If you’re involved in our discussions on Coastsider, even if you’re reading and not writing, Paul Graham has written a good description of how to disagree in online forums and how to judge the quality of your disagreement. This is a pretty sound framework for thinking about what you’re writing and evaluating what you’re reading.
Barry,
The linked article is a very worthwhile read.
I would disagree although about “you’re unlikely to see anyone persuaded”. In my professional life as well as our little world on the coastside, I have ‘proven’ the contrary.
Professionally, I never entered an organization which was number one - my job was to make it number one. As an individual performer or as a manager, I characterized each part of the organization:
Sales - taking NO as a request for more information.
Marketing - provide the formation.
Advertising - provide it repetitively.
Technical and engineering - make the wild claims work.
Legal - address the: “OMG, you said WHAT!”
When I moved to the coastside:
no one knew of, let alone supported, the concept of “growth management”;
limitations on where or what developers might build - unheard of;
Etc
CUSD needs dramatic improvement - a work in progress?
Ken Johnson
Good Read. Will take that into consideration.
Except for some hyperbole and non-sequitors, I very much enjoy the informative comments on Coastsider. Instead of a limited conversation taking place amongst a few individuals, Coastsider’s online forum has allowed any concerned party to participate in the discussion - whether we agree or disagree.
The comments, they could be so much less relevant and inflammatory... but here at Coastsider, they never dig to that level. :)
Anneliese Agren: Ray Olson is a troll. Posted 05/16 at 8:40pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ray Olson: Oh Carl, it only took you a day for to write your VERY verbose, pompous,… Posted 05/16 at 8:33pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Carl May: It doesn’t hold true in all cases, but damage to natural features and values in… Posted 05/16 at 7:11pm in Opinion: Money is need for for Midcoast parks -- could Parks For The Future help?
Carl May: Ray, You are flailing. Of course I have seen these definitions. I have even written… Posted 05/16 at 6:31pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Jim Sullivan: Dave Holland moving on, I hope not.... for awhile anyway. I absolutely support Measure O.… Posted 05/16 at 8:57am in Opinion: Money is need for for Midcoast parks -- could Parks For The Future help?
Leonard Woren: Years ago the CCC approved the project, allowing 19 houses to be built on the… Posted 05/16 at 5:38am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ray Olson: Oh, and one other thing… My point about deciding that 20 homes can be built… Posted 05/15 at 9:10pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ray Olson: I’ve read the link that Francis has provided before, and I think I can count… Posted 05/15 at 9:07pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Carl May: Still looking for that definition that “literally” makes “all land” in the coastal zone a… Posted 05/15 at 8:00pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Francis Drouillard: Ray, http://tinyurl.com/5nksdf has the definition of wetlands. As you can see it is codified into… Posted 05/15 at 6:31pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
I thought this was pretty interesting. We certainly see plenty of examples of name-calling, ad hominem, and contradiction in Coastside forums—although we generally filter out the name-calling before you see it.
Even in well-argued discussions, you’re unlikely to see anyone persuaded, but readers in the middle often get enough information to make up their minds.
I also think that in online forums outright propaganda doesn’t do very well because it’s easy to dispute. Propaganda does a lot better in broadcast media, or in discussions among like-minded folks who inclined to support the propagandist’s point of view.