The argument that I choose to analyze was found on reddit and were many people discussing the decision that gymnast Simone Biles made during the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. At that time, shortly prior to going out and competing with her team, Simone made the decision to drop out of competition due to issues with her mental health. This was controversial because many thought this was selfish for her to do and that she was "quitting on her team". However, Simone explained that she felt she was a danger to herself if she chose to compete with the mental health issues she was dealing with and other people believed this decision showed courage for standing up for herself in that way.
I chose this argument because I think it demonstrates an important issue that we see very frequently today. This is about one person's experience in their sport, but since they are held at such a high standard they are treated not like another human being. Additionally, since it's so easy now for someone to just put their opinions online and hide behind a username, it makes it really easy to treat others in this way. I think it is really common for celebrities or elite athletes to be cancelled or ridiculed in such harsh ways for things that most people do all the time.
One negative concern I have with this online argument is use of personal attacks rather than discussing the situation all together. For example, people in the comments were calling simone "weak" and "a quitter" which is not productive for there to be an actual discussion on the topic. Another concern I have with this online argument is that many people were dismissing her reason as an excuse rather than realizing it is a legitimate reason to step away from something. This just contributes to the sigma that mental health isn't as important as physical health which demonstrates lack of empathy and invalidates psychological struggles. Lastly, since this argument was over the social media site reddit, one major area for concern is development of echo chambers. Since replies can be downvoted and sent to the bottom of the thread, opposing views are often lost and the thread just becomes an echo chamber for one side which is also not productive for a discussion.
There are several ways for how people can argue online in a more constructive way. For one, people should be educated about the topic before engaging. It can be difficult to educate yourself and find reliable sources, but this is a critical step in having productive arguments. According to Campbell et al. (2015, p. 49), "...Not one of the top eleven major Internet search engines indexed more than 16 percent of the Web". It is extremely important that you analyze multiple sources to gather all relevant information to be knowledgable about the entirety of the topic. Another rule for constructive arguments is to address ideas and not people. This online argument is a great example of when people are using personal attacks rather than addressing ideas. Furthermore, staying respectful to opinions of others and keeping an open mind is extremely important to help limit echo chambers and again, personal attacks. Another good rule to follow is to have evidence that supports your claims. Claims are meaningless and just an opinion if there is nothing to back them up. Lastly, a good rule to follow is practicing proposing solutions instead of only talking about the problem.
Also, if you're interested to hear Simone's side of the story, she spoke more about the situation on this podcast not too long ago:
References:
Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Susan Schultz Huxman, & Burkholder, T. R. (2015). The rhetorical act : thinking, speaking, and writing critically. Cengage Learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment