Response to "Don't Fight Flames With Flames Social Media Arguments: Can't-Win Propositions"

     In the article, "Don't Fight Flames With Flames Social Media Arguments: Can't-Win Propositions" the author argues that social media arguments are impossible to win and thus they are useless and a waste of time. Starting the piece with an anecdote, he shares his own experience with social media and how he got into a Twitter argument about Trayvon Martin (the main news story at the time). Using imagery to support his claim, the author states, "My phone lit up like flashing Christmas lights as hate-filled messages were hurled at me." By showing how instantaneous social media is and how people always find faults in the opinions of others, the author essentially admits that he was foolish for engaging in the conversation in the first place. Specifically, the author says, "I know, how could I be so stupid? To think that I could have a constructive conversation about something on social media..." Ultimately, his sarcastic and humorous writing makes the piece more fun and allows the readers to make their own connections to social media. Nevertheless, the author leaves many questionable terms undefined. For example, what does it mean to win? Throughout the article the author constantly reminds us that we can't win an argument on social media, and that it is best to ignore the situation. But what does it really mean to win? Can learning something new be winning?
Additionally, the author never clearly defined an argument only ever comparing an argument to controversial topics such as "Gaza, Israel, Justin Bieber, the N.S.A., and President Obama". However, in reality anything can become an argument as long as one person disagrees. Still, the author uses diction to develop pathos more specifically, the fear people have of feeling rejected or proven wrong to discourage social media arguments. To demonstrate, he describes social media arguments using words such as "vicious" and "attacks" which have negative connotations that are associated with feelings of hate. Likewise, it is evident that the author is exaggerating the situation. For instance, the author says, "...offer even the slightest morsel of opinion on something. Then watch what happens... the digital mob is upon you." Although there will be people that disagree there will ALWAYS be others that will agree, no matter what the argument is. With so many people connected through social media it is impossible not to. For this reason, social media may not be as scary or as impossible to "win" as the author makes it seem.