Don’t Disagree With Me. Ever.
You’re here. I’m here. Let’s put on the gloves and enter the boxing ring.
I can see the anger in your eyes. Your glare is penetrating my skull and you only wish the punch you throw would pummel me forever into the black abyss.
But the punch you throw misses. I duck, I swing back in an uppercut and knock you straight to the floor. The image that was once me is now all blurred. And as the referee counts to ten, you regret getting in the ring in the first place.
You’re knocked out, and I’m not. I won the fight. Or, did I lose by winning?
What’s the Matter? Chicken?
Let’s face it. When a reader sends in that disagreeing email or comment, the natural tendency is to act defensively. It’s almost as if someone has broken into your home and you’re ready to defend it at all costs.
But is your blog really a home that must be defended? After all, aren’t you putting out the welcome mat by even having a blog in the first place?
By posting any post, you open yourself up to criticism and possible litigation. This past week I was called a “loser” and a few four letter words by two separate readers. Did I want to respond in anger? You betcha. But I didn’t.
You Need to be Open to Criticism
If there is anything that blogging has helped me with, it’s responding to negative criticism in the online and offline world. If someone were to criticize me to my face and say, “You suck!”, my immediate reaction would probably be, “So?” I wouldn’t really take it seriously. But if someone were to say the same thing to me in a comment, I might get highly defensive and lay out a whole list of why I disagree.
Just because a reader disagrees with something you have to say doesn’t mean you have to put the gloves on and take the reader into the virtual boxing ring. Responding to negativity shouldn’t always be a fight.
In the example, the reader was knocked out and was confused by how he got into that position in the first place. More than likely, it’s because you dragged him there. As obvious as it might be, not all negative readers want to fight. Sometimes they just want to get out their opinion and move on. In that case, so should you.
Accepting Criticism is a Form of Art
If you ever watch a ballerina on television or at a show, notice how graceful the ballerina is. Accepting criticism should be the same way. If you come off as too defensive, you risk sounding guilty. If you come off too light, you risk getting walked over.
You can of course set the tone through a comment policy, but that rarely helps dissuade the readers from really letting you know how they feel. If you delete a comment because the reader was acting trollish, fine. But why not e-mail the reader and explain why? Perhaps explain to the reader that the comment area is not the arena you want the conversation to take place and would appreciate it if the conversation took place privately over e-mail instead.
And if the reader insulted your dear cat, try not to take it personal. I know your lovely fur ball is the most precious jewel on the Earth, but know that most negative comments (even if they appear personal) aren’t personal. Get to the main issue of why the reader disagrees with you and address that issue objectively. To react defensively is adding more fuel to the fire, or throwing more punches in the ring.
When responding to readers who criticize, think ballerina. Think graceful.
When to Respond with Fire and Brimstone
This is a blog dedicated to reader appreciation, but I must admit that not all readers are created equal. Some deserve harsh judgment and the evil smile that accompanies.
So who is the reader that deserves such harsh judgment for disagreeing with you? The troll of course. And if it’s any consolation, I do not consider trolls readers.
Trolls are the sludge lining the bottom of the nastiest sewer. And they deserve to be thrown into the lake of fire. Their comments only mean to demean, and the criticism they provide isn’t really criticism; trolls are out for blood.
Conclusion. Or is it?
It takes a very humble and mature blogger to be able to accept criticism from readers. When you write a post or perform an action where readers leave in droves, it’s easy to say, “To hell with y’all.” However, one must respond gracefully and objectively.
This is the end of this post. Unless, of course, you disagree (putting on virtual boxing gloves).
TDavid says...
After moderating a fairly busy messageboard for over six years online, I got used to all sorts of different characters. Pissing matches, flamers, spammers, trolls, all the regular characters and cliches. Usually the keyboard warrior types shrivel when exposed for what they really are about. A lot of phoniness online, unfortunately.
As for blogs, actually I’ve found more flame-type comments come from YouTube and digg than in the comments section of the blogs I contribute to (one of which had around 5,000 comments in the last year).
Every once in awhile somebody will stop by and call me a bunch of a names in the comment section, trying to start something. I think these people — in small supply — are good for a laugh. Some of their blasts are funny if you can step away from the heat for a second. Sometimes I wonder if that’s what drives them.
Getting angry with them only fuels the fire. It’s a lot easier to laugh along with them, separate the anger from what they are trying to say, and react to the underlying criticism/disagreement if it has any merit. Usually it doesn’t.
Bes says...
Let me approach this in two ways: conflicts in the offline world that I see on massive scales [natural disasters, human disasters, etc] and friendship. I see all disagreements regardless of the nature of medium involved [online or offline, friendship or close contact, etc]. So the points below can apply to reader disagreements too, and I do apply them in my life every single moment, or at least try to.
One of my specialties of work and my studies has been conflict resolution. One of my personal specialties in that is to avoid arguments and conflicts, and I have helped several people and companies with that too. One of my personal probably-unconscious specialties is to attract the wrong crowd, the crowd that disagrees because they can, and I end up getting personally and physically affected hurt from time to time. I look at online disagreements the way I look at disagreements in all of real life. Majority of the problems happen because of disagreements stemming from things like pride. Like TDavid said above, there is “A lot of phoniness online“, because it is easy to change our external personality online. Many people can disagree online and not feel responsible, as they can keep disagreeing and even if they act unethical online, no one can pinpoint them in the offline world: their pride goes back up when they turn off the computer. Many times things are not disagreements; they are simply pride fights. I hate pride fights. That is why I usually give in and agree to non-trivial things, as friendship and no conflict is better to me than a conflict over non-trivial thing.
