I’ve heard from here, there and yonder that this here blog is rare. A small slice of safety in shark-infested waters. I’m quite proud of that, and I think it’s true, but I don’t take the credit. It’s because I follow a few Jewish rules about not bad-mouthing others, not hurting others with your words, and not responding while angry.
But if you ever felt so compelled to start an online fight, stat, these are the top five inflammatory phrases I’d recommend:
1. Well, IMHO…
Tricky. It stands for “in my humble opinion” but really means “in my never-to-be-wrong-opinion” a la Dr. Laura Schlesinger. Usually, it’s a sarcastic and passive-aggressive way to fight, which I highly recommend, since you can always deny it later. Sarcasm online is remarkably easy to lie about. Useful. The “well” at the beginning is a sly way of making it look like you are willing to have a conversation. Ha ha!
2. I can’t stand it when…
Listen. We all have gripes. There are lots of things, actually, I don’t think I can stand. But this phrase is inflammatory, because it says that you are unwilling to put up with this thing for EVEN ONE MORE MINUTE!!!!!!! Yes, you’re yelling when you say it. You probably can stand it, you just don’t want to. And it’s fun to complain about. Especially online. This one is handy when you are trying to insult your opponent in addition to “philosophically” disagreeing with “the principle of the matter.” Two birds, one stone. See?
3. Sorry, but…
Fact: you are anything but sorry. Mad, probably. Annoyed, yup. Disagreeable, likely. This little piece of sarcasm will likely succeed in riling up your opponent by making him/her feel misunderstood and very not apologized to. Score!
4. Four-letter words
These should actually be disqualified as too easy, but it wouldn’t be a complete list without them. All you need to do is drop one of these, and BAM! You’ve reached your goal. Fascinating how such a predictable thing makes people see red.
5. I thought you were reasonable/normal [insert your own word here], but I see I was wrong.
This is kind of underhandedly mean. It’s like telling your kid, “Well, I was *going to* take you out to ice cream, but since you’re so crabby, we’ll have to go straight home to bed.” But you never told me! Right. So now you tell someone you *used to* have a somewhat higher opinion of him/her, and he/she just smashed it into a zillion pieces. Chances are, you never imparted the compliment in the first place, but somehow it makes your opponent feel he just lost the crown jewel without even knowing he had it. Fact is, even if your opponent doesn’t like you very much either, this will hurt. And that’s quite the point, no?
So there you have it. It’s so easy. Look out for these winners, or if you have others, feel free to share below.
Just the other day, I saw a link to a hot-button parenting topic with the words "now here is a thinking parent." Of course, this implies that everyone who holds a different opinion is what? Non-thinking? Blindly following? Ugh.
I was highly annoyed. But I didn't respond to it.
Also, anything political. That usually starts fights. I nearly always regret getting involved with any remotely political thread online. {{shudder}}
Don't forget "No offence, but…" Because, like "Sorry, but…" you fully intend offence.
I've been trying to get my teens to understand that!!
So great. I think people often shy away from being confrontational on my blog, but sometimes I wish there was actually a little more discourse. I don't know why it doesn't happen, but it doesn't. I think people start to see a trend in the comments and then they choose not to respond. Or something. I try very hard not to be inflammatory when I respond to a post. Ever.
If i have something of a more private nature to say, I will say it to the blogger via email (if provided) or Facebook (if we are "friends") or I'll just shut up. Because how important is it, really?
Interesting. Another blogger said that to me too, that she feels maybe she's playing it too "safe." For me, differing opinions where people are actually *listening* to each other (which they don't when mad) is awesome. Fighting, nope.
Ruchi: I totally agree. Maybe the litmus test is this: Would you be willing to say, "You're right" and change your mind if the person you're disagreeing with made a convincing point? If so, you're having a disagreement in search of truth, understanding, or some other important value. If not, you're just fighting to win.
