How to make a comment on the Web —A manual for 2017 Rafael Lino Follow Mar 5, 2017 · Unlisted

I used to be an eager online debater, and many of my opinions have been challenged, improved and changed by very good people who have debated me online. It’s getting harder to do that. This is a small (public) manual on how I act when I am commenting online in 2017.

The first important thing to do before trying to engage with anyone online is to figure out whether a user is a real person, and whether he seems open to debate. Engaging in conversation with a sockpuppet, but particularly a Russian sockpuppet, is useless. He will continue to trot out straw men until the end of time. Therefore:

Engaging in conversation with a sockpuppet, but particularly a Russian sockpuppet, is useless. He will continue to trot out straw men until the end of time. Therefore: I’ve lost patience for bullshit. Hanging around even mild pro-Trump subreddits like r/asktrumpsupporters I’ve endure a lot of poorly constructed arguments with little to no basis in fact. I’m not tolerating this anymore, and I don’t think anyone should either. If I feel like there’s a real person behind a comment I find to be grossly misinformed or plain wrong, I call it out (politely).

Hanging around even mild pro-Trump subreddits like r/asktrumpsupporters I’ve endure a lot of poorly constructed arguments with little to no basis in fact. I’m not tolerating this anymore, and I don’t think anyone should either. If I feel like there’s a real person behind a comment I find to be grossly misinformed or plain wrong, I call it out (politely). If you’re going to call someone out, a good tip is to start your post with “it seems like (repeat the message of the original post)”. Don’t say “it seems to me”, or use any other kind of language. “It seems like” is neutral, it means “this is the impression your post is giving me”. It means that you’re open to correction, giving the OP an opening.

Don’t say “it seems to me”, or use any other kind of language. “It seems like” is neutral, it means “this is the impression your post is giving me”. It means that you’re open to correction, giving the OP an opening. Provide data or verifiable sources and ask the same from others. I source my own statements and at the end of every post where I call someone out, I ask the same from them. This leaves a trail of data for others reading the thread to follow, because my objective in having a “public debate” is to inspire people to change their opinions (if they are so inclined) and that includes all of the people reading and not commenting.

I source my own statements and at the end of every post where I call someone out, I ask the same from them. This leaves a for others reading the thread to follow, because my objective in having a “public debate” is to inspire people to change their opinions (if they are so inclined) and that includes all of the people reading and not commenting. Be polite and understanding. No one goes out into the world looking to be wrong or misinformed. It just happens, and it can happen to anyone, including you and me. I’ve been proven wrong often enough that I always have in the back of my mind “what if I’m wrong about this?”. There’s always a good chance I am.

No one goes out into the world looking to be wrong or misinformed. It just happens, and it can happen to anyone, including you and me. I’ve been proven wrong often enough that I always have in the back of my mind “what if I’m wrong about this?”. There’s always a good chance I am. Ignore inflammatory statements or anything that isn’t backed up by data. If the OP doesn’t answer with his own sources, he’s not interested in informed debate, only in defending his own opinions. Cut your losses and move on.

If the OP doesn’t answer with his own sources, he’s not interested in informed debate, only in defending his own opinions. Cut your losses and move on. Ignore or circumvent emotional topics by simply stating your perspective without a value judgement. A lot of what people are saying are simply expressions of their own emotional state. Most people who are worried about immigration don’t actually hate immigrants, they just don’t like the fact that they’re coming into their native country (the distinction is relevant, because they can empathize with those people, right until they cross the border!). Remember that it is their country, and that subjects like culture and religion are central to the human experience of most people on Earth. Someone complaining about “multiculturalism” is actually saying “I can’t recognize my own country anymore.” That’s a valid emotional concern. The issue is when this bleeds out into other areas, blinding them with emotional thinking. This is something that can be called out, while acknowledging this person’s experience as valid.

A lot of what people are saying are simply expressions of their own emotional state. Most people who are worried about immigration don’t actually hate immigrants, they just don’t like the fact that they’re coming into their native country (the distinction is relevant, because they can empathize with those people, right until they cross the border!). Remember that it is their country, and that subjects like culture and religion are central to the human experience of most people on Earth. Someone complaining about “multiculturalism” is actually saying “I can’t recognize my own country anymore.” blinding them with emotional thinking. This is something that can be called out, while acknowledging this person’s experience as valid. Use the Pascal Method of disagreement:

(…) before disagreeing with someone, first point out the ways in which they’re right. And to effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord.

Often enough just saying “I agree with you” and then listing a few points of agreement before going into contention can work wonders. People are far more highly to listen to what you’re saying if feel like they’re really listening to what they’re saying.

Pascal’s second point is why I always provide and ask for hard data that’s properly sourced. Going online to verify your opinion and finding that’s it’s wrong is a humbling moment. But it happens only if the other person is willing to do that. If they are willing to go that far to defend their beliefs, and find little to no objective reporting they can rely on, it will make them question themselves. They will read and reread your post. And maybe, just maybe, they’ll change their mind.

That’s it. Simple enough, but so far a big help in helping me keep my sanity, and try and still have decent enough conversations online.