Asklemmy

You're quite right that there are no winners to internet arguments, but this didn't need to be an argument.

I think things often escalate in online discussions because tone and intent don't come across well. Sometimes we start writing a comment and find ourselves struggling to put words to our point, possibly due to other tasks demanding our attention. Often we don't realise a clarification is needed until after people have already read our message.

Given those factors, if we want to avoid turning discussions into arguments, we need to assume good faith from the people we're talking to. That can seem like an absurd prospect given how many people online are arguing in bad faith, but if you can't reasonably assume a particular person in a conversation is arguing in good faith, are they really worth your time?

For example, I didn't read the person you're replying to as being particularly snarky, and I'm surprised that you read them as such. You've written a decent amount here that seems determined to be having an argument, but I'm not sure what the actual argument at hand is. It seems like you might be feeling the need to defend yourself based on the miscommunication that happened up-thread? Which I can understand, but I don't understand why you feel the need to break things down to the nitty gritty wordy bits. If I were being uncharitable, I would probably consider you to be trying to stir shit up and start arguments where there are none. However, if I am assuming good faith of you (which feels reasonable, to an extent, because you clearly spent time writing this comment, and I also appreciate that you partly apologised), then I still read you as being defensive, but in a way that I'm far more sympathetic to, because I do it sometimes myself.

I think you captured the grim nihilism of most internet arguments well when you said that no-one really wins in an internet argument. Certainly though, there are losers, and sometimes when I find myself arguing for longer than I should be, it's because I feel like I'm trying to "save face" in a way, and avoid being the loser. Sometimes it's when I have fucked up and communicated my original point unclearly, and sometimes it's because I feel like people are unjustly accusing me of something (by implication, usually). However, that mode of discussion sucks for everyone involved, and ultimately, wanting to avoid that shit is a large part of why I'm here on Lemmy, where I find I have more discussions than arguments.

I fear that my comment here will seem overly accusatory or judgemental, but I hope that you'll recognise that I have no stakes in this discussion and wouldn't have spent this time writing this if I was just trying to throw shit. Your parsing of condescension in the above comments is not invalid any more than my reading of those same comments as being patient and reasonable is. Words can be slippery, even for the most skillful of writers. But I think you'll find that assuming good faith of the people you're communicating with can lead to far more productive discussions because people become more inclined to show you more slack in turn, which is nice.

Tell me more about my “faults” and “condescension” and “ad hominem”, then reread your comments. Yep, there’s some condescension from me here, but you’re also once again trying to throw judgement. “Glass houses” and all.

You win, Have a nice day.