How to avoid making other people angry on the internet
I have, at times, experienced that opinions I share online fails to win people over, to the extent that the essence of the thread transforms from that of an exchange of ideas into that of a shitstorm.
Curiously, this is seldom caused by me having controversial views. I’m not especially hateful, and I don’t hold any conservative core ideas, such as advocating for an even less equal society or attacking or belittling various minority groups. If it were just that, then there would be no mystery; my views horrible, and for that reason, they provoke a strong reaction. But despite this not being the case, my views, which are truly very civilised and boring indeed, are sometimes intepreted in interesting ways.
I think the issue is me not expressing myself as well as I could. Assuming this to be the case, what follow is my own notes on how to better get your (mine) ideas across without misunderstandings.
Beware of the shortcoming of contemporary writing
Most of todays readers do not read. Rather, they impatiently give the text a quick glimpse, their brain already craving the next bit of novelty. I've noticed this in myself when I impatiently select random random test when trying to get my brain to read a text online. What's more, those who write has begin taking into account that their audience does not read. This has spawned a peculiar writing style which, for the first time in history(?), is designed not to actually be read, but merely glimpsed through.
It mostly consist of short paragraphs.
Often just a single sentence.
Sometimes two sentences. Maybe three. Four sentences are considered the max.
To help readers easier skim through it.
Read more: How can you write web content that people can skim?
If actually read, it has a staccato-like feel.
Almost like free verse poetry.
There are other characteristica too.
- Scattering links throughout.
- Inserting “Read more about“ references to other articles.
- Inserting list such as this one.
- Adding heaps of headlines.
I guess pretty much everyone have seen this particular style, and, to some degree, adapted it themselves. So there is a tendency to naturally try to boil everything down to a single, ultra-short paragraph. However, human language is not computer code; trying to destill a deeper set of ideas down to a Xwitter-length sentence will inevitably cause its fragile essence to be lost in translation. There is a reason why books are the length of, well, books, and not just the SparkNotes summary thereoff.
To build upon this idea, note that most dog-whistles comes in the form of a single, short sentence, as the shortness, unlike computer code, make it vague, opening it up for multiple interpretations. Indeed, some dog whistles doesn’t contain any words at all, but consists of a single emoji, such as “milk” or “the OK sign”.
If you write about more elusive fluffy ideas, ideas where your angle runs the risk of being read the wrong way, your writing has to go all the way, fully exposing your point with absolute clarity. You have to show it from every angle to make your vision travel through the written words and into the mind of the reader.
Sleep on it
If you aren’t sure you got everything right, no rush. You can always wait a bit, and go over it later.
Don’t accidently target other users
Lets say that someone posts the notorious recipe “Chicken and ham extravaganta”, and say that they don’t think society should go vegan because a balanced diet is better than a green one. You just happen to have a bunch of replies to that. For one thing, flesh food is not traditionally balanced, but centered around the meat, with everything else being mere decoration. Also, there are lots of protein sources other than meat. But most importantly, the vegan movement is not about what is the most healthy diet, but about it being morally wrong to kill a sentient creature just to eat its meat.
But this is a general argument about veganism. If you write it as a reply to someone recomendinging a “Chicken and ham extravaganta”, you’re essentially calling them a bad person.
So don’t reply. If you want to push your point, at least wait a bit and then create a new post, so you don’t target a specific user.
Don’t drink and post
Nope. Just don’t.
Avoid provocateur headlines
I might have given this post the headline “How to speak honestly without being banned for misogyny, racism, transphobia, and fascism”, or maybe “I was banned and censored on tilde.net. Here’s my conclusions.” Headlines which are undeniably more juicy, more clickbaity, if you will. You can almost smell the raising adrenaline. Controversy! Read all about it!
To me, this is hard to resist, because I really love the aethetic of blatant, vulgar marketing. But it also tends to backfire more often than not.
Also, even if the actual content of my post is okay, people who have experienced racism or transphobia might not be super thrilled about me playing around with racism and transphobia in my headline. Saying something “jokingly” is still saying it.
As an aside, me being temporary banned and having my posts deleted was what inspired me to write this post. I don’t have anything much to say about this itself, other than I would have liked it if removed post had a line about the reason for removal, and I would also note that, if you get banned, the red text bleed into be backgrund in a way which is aestetically displeasing.
Diversity reading
You might try mentally test reading your post from the perspective of groups which play a role in the content of your post. After all, if you talk about someone, you should be able to say it to their face. Also, it is entirely possible that your post will be read by those you talk about.
