Chris J Wilson

This is one of my core values.

It’s a phrase taken from Football [^1] and means “debate the idea, not the person.”

On one level, this is a reminder not to fall down to ad hominem attacks, but it goes beyond that too. When we look at bad behaviour, we should consider the system that created the issue as well as calling out the behaviour, not the person.

This is one of the things we try as parents.

We don’t say “you’re being mean” or “you’re silly”, but “it’s not nice to…”. Of course, the other person might not notice the difference, particularly over topics their identities are tied to. But at least this option allows people to change.

When we play the ball, we have the option to discuss the issue, not ourselves.

Exceptions: abusers and repeat perpetrators

Of course, sometimes the behaviour needs to be specifically called out.

When someone abuses someone else, commits a crime or a great injustice, they need to be called out. Even in these situations, it’s still good to focus on the actions and showing how they are wrong rather than the person who perpetrated them. After all, some people can rush to defend an obvious corrupt government official just because he happens to be in their party affiliation.

Individuals as emblems of a system

A while back there was a professor who made a joke to point out the obvious discrimination against women in the sciences. It was clear satire to most of the attendees of the conference. One attendee, a journalist then denounced the professor on Twitter leading to his eventual dismissal. When the transcripts came out that showed his was joking and pointing to the ironies in his own life, many still attacked him.

He was an emblem of the problem.

That’s a dangerous stance. When we start to attack someone rather than the actions, we can infuse their actions with all sort of other beliefs. “They might not have said X, but this is exactly the kind of thing that leads to X.” So we’d had just better assume they believe or do X anyway.

Nonsense.

It’s okay to point out the slippery slope or common beliefs but that’s why we need to attack the broader issues (radicalisation, sexisim in science) rather than creating scapegoats to sacrifice.

While it might clean us of our sins, it doesn’t actually address the real problems.

[1]: sorry, Americans. “Soccer”. And yes, I know it was originally Associate football and widely called soccer in the UK till the early 90s. You know who doesn’t care, the rest of the world now.)

The internet is a game.

If you play it well, you get “internet points.”

Most of the time they are pointless, but if you collect enough of them, you can become “internet famous” and even earn some income because of them. For the most part, internet points just give us a sense of feeling good or “valued”.

How do you get internet points?

I’m glad you asked.

You get internet points for doing actions that the internet validates. It doesn’t have to be the whole internet, it can just be a small group, but the more validation you get, the more points you get.

If you put a post and no one reacts, that’s zero points for you.

But if you get 10 reactions, even if one attacks you, that’s 10 internet points.

So if you want to win the never-ending internet game, you need to start an arms war. What got you points yesterday won’t today. That controversial or “risky pick” that you made last year, you need to go far crazier this year.

Even if no one else is competing with you, you need to compete with your past self because just as the addict gets less of a kick from subsequent hits, so the internet machine needs greater and crazier content to doll out its points.

Just look at Mr Beasts.

As you can guess, this is a problem.

The internet game is changing what we think and how we act. A nuanced opinion or debate is “boring” (even if it’s accurate) but a snappy comeback is pure gold (even if obviously wrong). Getting in a quick reply for your side will win you far more internet points than reflecting, waiting and offering a true critique.

Some versions of the internet are worse for internet points. Platforms with likes, hearts and algorithmic suggestions will always promote the game. But there are slower forms of the internet where we can play a different game.

My kids know my dark secret.

I have an alternative, evil personality.

His name is “Grumpy daddy.”

I don’t turn green and suddenly rip my clothes when he emerges, but the personality shift isn’t that different. Instead of the peaceful and fun-loving father they expect, they have a grouch who just wants to be left a long.

I don’t like grumpy daddy, no one likes grumpy daddy, and yet he is a fixture of our house.

Just like Bruce Banner, I haven’t found a cure for my alternative personality, but I have found a trick that works well when I remember it.

Play grumpy

If I can put on a silly voice and give my reasons for being annoyed, I don’t transform into grumpy daddy.

It’s amazing how it works but I can instantly switch into a more appropriate mode. When the kids have done something wrong and we need to talk about it, I can talk about it sensibly AND THEY LISTEN! (I know!). And when it doesn’t really matter — most of the time — I can reveal how silly my grumpiness really is.

The only challenge…

Remember to make the jump isn’t easy.

When the red mist descends, the lizard brain wants me to react instantly. It wants me to escalate the tension, to give in and lose control. The adrenal makes it harder to have a cohesive thought let alone remember to be playful.

But I’ve had some success. And I’m writing this to remind me to do it more.

Thinking about this idea especially before a grumpy daddy situation arises can help, at least that’s what I’ve seen so far.

I hope this helps you and I’d love to know what already does help you.