For me, sometimes when I'm involved in some sort of argument online – it's not that I want the person to tell me I'm right or wrong, I just want my opinion to be validated. I don't expect people to agree with me 100% of the time, I just want to know that my opinion can be respected, too.
That is also to say – I have an opinion – please see that there is another side to this argument and acknowledge the possibility that one or both of us may be wrong.
I have found that telling someone to "calm down" usually just escalates them.
If you observe someone behaving badly, I don't recommend telling them, "I'll pray for you."
"I feel bad for you" can also go horribly wrong, as well as, "I'm sorry IF I hurt you" or "I'm sorry you feel that way."
"Maybe if you bathed more often" insert any good hygiene habit here) will also most definitely start an online fight.
Ok I'm slap happy. Off to bed.
Heather:
"I'm sorry you feel that way" reminds me of politicians' apologies: I'm sorry my comment got someone upset. I.e., I'm not sorry I insulted them, just that they responded by practically starting WWIII. Essentially, not an apology at all, because how can you apologize for what someone else did?
Ugh. In my experience, "I'll pray for you," like "Bless your heart!" is almost invariably used by people as a passive aggressive, "I'm so pious" way of saying "Screw you!" without actually coming right out and saying it. I've only ever heard it used by evangelical Christians, actually, though I could imagine scenarios where a Jewish person might say it. The phrase has the capacity to really infuriate me (when it's used in that backhanded insult way, obviously not if I've asked for prayers or something).
I've never actually heard Jews use it that way. Just recently read a book by a Baptist-woman-turned-Orthodox-convert and her family kept saying they would "pray for her" when what they meant was she feel off her rocker. But, I still think it's a nicer way of saying it than "you fell off your rocker."
But, I still think it's a nicer way of saying it than "you fell off your rocker."
I disagree. In that context especially, I find it incredibly condescending, not to mention passive-aggressive. If you think I'm loony tunes, I'd rather you just have the backbone to tell me so to my face. Don't tell me out of the side of your mouth, "Oh, I'll pray for you," when the real meaning is, "I'll pray for you to start thinking the 'right' way (i.e. my way) again." There aren't many phrases that trigger that kind of a visceral reaction in me, but that just sets my teeth right on edge. Sad that I hear the phrase "I'll pray for you" used much more often in this, perjorative way than I do in a context where someone is sincerely trying to offer another person support and good thoughts (from Christians, that is- like you, I've never heard a Jew use that phrase before, perhaps because most Jews I know would say that they'll daven or say Tehillim).
I think the author of the book would agree with you.
Is the post is coming from some unpleasant OOTOB-related experience? If so, I'm sorry to hear that. And no "buts" with that "sorry". The blog is uncommonly civil, it is impressive.
On a related note, passive-aggressive is something I find extremely annoying IRL. I much prefer straightforward. Not straightforward-unpleasant, but here-is-what-I-think straightforward. On the other hand, online interaction is trickier, seems to have a different rhetoric. Straightforward online can come across as more rude than it might in IRL, where it could be combined with a little smile or a gentle tone accompanying some words of disagreement. I find that online people sometimes exaggerate their friendliness and sweetness to make up for the matter-of-factness of what they might be trying to say or what disagreement they might offer. So I think that has led to a more passive-aggressive online style, because it is a weird way of combining diplomacy with confrontation.
The word "Jewish" only appears once in the post. Somehow I find this unsettling . . .
No. Just observations about what I'll write and publish and what I've seen and heard elsewhere. Totally agree on passive-aggressive, but the interesting thing is those folks think they're not fighting when they're doing it. Argh!
"Jewish": it's an experiment 🙂 There's actually lots of Jewish ideas woven in there but I wanted to see what would happen if I floated a more general post out there. Not a trend, just an experiment.