Take the rules for being a good listener, then invert them
Listening is a skill which most people haven’t learned. So when you speak your mind, it is worth taking precautions for the likely scenario that your readers will not follow the rules for the optimal listener. So let’s try inverting the rules:
When listening to others, always give their view the most generous intepretation —> If your words can be interpreted as ignorant, biggoted, or fashy, they will be, always.
Truly listen to others and try to understand them before giving your answer —> Assume that people will skim through your post.
I want to point out that (in bold and uppercase just for the heck of it) I DON’T SAY THIS TO WHINE ABOUT BAD PEOPLE READING MY POSTS UNFAIRLY. Nope, absolute nope. My point is the exact opposite; I have a deeply held belief that any writer or author who is “misunderstood” could have avoided it by writing better. The writer should be expected to know his audience and know how to write in circles around any potential misintepretation.
Got that? Ok. Let’s look at what we can do to address those two issues.
If your words can be interpreted as ignorant, biggoted, or fashy, they will be, always.
When writing a post, I sometimes get the notion that something I write might be taken the wrong way. But then I forget about it, because I’m busy building a clever metaphor finding just the right word. And without fail, my post get misinterpreted in exactly that way I thought it would. So always listen to that little voice. In my experience, it is seldom wrong.
This is not just to avoid you getting trashed online. Another more important aspect which is typically overlooked, is that if your post can, somehow, be misinterpreted in horrible ways, it may also be read as such by people who truly hold those views, people who then sees you as an ally. You really don’t want that.
Sometimes it is a simple matter of changing your phrasing. Other times, directly stating what you do or do not believe is in order.
Assume that people will skim through your post.
While you can’t predict exactly how our post is going to be skimmed through, It is likely that they will have read your headline. So use that as leverage to push your most important points, or the general vibe of your post. Your first paragraph is likely to be read too. If your post is longer, you can also add subheaders with key info. You can also use the inverted pyramid structure, leading with the information any reader must know, followed by things which will grant them greater understanding, and ending with the interesting nice to know stuff.
This is what I got so far! If you got any advice of your own, please share!
These are some good points. (Nit: some typos near the beginning.)
I'm tempted to add others. I'm not sure how useful it is to come up with bunch of rules that people won't remember? But here are a few:
Be careful with the word "you" (even a hypothetical "you") since it often presumes too much about the reader. What you post online will be read by strangers.
Avoid making unqualified statements in objective terms. This is an easy way to say things that can be proven false with a single counter-example. The world is more diverse than most people expect.
We tend to pick up writing habits from what we read, so be careful what you learn from memes, slogans, and exaggerated statements that go viral.
That first bullet is super important. I find that I get a lot more civil discord if I only make assertions about my own perspective and avoid any perception of assumptions about anyone else.
Using some antiquated third person (e.g. “one does not simply walk through the gates of Mordor”) does not flow with modern English well, and perhaps because the statements it makes can be interpreted to apply universally.
More effective email writing entails using the passive voice and the “royal we”. I can imagine that using an unqualified “you” could lead to misunderstandings and inadvertent confrontation.
What’s wrong with being a little controversial? 💁♀️ More seriously though, this long list of rules looks like a social media branding guideline. For a regular person on the internet, it comes across as self policing. Is that needed here? It’s true that everyone engages a bit more professionally on Tildes than elsewhere, but I think that also comes with the territory of remembering that there is a person behind the screen. Not accusing others of things they didn’t do, not being bigoted, and thinking of marginalized groups tends to follow suit.
I don’t see what’s wrong with a playful “provacateur” title once in a while. Exaggeration is a bit of an art. It can’t stray too much from the truth if something bad that happened to you was kinda justified. Your example of “I was banned and censored on tilde.net…” could have been “So I caused a shitstorm on tildes by accident…” if you wanted to add some personality to the title. I am recalling a certain thread that I think you posted which ended up being removed. From what I remember, the discourse just looked like back and forth between people on different wavelengths. So when the post was removed, I figured that was fair, because the discussion was not very productive.
You don’t always need to give a comment the most generous interpretation. Maybe unless it’s on Tildes lol since it’s part of the ideal culture here. If a person comes off as ignorant or mean, however, you can act accordingly (ask a question, educate, shame, ignore, etc.). There are people who read and those who don’t. There are also people who take a comment way out of context and project their own negative experience onto a mere joke. You can’t do anything about that.
But you see, many of us don't want to end up in unpleasant and unproductive discussions on Tildes. It sometimes happens by mistake.
I don't know how wrong that is in a cosmic sense, but it's not what we're aiming for.
