Is There Any Point In Discussing Serious Subjects On The Web

It seems to me as though there isn't. Its been my observation that after a while internet forums come to be dominated by posters who hold mostly similar views on serious topics of conversation. Something seems to happen to people when they log on to the internet so that while in real life the point of serious discussion (politics, religion, philosophy, history, etc) is to be exposed to and consider ideas you've never encountered before, online the point of discussion is to impose your "correct" views on other people. Whereas in real life discussion is an exchange, on the internet discussion is a contest. The result of this is that while a forum may start out with posters who have a wide variety of ideas, after some time people with one set of ideas will drive away all the people who have ideas that contradict their own. After this point if someone posts an idea that goes against the views already held by the site's posters on a particular topic then the result will be furious universal rejection, whereas if someone posts an idea that supports the site's already established views there is universal support. All the forum is at this point is a bunch of people who hold the same views agreeing with one another, there is no introduction of new ideas into the community and so its member can make no intellectual progress. Not only that but after a thread has been going for awhile and received several posts few people have the patience to read everything that has been posted so far and often just read either the opening post and/or the most recent posts in the thread (if those), and either end up repeating ideas that have already been discussed in the thread or the discussion goes off on a tangent and wanders far away from the original topic. In addition to this problem there is also the fact that in ordinary face to face conversation we use a number of non verbal cues that can not be effectively replicated in pure text conversation. Thus people reading a post will often jump to incorrect conclusion about what ideas the poster is actually trying to communicate or the tone he is using. For example the reader might imagine that the poster is using a sarcastic and scornful tone and be angered whereas really the poster wasn't trying to be anything of the sort. This is why it seems to me that for the most part the internet is really only suitable for lighter topics such as What's Your Favorite Videogame?, or Post Pictures of Cute Animals, or the ever popular Which Cartoon Characters Do You Want To Have Sex With? ^^

Kinda depends. Yahoo answers is my go to choice to learn from others perspective on a topic but again it's the internet.You can get People who are open minded and close minded. I'll admit that its been times where I would think that my idea was 100% correct and all others who thought differently were either ignorant or heartless, but now I can see it from others perspective and try to forge a idea that supports both sides standing on each side.

Basically people just need to see if from others perspective and see if you can make a compromise that allows others and you to see it as one solution.

No, there usually isn't, you're right. Internet is amazingly useful when you're looking for informations of any kind, but when discussing it's all about circlejerking and cliques. Likeminded people eventually group together, get into their bouncy castle and anybody, no matter how right, tries to sneak inside to poke them with a stick, will eventually be forced out. Conservatives will be bigots, and in their own way so will the liberals. Whether it's politics, social issues or porn, once you've made it into that likeminded mold, you won't probably make your way out of it. If anything, you often just get worse as time goes on. Not many people want to be proven wrong, especially when they have believed something for so long.

So not much different than in real life.

In real life you can't be an internet tough guy, it's you and them. On some things you're right, some people won't change their mind, but for more radical/extreme arguments you totally wouldn't want to be an ass like you would be on the internet, or your life would be ruined.

I agree that MOST forums will evolve in that context. It tends to be human nature to tribalise and be with people with most agree with. Being open minded to other peoples view is hard, it's not something most will go through and for the most part many forums will refuse to put any form of standards for dialog in their forums.

For many, like Fakku!, it's a place where folks can talk about dicks and tits in a comfortable setting. So it's no surprise when it boils down to serious ethical questions like abortion, or immigration issues, that the loose standards are applied and direct, civil, dialog.

Can there be discussions where various ideas and minds come together and share and debate? I believe so, but it will be ones that are very strict on the rule and enforcement of said rules. A good example of this is "Elitist Jerks" A Warcraft Theorycrafting forum site that ensures that you actually research topics and ideas before posting them. Though that is just one example that I can think off of my head.

And true conservatives aren't bigots

You say that, but you ended up posting a serious discussion on the internet anyways. All jokes aside, I agree and disagree. Direct communication can have the same problems as indirect communication (I'd rather refrain from saying internet and irl cause no matter what, we are dealing with real people, just in different ways.). In direct communication such as a Jury, the group can't get anywhere until everyone has a consensus. In other words, there is no room for oposing views, the objective is to have everyone agree and make a decision based on the evidence presented to them. Yet, isn't that what every discussion aims to do? Whether its online or offline, if you're having a debate with someone, your objective is to persuade them to your point of view. If you fail to do that, then either:

A) You ended up agreeing with the opposing view
B) No consensus was made and you agree to disagree

The friends we make in our everyday lives are people who we can pretty much relate to. There are occasions where friends would split up when they find out things about the other person they don't agree with, or their differences just become too apparent. If having serious discussions on the internet is pointless because everyone will end up in cliques, so is having serious discussions with personal friends (maybe even family). However, that isn't true cause having serious discussions let you know who your true friends are. As for serious discussions on the net, in a close nit community such as Fakku!, it lets you know what type of person you're talking to (besides what you already know you have in common, you know...being a pervert an all). Anonymitity in that regard can be a good thing. Since the filters are off, we can be ourselves which will either be accepted or frowned upon. Everyone needs an outlet for what they're thinking, and the internet happens to be the perfect form of outlet since there are little to no repurcussions (depending on how serious the view is). If serious discussions like abortion, racism, etc. were watered down, could you really take it seriously?

I don't know what you'd expect from online discussions. At the end of the day, chances are low that you'd end up in a forum with people who acquired phds. Its just random people on the internet who have similar or opposing views. Since we're mostly not scientists, we won't present the thread with new information after countless months and years of experimentation and observation. With that in mind, I do agree that there is an issue with having these types of discussions on the net. Like you said, you miss out on certain cues and gestures crucial to having these types of conversations.

