Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Random Thoughts on Poor Internet Discourse

Random Thoughts on Poor Internet Discourse

Last updated on: June 19, 2021 at 2:35 pm by Dave Armstrong

Random Thoughts on Poor Internet Discourse 2021-06-19T14:35:20-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

[compiled from seven Facebook posts: dated 2016-2019]

*****

Thought Police and Shutting-Up of All Legitimate Dissent is Now Standard Practice Online (Even for Christians) (6-4-16)

Now it’s very common to demonize and savage someone, simply because they dared to express a different opinion. We talk about the thought police and PC and censorship.

But on so many (most?) Christian (including Catholic) sites online, where any significant discussion takes place, the game seems to be to make any person who disagrees with the “in crowd” the worst possible scumbag and slime ball in the history of the world. That’s assumed (minus any compelling evidence), and then everyone joins in, to slander and defame. Safety in numbers . . .

Sadly, this is a trend online that has been going on for years. I’ve always spoken out against it, and do now. My concern is free speech and ethical Christian discourse.

If no one can ever disagree about anything (even in a tentative, partial way) without being publicly slandered and attacked, then free speech is nonexistent. I would say that rational thought itself is in question. It’s a ganging-up, bullying mentality. I’ve seen it 500 times all over the Internet, for 20 years (but it’s worse than ever now).

In Orwellian groupthink, anyone who makes a legitimate dissenting observation that may be a “minority” view in any given environment, is immediately tarred as a scumbag; the worst kind of human being. This is pathetic; ridiculous beyond all description. There is virtually no rational discourse anymore online, as soon as there is the slightest disagreement expressed.
*

The Christian online community is now almost indistinguishable from the thought police that have characterized the new left for 50 years: trying to shut down any intelligent discussion and demanding that everyone be in clonelike conformity: and if they aren’t, then they are wicked, evil people. It’s the triumph of postmodern relativism and subjectivism. One again, we Christians are observed to act exactly like our secular counterparts.

*
It’s also the same exact tactics that we see in Democratic political campaigning for President every four years. All Republicans are racists and homophobes and chauvinists simply by virtue of not being a Democrat.

Now, if anyone dares to disagree with the Big Cheese on any given page, with their (too often) sycophants and fan club followers that take their every word as GOSPEL TRVTH, and fight tooth and nail for everything they utter, then it is off to the dog races, and everyone jumps into the feeding frenzy to annihilate the Wicked Evil Dissenter and make sure no one ever extends to him or her the slightest bit of charity and benefit of the doubt ever, for the duration of their pitiful life!

I exaggerate and generalize, of course, to make a point (it’s the nature of a “jeremiad” of this sort), but sadly, this is not far off the mark at all, in countless incidents of this sort that take place daily online. I just witnessed an absolutely outrageous example of it, which is what stimulated this post.

I’m convinced that it’s the fruit of relativistic, subjectivist postmodern culture, fueled by the impersonal nature of the Internet, which multiplies the bad traits already in place by 100. This is the new normal. Those of us who resist and criticize it will be attacked and thought to be hopelessly “old-fashioned.”
*

Bring it on. I aim to keep acting as a Christian should, as opposed to a loudmouthed, slanderous PC, self-righteous, self-deluded sort of secularist who can’t stand the slightest criticism. Now many CHRISTIANS act like that.

I’ve had supposed “friends” who turned on me like I was Satan, at the first big disagreement. All of a sudden this person (me) whom they thought was nice enough to be friends with became the devil incarnate, simply because of disagreement with them.
*

Friends (like spouses) are able to endure disagreements, even major ones, if there is the necessary foundations of respect and charity. I think it’s the difference between saying, “if you believe THAT, you’re a scumbag!” and “well, if even YOU [my dear friend] believe that, there must be something to it that I need to seriously consider.”
*

The first is selfish and arrogant and ultra-judgmental. The second is respectful, grants the benefit of the doubt, and is consistent with past friendly behavior.

