You aren't wrong. But I expect, and have found, that to be true of internet discussion in general.
I think this brings me back to a point I made earlier in the thread, that I should perhaps expound upon. Criticism, discussion, and argument are different things, with different uses. To wit...
Criticism is an attempt to increase understanding through analysis. Good criticism requires that analysis to be cogent, which requires significant consistency of viewpoint. Thus, good criticism is generally perpetrated by individuals, or small groups of like-minded people. Unfortunately, messageboards are large groups of disparate-minded people.
Discussion is an attempt to increase understanding by discovery. In good discussion al parties listen and absorb information as much as they speak. Good discussion requires people of at least somewhat disparate viewpoints, but also requires one to relax one's stake in the game. As soon as your stake becomes a major player in the discussion, it becomes the third form...
Argument is an attempt to persuade. If it increases understanding, that is secondary to getting some other person (another debater or audience) to accept the correctness of your position.
On the boards we also have simple self-expression, in which one desires to put their thoughts out in the universe, and doesn't actually care about understanding or persuading.
EN World, as an environment and medium, is not very good for developing criticism - the audience and participants are too broad, and strongly tends to argumentation, as the critic positions to defend their critical framework, rather than use it.
Discussion can happen here, but the open mindset of taking your stake out of the results is sometimes difficult to maintain, to avoid falling into argumentation.
Last edited:
