On internet debate.

[trmof]

Not that this has never been thought of before, but I have some thoughts on why internet debates usually get so much more aggressive and include more name-calling than real-life, face-to-face ones.

Many have already argued that the simple distance the internet provides makes people more likely to say something they would feel uncomfortable saying to a person's face.

This is likely a key component. However, I would propose another, more important factor: In real life, if you miss a chance to make a clever comeback, you simply missed it. If you try to revisit the topic at a later date to make your quip, people will rightfully view you as socially out of step. On the internet, however, you can return to the debate at any time once you have formulated a new comeback, and while it may not move the conversation forward (it may, but in my experience it usually doesn't) no one will think you strange for making a snide remark.

---

This is both good and bad: It allows people to say what they are really thinking without regard to other people's feelings; conversely oftentimes people get so wrapped up in formulating a good comeback that that they don't realize they are failing to introduce new ideas, or perspectives to the conversation, or are failing to answer legitimate questions which have been asked.

I'll admit that I often fall prey to this myself, and though I try to impose rules about when and how to respond to ad hominem attacks and rude behavior, those rules rarely make it through the firefight of an entire topic without being broken in some manner.

It's frustrating, but understandably human, and it's important to keep in mind that different people have different definitions of what constitutes trolling vs wit. I've observed that these distinctions will all too often have an element of rationalization to them, where the opposing side is vastly more likely to be characterized as trolls, whereas your side is vastly more likely to be innocent jokers trying to be witty.

All of these factors, I think, are informative points to keep in mind while conversing with others, as it will potentially help you become more aware of your own unexamined rationalizations, wherever they may lie.

---

Everyone's thoughts?

I would say that the common wisdom is right. Most of the reason internet debates are more heated is that we are more comfortable saying what we think when we can't see the other person's reaction and this effect is heightened if we are anonymous.

The other effect of the internet, is that it is easier than ever before to limit your contact to like-minded people and sites that confirm your on biases.

I think one of the reasons Christians and other theists find this forum so difficult is that they aren't used to opposition concerning their beliefs. Unless directly confronted I don't usually try to talk to people about the absurdity of belief in god. I let remarks like "god blessed me with this new job" slide in favor of generally getting along. This space, however is set aside for atheists and I feel no such compunction here.

The tale has two sides of course. Atheists on Christian sites suffer similarly. The only difference is that we suffer more of it in the physical world.

It is always interesting to see things from another persons point of view. Because you are the type of atheist who is not likely to seek out a debate, the effect is that Christians mostly have encounters with hard atheists as opposed to agnostic atheists. These are also the type of atheist least likely to be aware of the distinction, and therefore the least rational. It has the same effect of painting atheists with a broad brush as shitty Christians do for more rational ones.

I would argue that if we were talking about sheer numbers, Christians are much more likely to suffer persecution in the real world than atheists, but I'll refrain from opening a debate about that.