I wrote this over a year ago [2015] (see how well it fits with YOUR experiences):
*

My Three “Laws” Concerning Online Discourse (actual or mere facsimiles thereof):

*
Armstrong’s Law #1: It is virtually 100% certain that when anyone (including, sadly, Catholics) starts to vigorously disagree online, some sort of ad hominem insults will start flying, and misrepresentations of opposing views will inevitably occur.
*

Armstrong’s Law #2: If someone personally attacks and lies about another person and/or his opinions, and the recipient merely defends himself against false charges and objects to the calumnies, he will inevitably be accused by some or many observers of engaging in exactly the same behavior as his attacker, as if the two were “immoral equivalents.”
*

Armstrong’s Law #3: When there is strong disagreement, inevitably virtually all online discussions about it will immediately be diverted to anything OTHER than what the dispute is actually about: personalities, or “psychoanalysis” of the guy who disagrees, or wholesale mockery and silliness (generally, postmodernist subjective mush over against objectively determined facts). Anything and everything that can be thrown (very much like dog poop on a wall) in order to avoid actually dealing with the topic at hand will be brought into play. The ancients called this sophistry. We may also call it “obfuscation” or “obscurantism.”

I’m very proud that my websites and Facebook pages have been nice environments for respectful discussion for 19 years now. They are because if a person isn’t civil and starts attacking anyone else, they won’t be allowed here long. You gotta zap the cancer and the poison right away or it’ll spread every time. That is how I can have this (I think) pleasant atmosphere. But one must consistently enforce that for it to work.

*
I do the “three strikes and you’re out” approach. First, I delete. On the second occasion, I delete with (usually) warning. On the third occasion, I delete and ban the person as a troll and violator of my rules and expressed intentions. I expect anyone who knows anything about me to abide by the norms for discussion that I have established for now 20 years online.

*
Essentially, it is a “zero tolerance” policy regarding insults and trolling, but with two warnings or two chances to reform behavior. That allows for “forgiveness” of temper tantrums, bad hair days, temporary insanity, etc. But if a person does the stupid stuff three times, and against my express wishes for my site, that’s more than enough evidence to ban.

*
***

Most people really don’t like dialogue and debate at all (6-9-17)

Every once in a while I realize anew that this is the case. I’ll be going along, in some combox, commenting in friendly disagreement, out of my love for ideas, the back-and-forth, and being challenged (so I can grow and learn, myself). Then it occurs to me that the other person is likely regarding my challenge as a personal affront or putting him or her on the spot. And they don’t like that, and so (often) will start insulting or disappear (or just quickly change the topic).
*

Sometimes I figure this out with regard to friends, with whom I usually agree. But as soon as a disagreement comes about, one sometimes observes a very different side of someone. Some of that may be personal insecurity, some of it pride (if we’re embarrassed to ever be wrong, it’s usually that). I don’t make those judgments in specific cases, but I know for sure when there is discomfort and unease. The person manifests that very quickly if it is gonna come out.
*

I LOVE it when people challenge ME in this way. It’s an opportunity to either 1) clarify (if I conclude that the challenge fails or misunderstands my argument), or 2) modify or retract my opinions in order to be more in accord with truth and facts (if the challenge succeeds). Either way is a net gain. And the gain is towards the TRUTH, not for me to always be right. Truth and facts are what they are. Our responsibility is to determine what they are, and follow them.
*

It’s one of my crosses to bear: to love dialogue and intellectual challenge in a world that generally despises both. Oh well. I’d rather be this way than not this way.

***

Two Ways That the Devil Works Against Rational Argumentation and Dialogue (11-4-17)

Today, many people literally EQUATE [rational, amiable] “argument” with “quarrel” so that it is inherently a bad word for them, just as many seem to think that “tradition” is inherently and always a bad word. Say someone grew up in a household where the parents were constantly quarreling when they disagreed (ugly acrimony), and/or in a house where no disagreement was ever allowed to be aired. They will tend to think this because of background conditioning.
*

In other words, today we’re not merely grappling with (as we always have) arguing gently and with love, but with the idea that we ought not argue at all about anything, no matter how loving we are. People think that either because of what I noted above, or because they are in such a subjective mush that they no longer think it is worth anyone’s time or effort to debate propositions as more or less true or false or good and bad: which is a different problem: that of pure subjectivism.
*

Both of these things are the devil’s victory.
*
***
*

“Dialogue is Dead” #2 (1-26-18)

In a true, constructive dialogue, the critic actually deals with opposing arguments and directly shows how and why they are insufficient. They don’t simply give their own alternate opinions, with no reference to the opposing ones. But we are in an age where true dialogue is virtually nonexistent. It drives me nuts, but if people are never taught how to properly dialogue, this is what we are left with: Person A says X and Person B says Y or “Person A believes X because of nefarious Reason Z” (i.e., a fallacious ad hominem attack), and never the twain shall meet.
*

If all a commenter is interested in is saying Y to my X, but never showing how and why my X is wrong and shouldn’t be believed, that doesn’t advance the discussion or achieve dialogue, so I ain’t interested.

