Do you find arguing with people on the internet therapeutic?

Post Reply New Topic

I haven't visited a lot of forums since I found Wrong Planet, but previously to coming here I enjoyed visiting forums about diverse subjects and getting into heated discussions with random people about topics that usually revolved around my idiosyncracies and the way I interact with those around me. I particularly enjoyed telling pity stories and then engaging in long arguments with almost anyone who joined in on the discussion, regardless of whether they were judging me or trying to help me.

I was often accused of displaying a rare mixture of arrogance and low self-esteem, and it was often suggested that I could not possibly 'be for real' because no human being could be as broken as I am. (It's funny that out of all the conditions random people I met on the internet diagnosed me with, Asperger's was never one of them.) My habit of making seemingly outrageous, almost incendiary statements and then trying to rationalize them using perfectly logical arguments was also criticized.

I guess engaging in that type of behavior was both a form of entertainment and therapy for me.

Does anyone identify?

I've always found it to be more entertaining than therapeutic. I like to share ideas and concepts.

If something is not entertaining in some way, it's not really therapeutic.

No. I think therapeutic is the wrong word. I think you're talking about using your arrogance and so-called logic to bolster your ego by starting s**t on the internet with strangers. Internet targets are easy, since you can remain anonymous and...practice your "therapy" (?) from the safety of your home PC. I say go out in public and do the same thing you do on the net. See what happens. And when you do, be sure to post a video so I can be therapeutically entertained.

It's ironic: Many people go to the internet because they need emotional support in a sheltered environment where they won't be criticized back.

Paradoxically, I like to go online so that I can criticize others without the risk of physical repercussions.

I also like to be cocky and smug online , and humble in reality . I don't come here for advice, I come here because I like to dish it out, as if I really knew what I was talking about.

I used to have a sensitive side that needed consolation from time to time . Now I have a bossy side that needs gratification from time to time .

I think the internet is also a good place to run "personality experiments", where you can act as you want and observe the reaction of others, without worrying about the consequences.

It's funny you should say that. I've often been tempted to step on people's toes on the street or push people over, get in their way, etc, just so that I can watch their reaction. I never actually do it, but my curiosity sometimes gets to me. I don't get any satisfaction out of inflicting pain and inconvenience upon others. It's just that as an artist, I want to observe the FULL range of human emotion as close as I can. There's no substitute for the real thing.

What a harsh reply! The logic I'm talking about is not called "so-called logic," by the way. It's called "logic" and the ancient greeks invented it. I don't know how but after reading my message above you somehow ended up with the idea that I was targeting people. Random people I've met on the internet with whom I have argued about my problems for my own personal satisfaction and not to victimize them in any way, are not targets; they are, from my point of view and for all practical purposes, abstractions that furnish me with feedback. What's so beautiful about this whole process is that if one of the persons/abstractions I argue with gets tired of arguing they can simply press the "back" button on their browser and move on the next topic and pretend that I don't exist. I would never start an argument with a real life person, though. My rhetorical skills are ridiculous and I don't know how to use my body language and tone of voice to convey my ideas effectively. Arguing in real life sucks, because less attention is given to the validity of the arguments than to the messenger and the way the messenger delivers said arguments. The parties involved in a face-to-face discussion are also liable to falling victim to clever sounding but flawed arguments and explanations, whereas in an internet-based written discussion it's a lot easier to distill an argument in order to ascertain its truth.

I think the "theraputic" qualities are really a form of catharsis.

I have had debates online with people where both sides of the discussion have had a great deal of respect for the other party's intellect and open mindedness to their opponent's point of view.

These have become passionate battles of wits and justifications for opinions and have always ended well, either with one side winning over the other or the agreement to disagree, but with a broader understanding of the topic than we had originally.

However, I have also had arguments with not so nice people. I've taken part in my share of flame wars and s*** fights and while I usually do come out slightly ahead of whoever I'm fighting (and that's my opinion, no doubt theirs would be different) the war of words has always made me very stressed out and I'm left feeling a little pathetic for having been drawn into that sort of stupid and childish tit-for-tat.

It gets the blood pumping and you may feel victorious for a short while and you might feel clever having the odd "awesome comeback" or two, but everyone else usually thinks you're a jerk afterwards... Including yourself.

There are some conflicts I feel obligated to engage in, even tho I know that nothing will be accomplished by it. For example, on youtube videos of police brutality, I'm tempted to refute every redneck comment about how 'those stupid protesters deserved to be tazered'. It's something that I can relate to personally, so it makes my blood boil. It makes me sick to see police continue to taze a subject who's already on the ground. A person writhing in pain is NOT someone struggling. The police have a DUTY to leave their anger and emotions behind when they go on the job. They can't taze someone for what they say!
(Ack! I'm ranting again.)

Our campus is very conservative, so our college newspaper frequently publishes Republican HATE articles against immigrants, Muslims, war protesters, etc. which I am frequently tempted to object to via letters to the editor.

Anyway, arguments like that are usually futile, but sometimes they can be critical, even if they don't change the outcome. Redneck boarder militia men ought to understand what the immigrants have had to struggle thru and overcome to get here, even if it doesn't change legislation. For some, it's a matter of pride, to defend against verbal attacks against your race/ethnicity/religion. (I'm a white, heterosexual, middle class, male, so few people attack my pride.)

Then again, on the internet you can find the same argument occurring simultaneously in many places at once, continuously, and you can't possibly address them all, so it's simpler to ignore them all.

After that long rant, I think it's safe to say that using the internet to debate politics can be an infinite source of distraction, whether or not it's therapeutic.

People who have few contacts that provide interaction on specific areas probably discover that the internet supplies many people concerned about the subjects that might be interesting. It's not a matter of just conflict but also informed discussion. The internet covers the entire world. Ideas and concerns that merely sit quietly in isolated heads now have an outlet and if an idea is faulty it is likely to meet informed interest as to how it might be corrected or why it should be discarded. This is something new in the world for ordinary people with limited access to the world. It's healthy and creates both conflict and resolution which is good.

some lovely/funny posts on this thread!!
I love discussions online, but not arguments cos i get very worked up, headachy from tension, and emotional. Not fun at all. Don't really like watching other people in one either; sometimes make mistake of stepping in with support and i'm not very good at that, so usually makes things worse.
Me too look on lots of it as discussion with abstract entities, in fact if start reacting personally to anyone tends to spoil the fun cos gets so complicated with all that social skill stuff. It's like a wonderful dance/game, UNTIL get personal.
On WP it's easier to maintain that approach. On another, NT, site people just didn't understand me half the time and took stuff so personally when i genuinely just wanted to understand something.

Conclusion; so totally glad WP exists, for exactly this kind of thing; the entertainment of the kind of discussions haven't had since when used to drink, spliff, and stay up late with small groups of people listening to music and dissecting, exploring, embellishing, theorising and giggling, about the universe etc!!

It's fun, and consequently may well be therapeutic; i feel less mad, less isolated, less non-existent.

WARNING: The following links are to offsite and very tasteless jokes that contain swearing and some very offensive, politically incorrect satire. Don't click if you're easily offended and I apologise in advance for my wife's sense of humour.

Some pictures that relate to this.

First this one that my wife thinks is hilarious but I still cringe at... Arguing on the internet.

And this one, while not directly associated with arguing applies very well to Trolls... Penny Arcade F-Wad Theory.

Definitely.

You just got pwn'd, Mw99!

[/unneccersary]

I enjoy doing it, but if people start personally attacking me, I get too upset, so i try not to do it too often, lol.