Arguing Over Argument in the Internet Age

JAMES KALB

computer image

The Internet means that today anyone can discuss any topic at any time with anyone who is interested
in it.

When the possibility first appeared it seemed to open up a brave new world. Whatever your interest
you could always find people who wanted to discuss it. The innovation also seemed to have political
consequences that came at just the right time. Serious public thought was becoming concentrated in an
ever more careerist academic world. Journalists were becoming more credentialed, journalism more
professional and dominated by a few major outlets. The age of intellectual independence and skeptical
hard-hitting reporting seemed over, and public discussion was becoming the preserve of a small self-
perpetuating class with its own interests, alliances, and biases. It seemed that the Internet would break
up the monopoly and make the public forum a true forum, where attempts by powerful interests to
control the discussion would inevitably fail, and we could all meet and discuss common concerns as we
saw them.

To some extent thats happened. Its much harder to cover up the news today, or to keep ideas and
information away from those who want to find out about them. If you want to see what actually
happened, you can look it up on YouTube. Nonetheless, the brave new world of the Internet has turned
out not so brave or new. A cacophony of thoughtless words and images has become a white noise
background to the same official views approved by the same kind of people who dominated public
discussion before it came along. There is still a conventional wisdom that is found on the editorial pages
of The New York Times, and its no wiser than before. If anything, it is less so.

There are a number of reasons for how things have turned out. The ease of entering discussions has
meant a lot of very bad discussion, much of it hardly worthy of the name. Obstinate people who have
one answer for everything and ignore what others actually say find it easy to churn out commentary.
Combox exchanges especially tend to devolve into repetitious gibes, slogans, and personal abuse.
Normal people give up, and the bad drives out the good.

Intelligent discussion is work, and often unrewarding, since the same errors and dodges come up again
and again and resist correction. Even if someone wants to understand a position it takes a great deal of
imaginative effort to do so if he doesnt already almost agree with it. If someone hears an assertion, he
thinks of what it would be for him to make it. If he believes that gay marriage advances the purposes
of public recognition of marriage and hears opposition, what he hears is I want to pick on gay people.
Thats what it would mean if he took such a view and all his other beliefs remained the same. Such
barriers can be quite difficult to overcome.
To make matters worse, the very diversification of opinion and information promoted by the Internet
has put a premium on more effective ways of dismissing disfavored views. All too often people dont
want to understand because it would complicate matters to do so. To maintain the stability of their
intellectual and social world in an age without legitimate authority they find ways to exclude whatever
doesnt fit. The result is that the more open public discussion seems to be the more partisan and taboo-
ridden it becomes. Opposing positions are not described fairly or understood correctly, and whats
presented is less argument than insult, sophistry, bludgeoning, and half-truth or outright fiction. Issue is
never joined, and discussion goes nowhere. At times in the past there has been a conception of honor
that demanded a certain standard of honesty and good faith in public discussion. Those who violated it
were discredited and ignored. In todays marketplace of ideas thats disappeared, and cheating pays off
as long as it supports the answers people want.

Those who wish to carry on an intellectual struggle against dominant positions, including almost any
serious Catholic who wants to take part in public life, need to consider how to respond to such a
situation.

It is true that discussion can seem pointless today. How often do we convince anyone? How often do we
even think weve made ourselves understood? Saint Ambrose commented that it has not pleased God to
save His people through argumentation (non in dialectica complacuit Deo salvum facere populum
suum). If so, it seems even less likely Hell save His people through blog posts and combox rejoinders,
or even thoughtful essays on esteemed websites.

Nonetheless, the pointlessness of argument is easily exaggerated. Discussion is important because man
is a rational animal. That doesnt mean he is always sensible, but it means that in most respects he is
mostly so. If people werent mostly rational they wouldnt survive.

Rationality is basic to what we are, and deeply affects what we think and do. If nothing else, it saves
effort to have our thoughts in order. That is why language is such a rational system. A study of grammar
shows that the language spoken by even the stupidest and most unreasonable people is a model of
order and logic. Even its irregularities can be laid out in neat tables. If something so basic to our way of
thinking and expressing ourselves is universally so logical and systematic, why not other aspects of our
intellectual world?

We all have principles that explain a great deal about our lives. Those principles can be discussed, and
the discussions can ultimately affect how we live. If nothing else, argumentation can help us hold
whatever position we hold in a more intelligent and stable way. We have to think about our beliefs to
present them and respond to objections, and in the end the need to think them through forces us to
face the issue of whether our position is actually correct or needs to be modified or abandoned.

Those who try to engage in serious discussion are affected by the experience, so why not assume that
others have the same capacity? Argumentative exchanges have a cumulative effect. They can clear up
confusions or point out unsuspected problems, and sometimes someone says something that supplies
the missing piece we needed so a question suddenly becomes clear. Even if those directly involved get
nothing from the exchange onlookers may do so. That is one reason it is important to maintain
standards in what you say and how you say it, no matter how objectionable your interlocutor. Paul gives
reliable advice that applies to almost any serious topic: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of
season be unfailing in patience and in teaching. You never know who might be reading, and you want
your side of the issue to seem as reasonable and well-motivated as you believe it to be.