It shows no respect or courtesy to a writer who has taken the trouble to carefully construct an article, to completely ignore HIS or HER specific argumentation and to simply give one’s own different opinion. There is no interaction with the author’s arguments when that takes place.

But this is standard procedure online in our postmodern times, because everything is subjective. Like I said, merely giving Opinion B over against the writer’s stated Opinion A is not dialogue. That is mutual monologue or “ships passing in the night.”

It’s hard to go against the overwhelming practice and methodology, but being different or unpopular has never stopped me, if I believe what I am writing is true (as I always do). My goal is reason, facts, and truth: not popularity and being rapturously loved by one and all.

***

Online Feeding Frenzies vs. Christian Compassion Towards Hurting, Agonized Souls (3-27-18)

1 Corinthians 13:2 (RSV) And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

I wrote the following observations in a case where there was a friend of mine clearly suffering and hurting and going through a personal crisis (and I knew for sure that this was the case). I was trying to convince an entire thread / “feeding frenzy” to stop blasting her, for some not-perfectly-expressed remarks she made. The particulars of the debate and who was right or wrong about what are unrelated to my present point, which is about basic Christian compassion and charity.

She obviously is going through a hard time, and I don’t think a public thread and everyone piling on (regardless of the debate in this instance, which is a separate issue) is helpful in the situation. I think Catholics ought to have a bit more discernment than piling on someone who is clearly struggling emotionally or spiritually. If we spent more time praying for such people and being more understanding instead of writing about them in public, I submit that it would be far preferable and with better results.

We all say things we shouldn’t say if we are upset.

I oppose all online insulting, period, and I don’t and won’t countenance it on any of my sites. I’m not saying [Name] said nothing wrong.

But she’s HURTING. H-U-R-T-I-N-G. That’s time for the political and logical analysis to stop and the human concern and compassion to kick in. If someone says they’re about to leave the Church, we reach out to them, just as we would if they said they were gonna kill themselves or some lesser thing, but still very serious.
*

I think the nature of the dispute and the fact that she is hurting a lot right now (I don’t know the particulars), requires, I think, a cessation of a public pile-on and switching into very different gears and modes. The situation calls for compassion and charity, and a temporary ratcheting down of the reasoned argument, because other completely different factors are in play, and it becomes a question of timing and sensitivity.

I know from mutual friends that she is going through a very hard time right now. I’m not saying she is perfect; only that she is a hurting individual and that it’s not gonna help that to have dozens of people in public saying she is a terrible person. She’s not. I know her fairly well online.

If she’s actually walking out of the Church, the proper Christian reaction isn’t to kick her as she leaves, and decry all her faults, but to say that we care, and to come and talk about the deeper issues that led her to such a despairing place. She’s our sister in Christ. It’s not rocket science to figure out that a hurting person would say that she was leaving the Church. And it’s very likely things going on in her life that are separate from this current mess.
*

Anyone ought to figure out that she is hurting, by the extremity of her language: just like if a married couple is having a spat and all of a sudden one of them says, “I’ve had enough of this marriage! I give up!” That’s a time to calm down, get to root causes and switch gears: not to ratchet it up all the more.
*

Some people are more sensitive than others. People have all kinds of problems. My wife’s best friend’s mother just died yesterday, and my wife drove her friend (who is blind) down to West Virginia. People could be going through any number of things we don’t know about. Someone crying out that they will leave the Church shows that this is the case (assuming the person isn’t some wild fanatic, which [Name] isn’t).

[it was stated that the remark about leaving the Church was interpreted simply as venting]

I think you just made part of my argument for me. It’s just blowing off steam: not to be taken literally? Okay, let’s assume that is the case. Why create a new thread over THAT: where 90% of the participants bash her as some moron: just for blowing off steam, as we all do? It’s what I call an online “feeding frenzy”. I’ve been the subject of these myself, countless times. It’s extremely unpleasant.

*
That makes no sense (the “blowing off steam” scenario). If you thought that, then it’s a pretty lame excuse for making a thread like this about a fellow Catholic: with many mocking her because she blew off steam. Now we all get together and yuck it up about what an irrational idiot she is. Like that is edifying and charitable? It’s now up to 101 likes and many comments.

*
I’ve been writing critically about these sorts of phenomena online for 20 years. It’s not just this thread. It’s the fact that this sort of thing goes on all the time and few seem to want to stop and think how bad it is to do this to another person. It’s very disturbing: groups of people getting together and agreeing that Person X is undesirable in some way that requires he or she having to face the criticism of a bunch of people at once.

