Online Arguments

 With the ease of communication that the Internet brings, it's no surprise that arguments frequently spring up. Social media sites are the centers of arguments, and there are a few that come to mind that are particularly bad. Reddit and Twitter/X are two sites that seem to attract this kind of behavior, with these kinds of outbursts springing from comment sections under usually unassuming posts. The example that I've found is, unsurprisingly, a tweet. 

At its core, this tweet has one objective statement: Donald Trump did not have the licensing rights for Foo Fighter's song, and its usage is copyright infringement. They have a right as the owners to protect their material. The only political thing involved here is the presidential candidate. The comments, however, have devolved into a chaos of political stereotype insults, harmful jabs, and calls for legal action. Each of these has an argument going on in its own comments, so the tweet is full of threads of arguments about every little detail regarding this. 

A blatant spread of misinformation is first and foremost the most concerning thing to me. Even when it seems so extreme it couldn't possibly be true. The first comment refers to a mobile clinic run by Planned Parenthood that provided access to free abortions and vasectomies nearby the DNC. Feel free to read about that here. I don't think I need to go into the rest...

The second is a distinct lack of thought towards the situation. Any other band would've elicited that kind of reaction if there was a controversial figure involved, and nobody would've cared if not for the controversy. Everybody has an opinion on the controversy. 

The third issue I find here, that I'm sure you can infer from the comments I've posted above, is the hateful and violent position that many of Trump's supporters have taken in this situation. That's not to say that any political perspective can't or isn't posting these kinds of things, but the majority in these comments are derogatory in nature towards the band and non-conservative/republican political stances. 

This tweet isn't an attack on a political party, and it's not an attack on their audience either. It is clarifying that Donald Trump violated copyright laws and implies that they do not support the candidate. 

Here's 5 rules, or guidelines, I think could be applicable to a situation like this:

1. Constructive criticism is a powerful tool, and insults are not. 
2. Take time to think about posting before doing so. Would you say it to the person's face if they were in front of you? Rephrase it like you were. 
3. Consider the opposing position, and why they might feel that way before making a hasty remark to someone's hasty insult. 
4. Can you back up your argument? If not, look into why you might be misinformed. 
5. If responding is not worth your time and energy, then don't participate. 

Thumper put it best.