how to make an argument
By diana on Apr 7, 2010 | In capricious bloviations
you're encouraged to try this at home.
This morning, I got a now-viral link on Facebook* from a friend called An Honest Facebook Political Argument. It's brilliant. It applies with almost as much weight to any online discussion, unless the discussion forum in which the argument takes place is moderated. ** Facebook has two characteristics which make it a slightly different model from your average discussion board. First, Facebook is not moderated, at least not by anyone who pretends to be fair in their moderation.*** Facebook discussions tend to degenerate more quickly, and one is more likely to be assisted by well-meaning but clueless friends and relatives who cannot bear the spectacle of their loved one being impaled.
* Facebook is free. It's an excellent way to keep up with distant friends and relatives without the bother of writing a proper letter or having to call them on the phone. You can read about one another's moods and witticisms and religious ejaculations and activities and political opinions from one day to the next, which is usually sufficient to remind you why you moved two states away in the first place. ** Moderation is a form of refereeing. Most (?) discussion forums recruit their more faithful and seemingly emotionally balanced posters to keep the peace, offering the yearly salary of The Prestige And Power of Moderation. If Moderators manage to remain somewhat reasonable and remotely dependable when confronted by the fury of a poster scorned, they may eventually be asked to perform the not-for-profit-either increased responsibility of Administrator, which pretty much makes them God. Sorry...that would be "god," as it's more like the Greek pantheon. Up on Mount Olympus, they have endless petty quarrels, swoop down to interfere in the affairs of the mere mortals inhabiting their realms, and occasionally destroy them on a whim. *** I could have said "tries to be fair," but that wouldn't have been as funny. But it amounts to the same thing, only from different perspectives. I've been an admin and a mod (still am) on atheist discussion boards, and while we tend to agree on certain inappropriate comments/attacks/flames and ban them regardless of who utters them, we usually lean toward the athiests in the foggier areas. Why? Possibly because we are all really tired of people expecting respect for their opinion that God is his own father and he sent himself to earth to "die" for the "sins" of his creations so he could find it in his heart to forgive them for stuff like addressing the question of his existence with logic instead of blind belief. So when a fellow atheist lashes out at such nonsense in frustration--provided it isn't directly in violation of the rules of the board--we often let it slide. Then the Christian gets to claim persecution. Everybody wins!
Concerning the link: I've been, I think, every person in the lineup at one time or another. I'm often the Troublemaker herself, for exactly that reason: I'm pissed about others' inability to see the TRUTH* and I'm bored. Not quite as often--only because I'm usually too busy these days to allow myself to be sucked in--I'm the Bait-Taker.
* That would be the TRUTH as I see it, which is the only truth in my world--just like it is in yours.
In the right mood (i.e., unmitigated boredom pending a project I'm excited about but am somehow not summoning the motivation to actually begin), I'm the Chime-In. This creature is closely related to The Lazy Activist. The only difference is the angle.
When I act as the Bait-Taker, by the way, I don't just say, "Is that last paragraph true?" I actually quote it and rend it to confetti via primary and secondary sources, etc. This in no way hinders the progress of the conversation, though. Never fear.
Generally, in my experience, the conversation degenerates not for time considerations--since we're all arguing about something we have no control over in order to avoid doing something in our own lives we do have control over--but because we are frustrated.* I feel I've presented fairly clear evidence from primary and secondary sources that you are incontrovertably wrong, but you ignore the main points and instead pick straw men to beat the devil out of.** I'm frustrated and at this point, if I'm feeling particularly patient, I'll politely explain more obviously factual stuff, provide sources, etc. If you ignore my arguments and proofs--and really, how long this goes on depends entirely upon what time of the month it is...did I just get paid?--I will revert to insults and ridicule.
* I assume this happens to others as it happens to me. Yeah, Freud was right. I'm projecting. ** Monty Python has a sketch about How To Defend Yourself Against A Man Armed With a Banana. I think this is one of the possible allusions of that sketch.
Why insults and ridicule? you may ask. Two reasons....
1. They're a shortcut.
2. They sometimes work. Eventually.
One. A shortcut to WHAT, though? Ending the conversation in such a way that the opponent understands he has not swayed you and you are tired of beating your head against the virtual wall who is him.
Two. Some people who cannot be swayed by logic alone can eventually come to see the light if they are laughed at enough to see themselves as others do.
Three. Insults are an oddly satisfying way to end an argument where one's opponent repeatedly demonstrates her unwillingness to consider the validity of any point you make. I don't believe it's wrong to mock. I only believe it's wrong to mock the undeserving.
(OK. Three reasons. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition....)
At the same time, I'm occasionally the Peacemaker. When I come upon a discussion where both sides have made vehement points and I'm not personally involved, it's easy to step in and point out the validity of both sides' points of view and try to make peace.
I wonder if such condensed discussions aren't a microcosm of human behavior, frankly. Or maybe we're all just adding the necessary ingredients to a known recipe. You started a fight? No one is here to argue with you yet? No problem. I'll assume that role. Wait. Someone else has already taken that position? I can be a cheerleader! Oh man. Someone beat me to that, too. I guess I'll be the Peacemaker, then (a position which is high on personal emotional reward, but low on public appreciation; generally speaking, you look like a wuss when you do this.)
I may or may not be The Embarrassment, but since embarrassment is in the eye of the beholder, there are probably people out there who feel I do this all too often.
As the Lazy Activist--which I rarely am, but I won't exempt myself completely--I do refrain from pointing out misspellings and poor grammar, etc. These are cheap shots (aka, red herrings). Instead, I respond to condescension with equal or ramped up insults (which are also cheap shots, but far more satisfying than telling someone they can't spell and therefore must not be able to think).
Honestly? I'm rarely The Thoughtful One. I almost always get involved before that opportunity arises, frankly, as I have progressed to taking Facebook intravenously. There isn't much difference here between The Thoughtful One and The Random Acquaintance, frankly. They're both only supporting roles, and if they're out sick, no one notices.
d
5 comments
Insults and ridicule toward ideas and statements deserving of such = the way to go
I love this line:
–since we’re all arguing about something we have no control over in order to avoid doing something in our own lives we do have control over–
:)
Love,
Your favorite bait-taker
I wonder which one I am. Usually I just don’t get involved to begin with.
Diana,
I gave up joining online arguments when I realized people were doing it just to argue. The topic doesn’t matter; it’s just a way to socialize.
Not my cup of tea. That involves dealing with people. As you might guess, all the hoopla about “social networking” and “Web 2.0″ don’t impress me much.
Dave
| « today i regressed | a vacation that offers everything to perfection? » |
