Because I'm running really short on time this week to post about anything more substantial, and because I've found the "10 Golden Rules" piece so interesting, I thought I'd post some examples of some popular "How to Guides" on winning social arguments.
Below are three examples of popular media/blog "How to Win Arguments on the Internet" pointers that I found interesting in the assumptions that are made regarding argument, "rationality" and audience.
Click here or here or here.
These three examples, I think, raise a tension for me in this week's readings which, of course, are prescriptive ways that we should see argument. These sites/posts, for me, echo a question that Nic asked in the discussion--what if people are arguing for the sake of "winning"? How does this change what argument is and the extent to which we can engage in it more "rationally" and mindfully? We had an extended discussion about the structures of argument in f-2-f environments versus online environments and I think these lists raise some interesting questions as to how many of these strategies have offline equivalents and which exist solely in online spaces. Additionally, I find the fact that I ton of these lists exist interesting in and of itself because it indicates that people (even those who don't have what some might consider "rich" or "deeply engaging" arguments online) seem to be fishing for the tacit rules, or the ways in which power in created in these spaces.
Lastly, I'm interested in what these three pieces assume about audience that sort of goes unspoken. How can the audience assumptions in these pieces be challenged by the either of the texts this week?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment