Recently, I shared my thoughts on a X/Twitter post which blew up entirely out of proportion from what I expected. Essentially, I focused my list of finding alternative means to find care for the animal in situations that are urgent and time sensitive and doing the right thing for the animal by putting our own feelings aside. I was met with support with some people on my post, privately through direct messaging (and text/email) and those who wanted to voice their opinion in person from those who understood the message. I was met with anger and hostility from others who interpreted what was said in a negative context that was intended and creatively came up with different ways to support their points and emotional reactions.
We see this a lot on social media. I thought it would be interesting to write a blog to explore the different ways that people may, or may not, respond to things posted on social media. I thought that this would also be helpful for those reading others responses, organizing what is shared and what is actually being said. I’m hoping to inspire better critical reading for those who are genuinely interested in expanding their horizons. I used this post to support some of my points whereas other categories weren’t relevant.
Just a quick aside, my focus was “naming” these types of approaches that people use to respond to something they agree or disagree with. When we name things, we can identify things quicker, more efficiently and react with cerebral output and not emotion.
With naming these types of approaches, I hope to help others discern what people are saying, and the psychological tactics people use to try to prove their points or disprove someone else’s points. Having this knowledge can remove our emotions from our ability to debate and see the tactics that others use in their approaches. This can empower others to stay focused on the topic and not be swayed to deviate with the emotional reactions that can put us at risk of taking others’ responses as personal attacks.
Overall, I found that most of these tactics are used as emotional reactions to something they read and not because a person considers the whole picture. When we name things, we can make sense of things, dissect things, and know where intentions are beyond taking things personally.
Types of Approaches In Online Debates
I want to note that I’ve categorized these types of approaches/responses but many of these can overlap with one another, or they can be used at the same time. I hope this provides clarity for future situations that you may encounter.
The Cherry Pickers
The majority of people who become triggered or enraged by certain posts may cherry pick data to support their points. They will not read the context of everything as a whole, but rather pick and choose points (whether correctly interpreted or not) to support their emotional reactions and responses. They will pick out and twist information in the way that serves their point, and may use other information, relevant or not to their point, to try and discredit someone.
In this situation, this person seemingly tried to discredit me by pointing out that I said “you have permission to ask for what you need”. This person seems to misunderstand my post and take it as that I was discouraging others from asking for things from my perspective. In my post, I did say that people can ask for what they want, but rather to weigh urgency and consider another being’s suffering - but the whole picture of what I stated was omitted and (perhaps) misinterpreted on their part.
Snippet from my post
The Bystanders
The bystanders don’t say, comment or like anything but rather read silently and watch the interaction unfold in front of them. They may hold their own opinion, may agree or disagree with some or all of the points being stated, but may not interact out of fear of being attacked, misunderstood or not wanting to involve themselves in the discussion but are perfectly happy forming their opinion without sharing it.
In my personal social media, as well as my professional social media, I’m typically a bystander. I tend to not get involved, especially when there is a lot of hostility and heightened emotions. I understand that when people are triggered, they are less likely to listen to anything that does not support their preconceived ideas.
The ‘Likers’
Unlike the bystanders, the Likers like posts, comments and replies but don’t provide their input. Liking comments can be seen as less direct than commenting and reduces their chances of being challenged on their viewpoints. The Likers still want to show their support outwardly but do not want to get involved in the discussion.
The Cheerleaders
Similar to the ‘Likers’, the Cheerleaders will openly comments that they agree without providing further input. They will say things like, “great point” or “I agree” but will have nothing further to contribute.
Cheerleaders may also side with someone’s perspective, not because they agree or disagree, but rather because they like (or dislike) a certain person (or group of people) who posted (or commented).
In this example, this person replied to the comment above to verbalize their support of a comment that was made without contributing any new information.
The Hypocrites
There are people who preach about others who should act away that they believe, but they do not model the same behaviour in their actions. It’s almost like they are excluded from these rules, that they say, should be followed. This approach can confuse others and change the focus of the discussion by putting the other person in the defensive mode.
One example is this person who told me that I should block and move on, but then they didn’t block me and move on and rather took time to comment on the original post.
The Side Steppers
These types of perspectives try to use other arguments to support points that are not relevant the points made in the original discussion. These people use other facts that may stir emotional reaction without considering tying it back to the relevance of the points being made to the original statement. They tend to focus on other topics, which may or may not hold truth, but aren’t not relevant to the context of the discussion.
This is one example of a person who asking me if a volunteer in shelters even though this is not the point of the post, which was focusing on the animal who was suffering. This person seems to hold the belief that the only people who are allowed to advocate for animals should only volunteer in person but I could be wrong.
The Juveniles
The juveniles are those who resort to name calling or juvenile behaviour. They act in a way similar to a child or youth consistent with being reactive, emotional and with intention to hurt the other person (or people). They may also use passive aggression to hurt or gaslight others. They have no interest uncovering new knowledge, understanding or growth through healthy debates and asking questions.
The Victims
The victims can cherry pick to paint themselves in a way that things are outside of their control. They don’t consider other factors that can take them out of the helpless state and put them back into control of their lives but instead focus on the struggles they have and why they the victim. Perhaps this can overlap with cherry picking and side stepping.
This person focused on the fact that they do not have enough finances to afford their lives instead of considering other options, that were listed in my original post that were available.