I'd say that part is the most pertinent. As much as I enjoy silly, meme-y fun, I really like the atmosphere we have here on Tildes, and hope that we can keep this going for a long time. After using Reddit for so long, it's really refreshing to open a discussion thread where every single top comment isn't some brusque remark that doesn't hide the fact that the person didn't read the post/article before commenting.
Though I'm glad we haven't devolved into an utterly humourless or tense space where everyone is walking on eggshells for the fear of not standing up to perceived norms. Disagreements, misunderstandings and hurt feelings are part of being a person. I think some of the most human interactions online are when one or both users —amidst a heated argument— simmer down, recognise their differences and apologize for any unintended things they might have said.
Well, for me this is somewhat true for certain topics. Posting a link without providing enough context might go badly. It can be worked around, but I need to write carefully.
Writing carefully isn't a bad thing, but it does take more time and effort.
I wanted to be a bit careful with my words regarding the thread that was removed, mostly because it no longer exists. So I cannot 100% confirm that it was posted by Halfdan, nor can I offer concrete tips on how to prevent unpleasant/unproductive discussion based on what went down in that thread.
I can empathize with (what I presume to be) an underlying concern in this post. It probably doesn't feel good to feel like you're constantly creating friction, especially when you didn't mean to - it can feel as if you don't belong.
You can be 100% fact based, you can be 100% polite, and you can be master/mistress at choosing the right words.
Someone will still get angry.
If you try to be fact based and polite it is their problem.
While this is true, it also seems rather pessimistic to leave it at that. Writing is a skill you can improve on. Always more to learn.
I'm impressed by your willingness to share and discuss a painful experience publicly and also trying to benefit others who might learn from your experience.
I'm reminded of the proverb, 'when life hands you lemons, make lemonade' which is much easier said then done, especially without much elapsed time. I can fairly easily take life lessons from painful experiences years ago, but it's harder when I was challenged or brought up short yesterday.
I think (not necessarily here, but especially out on the more mainstream hubs) one more important rule is
Know when to disengage.
There are unfortunately people out there who don't or can't be reasoned with, and are out to argue or preach, not discuss. This is more often true the more controversial the topic is. When it gets to the point where they hurl insults, simply stop responding (note: I am still horrible at this so I know how hard this is). don't continue to respond. Do not respond to the flames, do not be passive agressive in other replies. Just ignore (literally or figuratively, depending on the severity).
It's unfortunate and can feel bad for you, but 99.9999% of internet discussions aren't some national debate that determines some real world outcome. It's a sea of information in an ocean of social media. I can't tell you why or how you should comment, but if your intention is indeed to reach out to others or share your own stories, getting into flame wars does not progress that goal. I've never been banned from "losing" some reddit flamewar and getting downvoted, I've fortunately never been stalked nor DM'd afterwards when I disengaged (if that happens to you, you do indeed need to escalate).
Some forums may allow you to report the comment, and feel free to do so if the context allows (and nothing else, do not reply with "I reported your comment"). But IME expect the report to go ignored most of the time. There's a sea of misinformation and potentially illegal comments out there, so they may not bother with a simple insult.
I will also note a contradiction to one of your points in that sometimes you DO want to make a longer-form comment. to quote a humorous "forum law" from TvTropes:
And sometimes that's a more desirable outcome than receiving a bunch of low quality replies. Those that are curious will inquire about pieces. Many won't read and all and subsequently won't reply. and those that don't read and reply anyway... well (another TVTropes):
Which, following the first point, already helps you rule out a comment as not worth replying to.
I like the rest of your advice and I think they work well to help promote a healthy discussion. Thanks for posting.
I agree that it's important to know how to end conversations where nobody is having a good time. But it takes at least two to keep a conversation going, so it doesn't seem right to put all the blame on the other person. Maybe thinking more carefully about "what's a graceful way to end this" would help?
Why do we keep going? One problem I have is with the feeling that other people in the discussion are somehow being unfair. It's tempting to go deeper, to bring more logic and evidence to the discussion to show why it's unfair. But that's a way to drag a conversation out, to make it a sort of "trial" where people have to write more arguments, sometimes based on more research, to support their side. That's more work for everyone and it's not fun.
If only nobody ever said anything that's unfair :-)
I must be more confrontational than you. I leave in the unintentional dogwhistles as a means to filter out people who are temperamentally unable to engage with the conversation at its literal level and instead are more attuned to dogwhistles than the dogs they’re supposed to summon. The moment a conversation shifts to meta-discussion about whether it is in good faith, both parties may as well have been acting in bad faith all along.
I just avoid commenting in "internet debates". Arguing on internet is useless and everyone looks like a fool.