Despite the flaws, I think having any type of conversation on the net is meaningful in its own way. To me, its similar to having conversations with friends and family members. They're all a clique and repetition is sure to ensue. Also, I find it ironic that serious discussions on the net don't have a point, yet non serious ones do (as the OP seems to imply anyways).

While I do see where you are coming from, I do have to disagree with you on some of the points. People are very opinionated, and if they do truly care about a topic they will let you know how they feel about it. Humans are very stubborn animals.

Also it's true that forums may become the vocal majority on a topic, there's nothing keeping you hear to listen to the voice. If you find the voice to not fit your taste there are thousands of other sites that may fit your taste. That's the beauty of the web, it's almost infinite in places to discuss everything.

I would hope how ever, seeing that we are all hairy palmed weeaboos in our mothers basement, that we can have a little empathy and know the feeling of being told that our voices don't matter and try for a little mindfulness.

And lastly if you don't try to expand the views of someone they we will all remain ignorant. Not every opinion is morally right or correct but it's out job as humans to learn and see the world through our perception. So we should all try to except and respect.

I wouldn't say it would be completely useless, but a lot of people like to have an opinion even if they don't have a reason for it. They just do it because "They can"

You're right that people tend to look for likeminded people to inbreed with, but that happens in real life as well.

The real assumption you're making is that every serious discussion or inquiry is either an agreement or disagreement. There are a handful of subjects which aren't either debate or hugbox. If you have a topic along the lines of "How do we do [this thing we don't already have opinions on]?" or something, it can turn out to be beneficial, as there's nothing to circlejerk on or vehemently defend yet.

I wouldn't say Fakku is a great place for SD though. To be really honest, most of the people here have the intellectual depth of Hopsin. I mean, that's not super duper low, and it involves being genuine, but it's... catchphrase reliant, I guess? It's hard to put, but I'm referencing stuff like his "Did the man who invented college to to college?" line. If you minimize everything and ignore all circumstance, it looks good to the layman, but then you send it to someone educated and it's revealed to be just a meme.

Not much into debating on the web myself unless I feel like it, but debating online is similar to debating irl. The only time I dislike debates is when people wish to debate to stir the pot or so to speak. They don't wish to make small talk nor discuss a topic, they seriously just want to fight to create chaos in the sake of whatever it is they wish to achieve. Usually it's because they say or feel that people should think on a higher or deeper level, but typically it's because they get pleasure out of creating chaos.

Other then that, if you wish to debate but need a more stimulating audience, try somewhere else. Fakku isn't the best for serious discussions given the nature of this site, but most forums have sections such as this for people who wish to look for something of the nature while they're here. You can never be guaranteed what you desire though so just take it for what it is or find somewhere else.

No and yes and it's addictive. I am not kidding, studies show how addictive social media is and how little reward is necessary to drive one to addiction. It is the basic idea that if a rat is rewarded with food every time he hits a button, he shows little interest in the button except when hungry. But when you randomize the reward and make it increasingly rare, the rat will habitually press the button. Don't think it applies to humans? Go to Vegas and look at the slot machines. This instinct is in us to tolerate hunting and not always get a reward but be driven to keep trying. But when the same reward system is applied to other things, it can lead to unhelpful behavior. So even when we don't get a reward, the debate is unrewarding, every so often there is a reward which make it rewarding to part of the mind while the reason is saying, Stop doing this already! You won't convince anyone!

Then there is the fact of sharing your ideas, having others learn, and perhaps even shifting a bit with your own thoughts on a matter. Most of the learning and shifting happens with observers, not participants, because when you enter in a debate, people often hold their ground too firmly. Addictive perhaps like I stated above but sharing of ideas is the very basis of reason and intellect. But don't expect everyone to agree with you, Like how some won't with this and might state such.

Well. The problem debating and shit online is that the tone is lost in text. People will read into it differently on forums.

Religions. There's no clear cut answer as to what's true. All there is is hope. People cling to beliefs. It's like insulting them when criticized or asking questions. It can be dumb sometimes.

Politics. Same as the paragraph above. Everything is based off ones preferences. But a willingness to listen read and learn can always do good. Sometimes it can have a negative impact. But at least the time was taken.

Its like. I live below poverty. But in a richer area. Try to talk about it and not everyone understands what it's like to live on oatmeal and noodles. They think it's a personal problem. They're not open to see or listen.

I like serious conversation. But some people read and react differently then what you mean. And it can spiral out of control.

This is pretty much what I wanted to say. Occasionally some people raise points worth thinking about.

If I agreed with OP completely I'd just never post, because that would be a huge waste of my energy. Even if the majority of discussion ends up being circlejerk every now and then someone makes a reasonable argument. And if at least one person comes out the wiser because of that argument then I think there was at least a shred of meaning to it all. I'd also like to believe that more intelligent people won't let such trivial things get in their way of finding their answers. Still in the bigger picture it's all pretty inconsequential. Our squabbling has about the same impact as a leaf falling to the earth.

But you know what, people need to communicate. Progress isn't made by individual efforts. Communication has always been a key ingredient to advancing humanity. Sure the internet is circlejerky and people are protected by anonymity but really it's just another mode of communication. Real life can be the same way sometimes. And I think the anonymity also lets people speak unpopular opinion without as much fear. The internet sure has its own rules but just because it gets ugly frequently doesn't mean it's any worse than other modes of communication. If anything it ought to be more useful.

maybe the point is just to have some fun or learn some things for yourself?