The Silent Supporters
The silent supporters will express their opinion and/or support to another person privately. I had a few people message me (and share their thoughts and opinions in person) to express that they understood and agreed with my points, but they didn’t outward comment out of fear of backlash or exposure.
The ‘Mind Your Own Business’-ers
Some people use the old-school mentality to “mind your own business”. This argument is used to refute, reject, disregard, or discourage others' concerns or comments. This perspective is dismissive and doesn’t allow room for further debate.
I had a few people use the argument to mind my own business. My response was that I don’t mind my own business when it comes to animals or people who are helpless and cannot advocate for themselves. A few of these comments were deleted after the fact.
The Anecdotals
“This is my experience so it applies to everything.”
Although our experiences are relevant, they shouldn’t be used to form a larger opinion about the world or contribute to our action or inaction to do - what we feel - is the right thing.
These types of perspectives use absolute statements of topics to support their points. They may take their own experiences or something they’ve read to apply to all situations.
The “You Should Support Others Because of X”
People will sometimes use the stance to share that support should be given because of some common factors among those involved in the discussion, instead of focusing on what the issue at hand is. Fortunately, I don’t care about people’s gender, job, skin colour, religion etc. to see through actions that I find immoral or unethical.
In this example, this person states that we should support each other simply because we are women. There are no mentions of any points or replies to the original post but rather focuses on external traits that we all have in common.
The Shock Valuers
These types of arguments state the most extreme factors to share why they support (or don’t support) someone’s points. They may also side step the topic to further support their points.
People can also say other extreme points of worst case scenarios without any supportive evidence to demonize the person they don’t agree with.
In this example, the person used the term “white privilege” to support their point. A person’s race has nothing to do with finding help for pets but it seems to me like this term was used as shock value on an attempt to discredit the points being made in the original post.
The Arguers
There are some people who just argue for the sake of arguing. It is that ‘torch and pitch fork’ mob mentality. They haven’t formed an opinion, they don’t care about what it said, but they just want to jump on the bandwagon of persecution because everyone else is doing it. In my opinion, it is some sort of cathartic release to engage in arguing, even if there is zero validity to their points. They don’t know the context of what is actually being said but rather project their own thoughts and feelings outwards and may also desire to feel a sense of inclusion or belonging to a group of others who are taking a specific stance against a specific point.
The Neutrals
These individuals try to see all perspectives and advocate for both (or more) sides of the arguement. They don’t give their own opinions but may try to calm the waters by summarizing all perspectives and may try to find ways to meet in the middle.
The Free Thinkers
This stance is different than the neutrals because they formed their own opinions. They don’t take any sides but rather think for themselves. They have their own opinion based on their own experience, logic, and what makes sense to them. They might agree with parts of both sides of the argument, they might agree with parts of one side, or they may agree with one side entirely or neither.
The Mind Readers
The Mind Readers will tell you what you are doing and what you are thinking. They tell you your intentions even in the light of you sharing clarity in your thoughts and feelings.
They will also attempt to use the argument of gaslighting as a way to prove their point. If someone doesn’t fully agree with what a person says, they will resort to using the term gaslighting to discredit the other person’s points, even when explicitly stated that this isn’t how they thought or felt.
Gaslighting is telling someone how they feel or their experiences in the world is not the truth. It’s trying to diminish and confuse their thoughts and feelings and have them question their reality. Some people can use this term loosely to suggest someone’s gaslighting someone else when the other person doesn’t agree with what they’re saying.
I’ve had a few people make the gaslighting argument, even though I couldn’t find any evidence to support their claims. I’ve actually acknowledged how a person thought or felt when it seemed to misconstrue my message and also responded with my intentions from my perspective. Accusing someone of gaslighting (or assuming the operation of someone’s else’s mind) does not strengthen someone’s points, but this is one way that people try to argue validity in their statements.
The Blockers and Muters
Sometimes people who block/mute will comment and sometimes they won’t. I know that I am more of a muter than blocker. I will mute people that make statements that do not resonate with me or those who show outward aggression, stereotypes/racism or overall unprofessionalism.
The Last Words
Some people will do anything to have the last word in some cases. There may be a belief that having the last word will give strength to earlier points made on their part, even if they have already been challenged or refuted.
People will use emojis or say/write nonsense to shut down further debate and/or because there are no additional points to give strength to earlier arguments. This may give them a sense of power because they get the last word and no further points can be made because things are off topic at this point.
I’m always happy to let people have the last word if the points being made are no longer relevant. I don’t engage in discussions that can turn emotional or illogically off topic.
The Dichotomous
These comments are formed based on dichotomous thinking. The context is everything is in “black and white”, “right and wrong”, “us and them”. The concept of being right is more important than the discovery of new thoughts and perspectives. Other arguments can be used to downplay another person’s perspective such as, “If you don’t agree with me (us), then there’s something wrong with you (them).”
This argument also focuses on strength in numbers. The belief may be that if there are a lot of people who argue the same perspective, it must be right. “Majority rules”. However, as most people already know, the majority of opinion is not always correlated with the “most correct”, as there can be many confounding variables and some situations can have such complexity it’s difficult to make an absolute statement.
“Majority of people don’t agree”
“You win”
In conclusion…
This list is not exhaustive and I’m sure I might have missed a few others but these are what I could identify imminently from this experience and other interactions.
Which approach(es) have you used? Which approaches can you identify others using in your everyday life?
Comments