Modest backstory: a random high school friend of mine posted something on Facebook that was screamingly right-wing political silliness, and it was something completely unlike his normal posting pattern (assorted family stuff). Since the post was ragging on socialism, I just responded with a cute Yakov Smirnov quote ("Under capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. Under communism, the opposite is true."), which proceeded to get me a lecture I really don't need ("@Dan - when you're taxed less by the government, you have more resources at your disposal to EMPLOY others as well as donate to charities OF YOUR CHOICE.").

Rather than attempt to have a meaningful dialog, I just let it go, but it bugged me enough that I later posted a link about how the U.S. has incredibly low taxes by any standard. That made me feel modestly better, but of course accomplished nothing.

It's like a deep, hand-wringing anguish not to call somebody on it when they're idiots, but I also fully recognize the folly of trying to defend the truth.



So... do any of you have rules about when you let somebody have it versus when you let it be? Does it matter whether the person is a distant acquaintance or ancient high school friend versus a professional colleague or parent of one of your kids' friends?

My rule is usually "how pissy am I today?"

That's also moderated by "how much hot water will this get me into", which itself is often moderated by, instead of being a pedagogue, forcing them into defending their ridiculous arguments.

For example: "Wow, it's awfully generous of you to donate that much to charity, even if it is being deducted from your taxes. Out of curiosity, what charities did you want to donate to that the government doesn't allow deductions for?" Yeah, this is a disingenuous argument, but it will either show him to not know what he's talking about or will further the discussion in a, likely, fruitful manner.

More and more, I find my rule is just "let it be." Now that I have a family, I no longer have the time, nor energy, with some small exceptions (such as the civil discourse on this board).

Oh, well.

I don't know if it would be described as a rule, precisely, but I watched a friend of mine handle a situation similar to what you describe.

Dann was the chief engineer at the radio station where I worked, and he was the most intuitively gifted computer person I ever met. He and computers just seemed to click. He taught me a lot about computers at the time (early 1980's), yet my knowledge was insignificant compared to his. One day an acquaintance of his stopped by, and I listened in to their conversation. It didn't take long for me to figure out that Dann's friend was pretending to know a great deal more about computers than he really did. Even I, with my pathetically limited knowledge of the subject, realized that this guy was saying things that were just plain wrong, in an attempt to impress Dann. Dann just listened, nodding his head, saying things like "That's interesting," or "I hadn't thought of it that way before."

When the fellow left, I asked Dann how he could just sit there and listen to all that stuff and not straighten the guy out. Dann said, "All that would have done is embarrass him, it wouldn't have accomplished anything and might have damaged our friendship. Eventually he'll figure those things out on his own, meanwhile it's better to just let it be."

I've always admired that standard of behavior that Dann set, and try (with limited success) to emulate it.

tanstaafl.

If it involves politics or religion I pretty much don't respond with those two subjects debate is a waste of time and it just gets annoying. Anything else if fair game.

http://youtu.be/w1_-TlqdIvM

I just use the Hide button liberally. Do you really need to keep track of your friends from high school that now live 1000 miles away and you would never call on the telephone normally for anything?

You've got a valid point. I don't particularly need to listen to any of these people, but some of them are amusing and witty, and they were all, at one distant time in my life, meaningful friends of mine. The intellectual inside me sees my high school buds as point samples into the minds of "real Americans" absent the biases of my normal daily associations. I find it valuable to understand that people, who I once respected, have had their brains reprogrammed with all sorts of things. If it could happen to them, it's clearly happened to many other people as well.

Maybe I feel sorry for them. Maybe I just want to save them. The only people I've actually "hidden" are the ones who are dull or weird (but not *good* weird), or incessantly post about stupid Facebook games, or who seem to do nothing but complain about trivial things (what Louis C.K. would call white people problems).

Though Facebook's hostile attitude toward user privacy would by itself be enough to keep me away, these types of issues are the kind of thing that makes me sour on the notion of social networking entirely, not just Facebook's specific implementation thereof. I know there are also many benefits, but I think the casual nature of the medium, and the relative ease with which people can stay "connected" without really communicating in depth, biases most conversations toward the trivial. (Disclaimer: I don't have a Facebook account, but my wife does, so I've experienced it as a spectator.)

I look at it this way. Back in the day when I ran a dialup BBS and dialed into dozens of others, staying connected with a circle of online friends took effort, and was therefore more focused. Which BBS you dialed into depended on who you wanted to talk to, or what you wanted to talk about, and when you'd had enough of that, you'd log off and hop to another destination that had a different set of offerings. Online forums try to replicate this, with varying degrees of success. (Obviously this one does a better job than most.)

With Facebook, it's one-stop shopping for all your communicating needs. That's good for posting a funny link or saying "Hey I'm in Albuquerque for a weekend, where's a good place to get a beer?" but not so good for things like an in-depth political conversation. It's not that it can't happen, but I think there are many factors working against it on Facebook.

I STILL don't do Facebook- I just don't have the time to mess with it and I don't want to get sucked in.

As for when to engage- for me the correct answer is that I never should, unless it's a place like this where people are respectful and genuinely open to new ideas. Most of the internet, though, appears not to be this way and it seem mostly a waste of time to try and engage people in any sort of meaningful conversation. I just figure I could spend that time more profitably with my family, watching TV, or clipping my toenails.

I have found the rare good discussions (mostly on this board) to be worth the effort, as they do help improve the way I see the world and process new thoughts and ideas.

There is a (crude) saying- "Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olymics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

While this comment isn't quite PC, it does have a valid point IMO.

Some people live for arguments. It is the only way they know how to communicate. I usually avoid these people and indulge my self righteousness in thinking I've taken the high road.

In general, though, I try to read every comment as if the author were smiling at me and chuckling while explaining their side. It tends to lessen the impact on me- I don't get riled up as easy. I also try to elicit the same jovial response in my reader's mind with the words I use and how I go about making my points.


/I took too many 'interpersonal communications' classes in Jr. College