If a person disagrees with me, my first reaction is to see if I can agree with them and ignore the issue right in their face and agree to whatever they are showing or saying. Why? Because in those “sometimes” cases, the disagreement has no importance to me whatsoever because of the topic involved, and agreeing in my view is better than creating a conflict, specially if nothing is being lost by me agreeing to that person. Some people will start arguing and getting upset about things even they do not care about. Why? Because those people start feeling their pride and intelligence being questioned if you offer a different view about something as a response. I don’t care if someone tells me they prefer republicans over democrats or vice versa, they prefer gay people over non-gay people or vice versa, or they prefer one religion over another, or they prefer this over that: unless a life or a big thing is at stake, I can let go of things many times. Reader Appreciation and manipulation is a topic I consider very important as it involves every entity that tries to make money by faking human appreciation which results in less humanity and real appreciation in the entire world, and it is something I am not willing to let go in many, many disagreements, specially if the other person is manipulating his or her readers or contacts.
I do not hate or avoid people because of disagreements. I prefer disagreeing friends over friends who never disagree or have conflicting views about anything, and I also prefer no conflict over disagreement about a thing that is non-trivial to both parties, or something that will not result in either party being harmed if one simply gives up to the disagreement. I hate arguing and arguments, so sometimes I will say “Ok” and move on. If I do want to prove something, I do it with facts, but sometimes even supposedly-mature online people like famous bloggers want to keep arguing or crying about things even when they know they are wrong. Many people do not like it when they keep forcing me to argue, but when I argue [which is rare, very rare], they usually cannot argue back and they say I strike too strong. Well, why push me so much that if I do not argue, you will turn into an enemy? Why not value or appreciate me agreeing with you or me ignoring the argument and finding a solution to the disagreement?
Among the many other things, most people need to realize when something is criticism, and when something is a difference in opinion, and when something is manipulation, and when something is manipulation in order to hide criticism and differences in opinions. Handling conflicts is an art. One needs to know what one aims to achieve when approaching a disagreements; do they want to create friendship, end the conflict whether or not friendship happens, prove a point, defend a point, etc. Majority of the people, maybe over 90%, do not know how to approach conflicts. Even non-profit organizations I helped or worked for had different views in different conflicts, and it can get very, very hard to come at a conflict to something that is causing thousands of people to die when your own team or others around you, who are also trying to help, are aiming at different things. Why is that bad? It results in conflicts within the people who are supposedly trying to find a resolution to the conflict. Online, I get surprised how people get so upset over things even they find non-trivial and things that they disagree about; imagine what will happen if they came across a real life conflict where lives depend on the resolution in the offline world. I would not want to be in such situations, as I have seen the ugliness caused by conflicts in person all over the world.
I would rather have disagreeing friends than friends who do not disagree over anything, but I also prefer friends who can disagree about things and not let the friendship get affected negatively even 0.01%. I know it is possible, as I am doing it everyday, and my closest friends do it everyday too. Same is the case for my readers; I would rather have readers agree and disagree with me than always agree. However, unfortunately, many people do not know how to disagree, which results in me feeling the need to avoid disagreements completely and simply agreeing or ignoring so no conflicts can happen. I have readers who have strongly disagreed with something I have said in the past, but they appreciate the fact that I do not let friendship be affected by 99% of the disagreements, and I appreciate the fact that they can and do the same thing too.
Majority of my closest friends disagree with me over majority of the topics, including things I hold very, very dear. I value 10 of such friends more than 100 other friends, because like me, they can value and control their pride overall, even if mistakes are made, and still value the friendship and will prefer it to continue and prosper than to let it die, if there is a chance to let it continue.
It all comes down to what people want from any disagreement, whether or not they started it, and whether or not they want to ignore it.
Ronald Huereca says...
@TDavid,
I’ve never moderated, but been a member of several popular forums where some members get out of line. Blogs are definitely different since the views of the commenters don’t generally sway the discussion and commenters can’t start their own discussions.
However, some commenters can be plain vicious since a blogger is putting a post out there for public scrutiny.
@Bes,
I’ll give you the award for most in-depth comments. I think the just of it is, you don’t want to have too many “yes” people around you. You don’t grow as a person and you develop a force-field around you that is hard to penetrate. If you ever watch the movie “The Queen”, it’s a good example of a person who doesn’t take criticism very well until it’s almost too late.
Bes says...
Hi Ronald,
I think I get the idea of what you’re saying, but could you explain what you meant a bit more please? I haven’t watched “The Queen“, so I am probably not understanding your entire comment. I guess I should go rent the movie, no?
Also, thanks for the award. Do I get a badge, some cash prize, etc?
Ronald Huereca says...
The Queen was surrounded by “Yes” people and then when someone came in and said, “Hey, you better do this or your people are going to get pissed”, she more-or-less responded, “I think I know my people better than you do.” She was so stuck on herself that she didn’t realize that she was wrong.
Bes says...
Wow, interesting. So you are saying that I’m the opposite of the Queen?
Ronald Huereca says...
Bes,
Uhm, something like that. You’re not old, you’re not female. So, close to opposite
I’m more-or-less saying you (the rhetorical you) need to have at least some people who disagree instead of having nothing but “yes” people around you.