I also get irked with "Of course you'd say that', or "I knew you'd say this". It's so condescending, clearly stating that your arguments are predictable and boring. You think you are having a discussion, you are thinking hard about what the question is, and the other person has obviously predicted the whole conversation, and absolutely knew how the whole argument would play out. And somehow it also serves to dismiss your argument as such, though even if predictable, it could be a valid point. This just annoys me to no end.
My least favorite phrase is 'with all due respect.' Somehow it never turns out that much respect at all is due.
One absolute conversation stopper for me is "You're not arguing with me – you're arguing with God/Torah/Halacha/Rabbi Famous." I hear that as "You're wrong, there is no point in discussing it, all that is left is the question of whether you will do teshuvah for what you said in private or public." Needless to say, instead I cut out the middle person and argue directly with whoever they said I was really arguing with.
Someone I used to be friendly with did that. I say, OK, but if you're defending it, then know why you're defending it instead of offering me a brick wall.
Justice Scalia came to speak at our law school while I was a student there. It was a much publicized event, every student and attorney who could make it was packed into our auditorium.
During the Q&A portion of the lecture, one Asian-American student asked, very politely and hesitantly, how she can relate to the theory that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted literally, (as it was written and not include new-fangled ideas) if in the 1700s, women like her were not valued as full individuals. Scalia erupted, thundering about how her problem is not with him, and not with the theory, it is with the constitution as a whole and he can't help her if that's her issue.
The whole event was a huge controversy and we, as law students, had many group discussions about his answer.
Just saying- this attitude (appeal to a higher authority) is found in many different places 🙂 – MP
I find this example fascinating.
this is a great post.
everyone should read it.
Thank you!
Ack! I use the "IMHO" but I mean it literally! Like when I am saying my own experience with this situation is XYZ, but I am open to other opinion/experiences too.
Perhaps I need a better catch phrase because passive aggressive is surely not the way I want to come off!
This is a good time to make note of the fact that internet communication can be difficult without being able to read someone's tone/expression. Misunderstands often flair up because of this!
p.s. the blog re design looks great!
Tzipporah, so do I. When it's sincere, I'll all for humble opinions. When it's insincere, it's highly annoying. As in, don't pretend to be humble when you're unable to entertain the opinion of another.
And thanks!
eh… I like being sarcastic and snarky and controversial. It makes my discussions more interesting and makes me think deeper about the topic. After all, if you don't care enough to get riled up about an issue, why should I?
And I don't think this has anything to do with middos or lack of them thereof. It's more a personality thing. Some people shy away from conflict, others don't. The gemara (and later works) has a plethora of examples of apparent insults between gedolim, not to mention comments made by more recent figures. And, really, they weren't all lesheim shomayim.
-MP
Ex.
http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/14868/insults-in-the-gemarah
A dissenting opinion! Love it! Interesting link, too. Thanks.
I love a big discussion, online or offline. But I don't like these little phrases, because they add venom, without furthering an argument. The "I thought you were a reasonable person" and "of course you'd say that" are the ones that annoy me most, because they aim at the person, not at the argument presented.
Simply saying "I don't agree (because xyz)" isn't mean and condescending, yet still allows you to explain your opinion, however snarky and controversial.
Simply put I prefer the sarcasm and controversy to show in the actual opinion, not in the little phrases we use for decoration.
Ha!! So true!
Some tricks for avoiding on-line fights in the first place:
1) If you are really angry, write your reply out fully but before posting it, get a night's sleep.
2) For some reason I find repeating the mantra "What a great opportunity to keep my mouth shut." when I read a post that makes me angry actually makes it easier for me not to respond. I don't know if that will work for anyone else though. One of my Dad's (a"h) favorite saying was "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." My saying is the child of his.
3) Ask yourself the 3 questions before posting: Is it necessary? Is it true? Is it kind?
There is one important point that has yet to be mentioned: Godwin's Law, and the fact that, at some point in an impassioned exchange of remarks on the internet, there is almost bound to be an incidence of that "law".
Never heard of that. For some reason I find it really funny. Us human beings are so oddly predictable.