reasoning, and obviously not a personal a attack on you as an individual.
But if you post an picture of the secondhand car you've saved for two years to afford, and the first comment is "fuck cars, they're killing the planet" it's easy to feel like it's a personal and it's aggressive. Or if you write a pretty reasonable but contraversial opinion, people might not have the time or will to break it down and explain why it's wrong, but they don't want other people to read it and think it's okay, so they down vote and comment a quick "what is this shit ?"
- A very good point! It gets to me the most when I really try to write a well structured argument. Like yours. And then someone comes and just dismisses whole point with some logical fallacy or something like that. It hurts the most since I spent a long time writing such post.

A large part of growing up with social media is learning how to effectively use your emotions in a way that assists you rather than hindering you. Passion and anger are way too close together, it can be really hard to separate them. Passion is very helpful when motivating yourself to write in a compelling way. Unfortunately, it's something that can best be learned through practice. The good news is the first step is recognizing that it is a problem, so you have started. The bad news is, you won't be good at it for a while still, but keep trying anyway.

Someone will see ANYTHING as an attack on the internet. The default interpretation is, "How can this comment be an offense against me and everything I believe in?"

That's a terrible opinion and you are dumb for thinking it!!1!

I would say... yes! you never know who you are really talking to, so I would never take anything personal someone says to me online, no matter what was said to me.
these are just words on a sceen that can be written by someone who is unwell mentally, as normal people don't bring other people down during a discussion.
it takes awhile to get used to this, but once you do, the good conversations you have online will (hopefully) outshine the bad ones. good luck!

100% monkeys were not meant to have real discussions behind an anonymous wall. People act differently with little to no repercussions. Add in vocal minorities, group think, bots, and you have a recipe for hate. Good well meaning people screaming at each other from the same tent is pretty obvious on Reddit and moreso on Lemmy but it's nothing compared to Facebook and Twitter which are more representative of populations.
I'm about to go full boomer here. The Internet even pre social media was the end for globalism and what most of the west thinks of the good days (yes I realize it was far from perfect but you can submit the trend has gone changed downwards with regards to global stability). While yes it gives people the ability to safely explore and learn it more often gives a voice to shitty dumb and uneducated opinions and ideas without repercussions. Add social media and essentially the digital communications wars governments and zealots are engaging in at a scale we've never seen.

You need to grow some thick skin if you are going to interact with people on the internet.
- No you don't. You will, sadly, normalize a perpetual state of conflict.
  If you can avoid it or mitigate it, it's for the best.

55 comments