The more strongly folks believe things (whether they can rationally defend them or not), the more they tend to get polemical and start to caricature and demonize opponents, which is not good or helpful.
*

We’ve all done it at one time or another and we all have to be vigilant to avoid it. This is not at bottom a political problem, but a lack of charity, which often afflicts all of us, of whatever political persuasion. I condemn lack of charity WHEREVER it is found. I couldn’t care less about the political affiliation of the one doing it.
*

We’ve ALL engaged in this predatory “feeding frenzy” behavior online: every one of us, at one time or another. We need to repent and try to avoid such behavior in the future like the plague.

*
I don’t think we can sum this sort of thing up or explain it primarily using a political analysis. The key dynamic is the “us vs. them” / polarized / echo chamber mentality, which usually comes down to *or is immediately precipitated by) political or theological differences, but works both ways. Various political and theological sides trash others. It’s not confined at all to one group only.

*
Thus, it is a charity problem that precedes all political and theological analysis. These existing, prior differences simply spark the frenzy and subsequent caricatured stereotyping and demonization of the despised, detested Other Guy.

***

G. K. Chesterton on True Dialogue (Which is Virtually Extinct Today) (6-5-19)

This is the essential idea, that all good argument consists in beginning with the indisputable thing and then disputing everything else in the light of it. (Illustrated London News, “Taking Reason by the Right End,” 11-7-08)
*

Only, as is commonly the case today, hardly anybody makes any attempt at defining the thing he is always denouncing, finding it much easier to denounce than to define. (Illustrated London News, “On Sentimentalism,” 8-20-27)

Nothing is so bright and cheering as a hostile statement that is really to the point; an opponent who does really see the point, even if he points at it in derision. (Illustrated London News, “England and Dogmatic Christianity,” 2-9-29)

People generally quarrel because they cannot argue. People do not seem to understand even the first principle of all argument: that people must agree in order to disagree. (Illustrated London News, “The New Generations and Morality,” 3-9-29)
*

But they were quite incapable of seeing where their own line of argument was leading them; and I have found that this particular sort of blindness is very much more prevalent than I had myself supposed; perhaps, much more prevalent than the alternative of sight. (Illustrated London News, “On Arguing in a Straight Line,” 6-21-30)
*

What I object to is one of the debaters coolly announcing at the start that everybody in the world thinks as he does, or that anybody in the world who thinks differently does not think at all. Only certain opinions were called enlightened opinions; only certain policies were called enlightened policies; as if it were not a question of convictions being held, but merely of concrete facts being seen; and that, if they were once seen; there were no two opinions about them. (Illustrated London News, “On Assuming Too Much in Debate,” 8-22-31)

On Online vs. “Real Life” Behavior (Both Atheists and Christians) (8-6-19)

I wouldn’t tar a whole group [atheists] with the one brush. That would be the same sort of prejudice we are objecting to. I think it is at least equal parts of the negative and toxic atmosphere of online discussion forums. Christians act almost exactly the same way. I’ve been called far worse things by fellow Christians than atheists ever called me.

But there is no question that atheist forums online are almost universally of this boorish, condescending, asinine nature. I’ve never seen one that wasn’t, and I am very well-experienced in debate with atheists.

Various groups behave far worse online, and the Internet experience does not by any means represent the whole. I know this to be the case, from my own long experience (over 40 years) in person with folks of every conceivable belief-system, including atheists. When I once did a little talk (more Q & A) with a group of 16 atheists — me being the only Christian in the room –, only one person was rude and boorish, and he was rebuked by at least two other atheists. Apart from him, I was treated with the utmost courtesy and kindness: with which I was most impressed. It was the most enjoyable evening of apologetics discussion that I ever had in my life.
*

So no one can tell me that “all” or “most” atheists are of the type that we almost always see online. The dynamic is almost exactly the same with Christians, too, as I noted.

***

Photo credit: AlLes (11-18-17) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***
*

Summary: I collected several Facebook posts having to do with Internet discourse & how badly we routinely treat each other online. How can it ever be reformed? Each of us must look at ourselves.

Catholic Apologetics

amiability

atheist-Christian relations

civility

combox farces

congeniality

Constructive Discourse

zero tolerance for insults

Previous Post

June 19, 2021

One Peter Five & Crisis Magazine Stop Combox Farces

Next Post

June 21, 2021 2nd Amendment & Assault Weapons: a Dialogue

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz