The Proof Of An Article Is In The Reading
In the modern age it’s far too simple to make villains out of cardboard comments
Some stories get immediately hidden, blocked and reported when they show up on my wall. I know, I know… I’ve said in the past that I don’t block or report but (as always) there are exceptions. I can have an itchy trigger finger with the following types of comments
‘Crypto invites’ for random financial advice you never asked for, anything inviting my members of the Frosty Collective to check out a nefarious website full of digital syphilis, and spam-bots who are trying to learn how to overthrow the human race.
So, if I suddenly cheerfully invite you to join a WhatsApp group or a Union or try and sell you a course, that isn’t me. I’m a misanthrope, I don’t really like people all that much so I’m unlikely to invite you anywhere.
These comments aside everyone gets a chance to chat, debate, insult or engage with me as much as I want.
I get a fair bit of pushback and more than my fair share of insults every week. So what do I do with the person who has come out of the gate and virulently disagreed with me? Someone, who for whatever reason, is absolutely convinced I’m wrong and is more than prepared to wade into the comments section to tell me so.
Nothing.
There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with me. People are entitled to dissent to anything and everything I’ve said. I reserve the right to do likewise.
A right I exercise both fully and regularly.
I’m used to it, but you might not be. So, what should you do if you’ve started to get a bit of pushback on your written pieces? Here are the three options immediately available…
- Put up a fight. Depending on their position around what you’ve said, you can usually open up a debate of some sort.
- Clap back at any insults. I get a lot of insults and I don’t usually clap back straight away (but it is held in reserve.)
- Ignore them. I know lots of writers do this to me — but I think that’s disingenuous to do it too often.
Most of the time I’ll cycle down this list in the order I’ve presented it. That’s also how I do it both on a micro-level and a macro-level. If you engage with me multiple times you’ll get a debate first.
If you continue to show up and hurl insults, then I will start to clap back and if you really are persistent in kicking a Penguin for no reason, then I’ll eventually just ignore you or I will only provide ridiculous non-sequiturs.
This three-step approach is how I recommend you do it too. For your sanity and for building a community of readers.
Proving your idea
Stage one. If you put up a fight and get down and dirty in the comments section then one of three things can happen.
- You’ll engage in a good-faith debate (rare but fun)
- You’ll have a single back and forth (regular and pleasant)
- You’ll fall into insults from the get-go (rare but fun)
If you find a good person prepared to clash with you in good faith then it helps to think of your comments section as an addendum to the article.
The word ‘proof’ sounds like a cut-and-dry noun. Proof, something you slap on the table. It isn’t. ‘Proving’ something is a process in its original archaic form that’s what we do to bread, we prove ourselves on the battlefield, we prove a formula to be correct.
It takes time.
The same is true with articles. They aren’t ‘proof’ you are right, you are bringing them out into the world to prove. I invite other people to prove their ideas through nudging. I want people to back them up, let me spar with them, let me pull it apart for a bit.
All without someone crumbling into a histrionic mess.
The proof is in the pudding is an expression that means the value, quality, or truth of something must be judged based on direct experience with it.
The proof of an article is in the reading.
Proving the article is more akin to ‘testing it’ — and what better way to test something than to let the entire world have a look at it and call you out?
If you write an article and it is questioned in good faith by a reader then you are ‘proving it’ in the comments section. Testing the validity and checking you have thought through what you have said and how it is resonating with readers.
This can be a one-off comment or a bit of backand forth. Both are fun.
Sometimes people crumble or go off in the deep end because they’ve never had to prove anything before. This means I get blocked, sometimes I get ignored but occasionally I will find someone who enjoys the process as much as I do.
If they’ve come to you for the discussion then remember. It’s on YOUR wall and you get the read time. It pays YOU to engage with your audience.
Here on Medium, it always did.
If you do this over a long enough period then you have a chance to influence the opinion of the original commenter (though this doesn’t always happen) but you are also influencing the opinions of those following the proving process as it unfolds.
This is where the best bit of the Medium experience can be unpacked and writers who don’t engage audience miss these little moments.
Playing the insult game
There are some people who, for whatever reason, cannot engage in civil discussion and for whom it becomes pointless to continue a debate. You can simply ignore them. I tend not to though because somewhat masochistically I actually enjoy being insulted and promptly engage the snarktillery.
If you choose to do this then it becomes a game for future readers to enjoy.
If you’re playing the insult game, it pays to be witty and languid. It’s very easy just to call someone ‘stupid’, ‘wrong’ or ‘pig shit thick’ — the trick is to either imply it without stating it, or better still let them demonstrate it themselves by leading them a merry dance until their temper gets the better of them.
If you clap too directly back at an insult then the game is lost — your role instead is to take the amused moral high-ground and let them do all the donkeywork of a) getting het up and agitated because b) they aren’t making any headway and c) you aren’t backing down.
Be sure to clap back at any ‘if you reply then it demonstrates you’re wrong’ Kafka-Traps by pointing them out before replying. Someone will threaten to ‘report you to Medium’ (someone always does), ask them to point out exactly where you’ve been unreasonable.
Keep pushing buttons. You have nothing to lose.
Choose your words by their entertainment value for future third-person readers rather than saying anything nasty that feels good in the moment. You can get very good at this if you practice long enough.
If you get good enough you’ll find yourself blocked.
There is nothing better than someone self-selecting the block button after showing up in your comments section, inveigling themselves into a discussion they were underprepared, declaring (eventually) that they don’t want to talk any further, then blocking you for daring not to wilt under their obvious intellectual superiority.
I don’t believe in blocking so this is an excellent way for the readership to self-select themselves and leave a lasting monument to their ire.
Ignore them or block them
The reason I don’t think this is the right thing to do is that you’ve missed a chance to go through the proving process. If you ignore someone’s genuine attempt to dissent to what you have said then you’re missing an opportunity to both change your own mind or change theirs.
Changing minds? Is it going to work every time?
It sure isn’t.
Not even most of the time.
Most people go into comments section with a fixed idea of what they think and they’re not prepared to change it. However, they still go into comments sections of things they disagree with and this should be applauded in a society of people who only want to read what they already think.
Judge people on what they do and not what they say or if they can’t find the right words to say it.
If you can debate them, you should debate them.
They showed up.
I’m quietly hopeful for what that means in the long run. Some people are still curious about why others don’t think the same way they do. You can block them if they get insulting, but blocking, hiding or ignoring someone for having the temerity to call your ideas into question seems like a dubious long-term strategy
It seems like one that simply proves the internal premise they held when they arrived — you’re wrong and your position is indefensible.
What about you?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of the article is in the reading. Don’t ignore your readers — that’s my position but I appreciate it may not be yours.
I’m not going to mandate how you use the platform. You’re a grown up and you can make up your own mind. You can block everyone or nobody at all.
Do whatever floats your metaphorical boat.
But social progress comes about by proving ideas over time and the online society of Medium needs more of that democratic disagreement and a little less of the tub-thumping agreement without questions.
That’s why I’m now co-running a publication with just such a mandate in the way it operates.
Now, for your viewing pleasure here’s an awesome video sent to by SC, one of my scariest readers — someone who, after almost four years of reading has never once admitted I’m right about anything.
She said it reminded her of the online experience of being an Argumentative Penguin in a world of Wokeferatus. I’m inclined to agree.
And yes, I did write this entire article so I could stick this video on the end. Penguins be whimsical like that sometimes.