I have a blog. (Like I had to tell you, right?) In my blog I tell what I think. It's interesting, though, to see the shades of intentions that pass through these kinds of things. Take the statement, "This is true." Compare it to "I think this is true." Immediately I've introduced a shade, a variation. "I think it's true, but I am leaving room for someone to disagree." Compare that to "I feel this is true." A whole new shade of intention. "I can't necessarily argue for this -- I may not have solid evidence or a logical chain -- but I just have a feeling that it's so." Three statements of one truth claim with three shades of intention.
Consider another set of variations. "This is true" tells you what I think is true in this instance. "I think this is true" tells you that it's my view and you might disagree. A response of "You're wrong" is typically understood to mean "You are wrong." It isn't the same as "That is not true" or "I don't think that's true." See that? It is personal, not factual. Now, it could be that the first speaker could follow that response with, "Oh? Why do you think I'm wrong?" And that might lead to a discussion of ideas instead of a personal attack. Or it might not. Shades of intention.
Take it to the next level. "I think this is true" is often answered with, "You're a hater!" Now that is different again from either "I don't think that's true" or "You're wrong." I would suspect that, even without knowing what is being discussed, you would have a different gut response to "You're a hater!" than you would to "I think you're wrong." In this "hater" version the intention is not to engage the truth statement; it is to engage the speaker. It is a classic ad hominem -- attack the speaker rather than the argument. This is not normally followed with anything resembling, "Look at this fact or this line of reasoning and you'll see why your idea is wrong." That's not the intent. The purpose in this case is to remove the offending truth statement by demonizing the speaker rather than disproving the statement. And it should be noted that logically it is a fallacy, a failed attempt at dismissing the statement. Since it is not the point to bring logic or evidence to bear, that doesn't generally bother those who use this shade of intention, but that's the way it is.
The truth is I actually enjoy discussing ideas. I like discussing them with people with whom I agree. It often leads to a more robust position and expanding ramifications of an idea. I like discussing them with people who disagree with me. It might result in a correction to my thinking or it might result in a correction to their thinking (if they're open to such a possibility). It will certainly assist in clarifying my thinking by either correcting or confirming my argument. So I am deeply disappointed when I present an idea with my evidence and reasons for it and am met with "You're evil!" instead of a reasoned discussion between two reasonable people on points of evidence and logic. I believe my intentions are different than the intentions of those others who simply offer ad hominem arguments. Shades of intention.
11 comments:
You could almost say that these sorts of responses are an admission that the argument has been lost.
These kinds of responses are an indication of an argument lost, but not an admission, since they believe their feelings trump your facts. (In fact, that was the precise thinking of the Ohio shooter. "I'm taking feelings over facts any time.") Additionally, devolving into name-calling, personal attack, foul language, and emotional bluster all indicate that they've run out of valid arguments and have to resort to verbal or emotional (or physical in some cases) violence. Not a winning argument.
For the readers, just so you know, "No, we're calling you those names because you are" is still not a valid argument. An argument requires making claims, providing reasons or evidence for those claims, providing justifying principles or shared beliefs to support those claims, and acknowledging and responding to counter claims. "Liar, liar, pants on fire" or the like does none of the above.
You touched on this elsewhere, but it's not only an admission that they have nothing substantial to argue, it's also an attempt to preclude the argument so they don't need to have anything. I think it's linked to this tendency to frame any disagreement in terms of "evil" or other terminology that validates any tactics necessary to defeat "evil". This ends justify the means strategy is becoming more and more common as it allows the preemption of discussion, rather than engagement in discussion. It's all about tearing down the individual, instead of the argument. Strangely enough, this is frequently accomplished by attributing to an individual all of the worst attributes of a group regardless of how accurate it is to do so. "Because I've decided that you are a member of group X, I can now feel free to smear you with a broad brush of perceived group sins." It's frustrating and challenging to deal with.
FYI, I continue to get unhinged comments about your posts, as if I have some sort of control over you or any interest in unhinged ramblings. Comment moderation is a good thing.
Yes, fighting "evil" after first redefining the word to mean "whatever I think is right and wrong."
I can't figure it out. I get rantings about your stuff, too. I'm grateful for email filters and moderation that allow me to not only not post these angry outbursts, but to not even have to read them further than the first lines.
I think that it the “it’s ok to pinch a NAZI” syndrome. If you can define your opponent as evil, then you’re justified in doing or saying pretty much anything to defeat the evil.
I agree that I usually don’t read the rants about things posted here and just hit delete. It’s easier.
Punch, not pinch.
I’m leaning towards a combination of pride, hubris, and insecurity as the source of the ranting.
We all get them, I think. I caught one line that indicated he sends them to us all. Ain't we lucky? Maybe one day he'll send the plan. I thought with recent events we might see it (not really...he has no plan).
Getting to the post, I was recently asked not to apply the term "evil" another. However, I think it difficult to avoid it at this point, given the years of discourse that seem to provide constant evidence of its appropriateness. I get why I was asked, but I have provided solid arguments before expressing that obvious conclusion. However, it's getting to the point with some people, after having made a case many, many, many times, I find it sometimes right just to call a spade a spade.
The posts on my blog about other people's blogs got so bad that I simply turned off comments. I'm lucky though, my blog is pretty much dead anyway. But it a common theme. People get harassed in certain forums and they simply stop using those forums to avoid the harassment.
I don't agree Marshal, calling a spade a spade without evidence every time simply looks like avoiding the argument due to the nature of the internet. The only solution is to do as Stan, lay down the rules, show how those rules were broken, and enact the consequences. Ban them. Repeatedly calling them evil in a vacuum doesn't make your argument stronger, or theirs weaker, because they know the same thing we do, get them to admit the feelings, and the reason becomes meaningless.
Well, David. I wouldn't say I "repeatedly" call him "evil". But given the case that there are a very, very limited amount of people who engage or even read the blogs I visit the most, few could defend the guy against the charge, including those who side with him, and fewer wouldn't know what I mean by it. As such, it's not really in vacuum at all. I have to say, though, that it's curious that he doesn't demand an explanation...barely responds to me at all anymore. But it's not like the argument hasn't been made and well supported, and frankly there's some fairly obvious indication why I believe it appropriate within the conversation, even if I don't spell it out.
Post a Comment