I get value out of delving into Substack comment sections when I have the time and inclination. One thing which strikes me is the handle of so many authors - ‘Screaming into the void’, ‘Dead Man Talking’, ‘Becoming a refugee in the time of covid’.
Lots of disillusioned folk resorting to ‘arguing’ online, and implying that this is a thankless task with minimal impact on the masses. Would they be better off heeding the sarcasm of the High Sparrow in this Meme?
Honest arguments, even online and against troll-bots, lead to research, efficient phrasing, refined cognition.
They are a form of courage training, a practice run for the harder version of doing it in person, while emotions are charged.
I genuinely wished I had spent more time arguing online when the covid operation was launched. I had spent too much time reading/thinking and not enough time synthesizing what I read into succinct communications for other people. I failed as a teacher.
To be clear, I am still failing as a teacher. I am not able to elicit critical thinking in anyone I talk to, and there is no evidence that my arguments presented in the comment sections are achieving much beyond a few likes. I nevertheless hold hope that the construction of such arguments are contributing to the clarity of thought and expression I aim for.
‘Arguing’ does not always mean disagreeing. Comment sections are also great for thankyou’s to authors, or arguments which add to or support their theme. In a time where the burnout or attrition in posts from freedom writers and citizen journalists is noticeable, this might just be important work.
And if you are still not convinced that arguing or posting online can be honorable, here’s Meryl showing how it can be done with bravery:
and from the comment section:
Thank you Meryl- you are an absolute hero of our time!👏🙌❤️
So why not spend a bit more time arguing online yourself. Just don’t try it on this post, as comments are disabled (which satisfies my sense of humour immensely :) )