I posted something about a refereeing decision in an Arsenal game (which we lost) on a FB page and got a lot of replies and comments. Long and short of it: we had a call go against us, and I tried to make an objective point about why I thought it was the correct call by discussing the merits of the rule that was invoked.
The better part of the evening was spent by me trying to continue a reasoned discussion - which I think I managed for the most part. Football fans are a passionate bunch under the best of circumstances so it took a fair bit of restraint on my part. I have learnt to be calm and not react. The best response is to agree and empathize, and then ask a question to clarify. The only exception I made (sort of) was to someone who simply wrote "ludicrous logic".
I had spent quite a bit of time to carefully make my points, and for him to dismiss them in such a callous manner was not very nice. In addition, he made no counter-argument to support his comment. So I just replied, "Can't argue with that." With a smiley face emoji. It was only half in jest of course. I wanted to make a subtle point that if you want to have a reasonable discussion, you have to contribute something other than just a judgmental comment. At least he conceded that there was a "logic" to my points, even if he thought it ludicrous. Heh.
There were other comments, like how I was biased, how it was obvious that it wasn't what I thought it was, that it was never what I thought it was etc. It's amazing how people can distort your arguments, or just resort to name-calling without substantive engagement. It's also amazing how people are so convinced that there can be no other possible interpretation. At first I regretted posting because of all these negative comments that did not contribute to a good discussion. However I realised that it was an invaluable lesson in learning how to communicate. It does not matter that they don't agree with me - though some clearly did not feel the same way with their angry/robust responses.
The point about a discussion isn't always to find agreement. The best way to approach this is with the attitude that you could learn something from it. And I did, when someone challenged me if I knew the rules myself. I had read someone else's post on it, but there's no substitute for going to the source. Which I did, and learnt something in the process. One, that my understanding was not wrong and two, that the chap who challenged me, did not understand it very well himself. But the point is well taken. I won't make the same mistake again of relying on third-party information. That's a fundamental problem today in social media because information is passed on and distorted all down the line.
The whole discussion could be just construed as a waste of time, seeing as it is just about football. But I find some small comfort in showing that it is possible to engage in a calm manner even when there are provocative comments. It is good testimony, or at least good practice.
