Add new comment

First problem: a lot of the generation coming up don't seem to know how to construct or follow a reasoned argument. They're used to rapid cycles of positive or negative feedback. The meme resonates or it doesn't. They upvote or they post an insult. This makes any kind of conversation difficult. It might take the form of, “this is shit”. Or finding some excuse why it's racist or liberal or whatever. Or finding one little point of bad grammar, argument that sounds a bit like something reactionary, citing someone with a dodgy background, and using this to summarily dismiss. At some point someone needs to explain to this generation why logic and facts are important, and why arguments are sometimes worth taking seriously even if they're not perfect.

Second problem: everyone has shit lives now, and our networks, movements, milieus, whatever are in tatters. Everyone has a lot of surplus emotional distress which can't find its proper outlet and gets brought to any/every discussion. Some people come to online discussions looking for someone to yell at or be snarky with. Some come looking for someone to irritate or tear down. It's a classical example of this: http://www.spunk.org/library/cartoons/wildcat/sp000574.gif

Third problem: the idea of “triggers” is overused by idpols, but they're real (Reich calls them “emotional plague reactions”). And they're not limited to idpols with standard idpol triggers. A lot of people carry emotional aversions from previous contact with particular tendencies or positions – ancaps, ancoms, idpols, liberals, primmies, nihilists, whatever. Or aversions to particular types of discourse which are socially quite common, and not necessarily absent in anarchist spaces. This person you don't know telling you to shut up or grow up or toughen up or not be so macho, laying down the law on what's acceptable or moral or properly anarchist, belittling something you hold dear or upholding something that's hurt you, reminds you a bit too much of a teacher, cop, judge, boss, parent, abusive ex, or someone you had a huge fight with in the local scene... right off it's fight-flight and people will flame one another.

I'm not sure what the way out is. I think the most productive discussions happen in small-scale groups of people who know each other. This is as true online as offline. There's ways to construct spaces where people engage more with detailed arguments, it might be worth trying to create these quite formulaically – there's suggestions in Postman and Weingartner's work. I agree with the point about engaging with arguments not people. We need other outlets for distress though. Not sure what to do about triggers. I don't think it's possible to ban triggers the way idpols want to, because they're too diverse. I also don't think it's possible for everyone to always suppress the fight-flight reaction the way psychiatrists want us to. Best advice is probably to learn to recognise when it's happening (with self or others).