How Internet Debate Can Lead to Prejudice

Having been kicked off more than a few forums and blogs myself, I've learned the hard way that it's usually not WHAT you say that offends people, it's HOW you say it.

Forums and blogs are kind of one-dimensional, not allowing for nuances of face-to-face discussions, like tone of voice, facial expressions, hand gestures, and body language.

For example, all my doctors call me non-compliant, but a few of them say it in a friendly way, with a smile, which makes me much more likely to pay attention.

Let's all make a New Year's resolution to be more friendly.

-- Jim Purdy from Whole Health Source

However, I disagree with Jim Purdy for many reasons. Jim Purdy is blaming himself, but it should not be his fault. Communication is two-way, and if misunderstandings happen, it is the unclarity of communication and misinterpretation on both sides. Neither side should take responsibility if a misunderstanding occurs. But that does not mean that each side can learn from the situation. Each side, both the listener and speaker, should learn from this if misunderstandings happen. Each side should try the best to speak clearer and listen without misunderstandings.

That being said, I have encountered many people who were blocked, banned, and barred from web sites under false accusations.

I have encountered dozens of Wikipedia editors, who were banned for alleged sockpuppetry. Even though they were really innocent, they were still banned.

What causes this?

First, there is the confusion of constructive criticism with "hate." The confusion of constructive criticism with "ridicule." That was discussed in my earlier posts.

Second, there is the iterated confirmation bias. The iterated confirmation bias argues that, if a person is believed to be angry, then any subsequent words the person said would be interpreted to have a negative connotation. Words change meaning, depending on the perceived mood of the speaker, and if the mood of the speaker is presumed to be negative, you will more like misinterpret his words as negative.

Third, there is poor debating style. Each debater accuses the other one to be "selfish" when neither is he case. People do not show that they are listening. But because the moderator has the power, the less privileged user will almost always be banned in a conflict.

Fourth, there are implications of false accusations. When a person is falsely accused, he would act (or perceived to act) in a way that confirms to the accusation. I call this the "social placebo effect."

Fifth, when a moderator bans a member who is falsely accused, the moderator will "adjust" his sense of how evil people are and is more likely to view that more evil people exist than they actually exist. Therefore, they will be more "trigger-happy" to ban people. This cycle continues until the moderator bans more and more people who are innocent.

Yes, there are more reasons. But I am offering five.