Argumentum Ad Personam - An Explanation Of The Fallacy And The Argument Tactic (10 Viewers)

[rockaction]

If you participate in online communities or public debate, you might have noticed a type of response that occurs often these days. It starts with a phrase like the ones below. Each one is ostensibly an observation that posits that there is some sort of behavioral problem with a speaker or writer who is advancing a particular argument or even just discussing an issue. The speaker is met with something like one of these phrases by a person (let's call them the interlocutor) who says something like:

• “Why do you care?”
• “Y U MAD”
• “You seem upset.”
• “You're only saying that because you're an unfeeling white guy. Sit this one out"
• "You seem awfully worked up"
• "You're not very stable, are you?"
• "You’re divorced — maybe that’s why you’re bitter about gender roles"
• "Another irrational vegan talking about the FDA"

If you've encountered this type of response, you've run into the fallacy of the argumentum ad personam, a subset of which are those phrases that are personal attacks that portend to accurately assess and observe a problem or change regarding the personality or emotional status of the original speaker. It is unrelated and irrelevant to the speaker's position, the subject matter, and the debate topic. The interlocutor sometimes uses a direct insult that is easily noticed, but it is just as often an indirect and disingenuous way of making an implicit argument in a debate without addressing the original speaker's substantive arguments. This attack upon the speaker's personality and emotional state rather than his argument is a specific type of ad hominem that puts the personality of the speaker into play, attempting to discredit him by stating or implying he is compromised or irrational and unable to craft a reasoned argument.

The interlocutor using the tactic does not present himself as a participant in the debate, but instead obliquely insults the state of the speaker's emotions, hoping to advance the interlocutor's implicit counterargument. The interlocutor does not agree to follow any of the rules or accept any of the responsibilities that come with good-faith engagement. He sidesteps all of the substantive rigor and required rules of proper debate and subverts its traditional model. Further, the indirect nature of the interlocutor's statement means that the counterargument is only implicitly embedded and often allows the interlocutor to avoid looking like he's making an argument at all. Therefore, the true intent of the statement can sometimes be plausibly denied as a simple comment or insult, but many times it is neither neutral nor a mere observation—it is a specific technique with a goal in mind.

When it is not an insult or simple comment, it is bad faith from the beginning. There is a rhetorical framing that shifts what the debate is about. It is now about the speaker's temperament. He is placed in a terrible position by the implied suggestion that he is not regulating his emotions appropriately; and therefore his argument is a product of emotional distress of some sort, which makes it ill-considered. This claim of irrationality and unfitness is a red herring and irrelevant to the debate, yet as this fallacious event is happening it gets worse for the speaker. Another shift also happens. The audience (who are the real judges, for they will accept or reject the argument) shifts their attention to the speaker's personality, and they wait for him to defend himself. The debate has been seized and the audience captured by a performative posture that traffics in irrelevancy.

It is a no-win situation and a double bind. It forces the speaker into a situation where he cannot address the accusation without risks. The audience is now concentrating on him and not the issue. He is left with two options regarding the accusation: 1) he can answer it or 2) ignore it. If he answers the accusation, he risks further cementing the audience’s capture by making himself the issue. He also risks the audience disbelieving his denials. If the speaker ignores the allegation, he risks seeming evasive to an audience that might see his evasiveness as evidence of his instability. If they decide that the speaker's emotional status has been observed correctly by the interlocutor, they might then reject the original argument and deem it unfit because it was shaped by an emotionally unstable man.

So this tactic invites the audience to believe that the speaker's purported instability makes his argument unworthy of engagement. It attempts to disqualify him. It can also imply (and often does) that this lack of fitness inheres in the argument itself and that it carries over to anybody who tries to advance the speaker's argument, as if the argument itself is poisoned because only unfit people would argue such an illegitimate position. From there it is a short leap to claiming that the position is not worthy of debate at all because everything about it is unfit, and here we have gone from a sentence having nothing to do with the issue to the exclusion of the argument en toto. Inevitably, we debate about having the debate at all. Entire schools of thought have been wiped out of polite discussion because of the ad personam fallacy. They have lain dormant and unexamined.

To wit, there are current debates whereby large chunks of the populace are telling people not to debate a particular issue at all; and that those people who engage each other are suckers because the controversies in question are "manufactured" and inauthentic; and that debating will only serve the goals of the left/right/up/down, and therefore the best thing to do is to quash the debate. It is a similar tactic to the ad personam—those who agree with the status quo of an issue will attribute a fundamental malfeasance to any party seeking to debate the merits of the issue and the debate becomes about whether any debate should be had at all. Were you a rube who bought into that MAGA/media/leftist/right-wing-created controversy? Well, if you argued about it then you helped the MAGA/media/leftists/right-wing by keeping them in the spotlight. It is a gatekeeping tactic designed to exclude people who lack the numbers or the ability to advance their cause against the other "side's" status quo. It is simply a reinforcement of power and advantage rather than the result of contemplative thought and wisdom.

Response to this:

The best option is to point out immediately what has happened. The only way to break free from the trap is to point it out right away and tell the audience what has happened. The speaker should explain that It was not an innocent statement but an attempt to discredit him by proffering an untrue assumption. He should explain the refusal of the interlocutor to enter or participate in the debate and how he has sidestepped engagement and protocol, and he should explain what the fallacy is and how the rhetorical reframing caused a shift in the focus from issue to personality. This assumes a neutral and fair judge, moderator, or arbiter.

 

[rockaction]

I did all of this because I want to really get into what a subset of these tactics actually do, and those are the indirect suggestions that one is off in some way for caring about an issue or that one is, through allusion or indirectness, accused of being emotionally unstable or unworthy of discussing the topic. I posit that on those occasions, it’s a conscious effort aimed deliberately at a speaker who makes certain unpopular or unappealing arguments, sometimes in an uncouth or awkward manner, and the tactic used is an aloof and distant way of voluntarily and purposefully interjecting an unspoken, unprompted, and implicit counterargument into the main argument's arena (for lack of a better term) without adhering to any traditional notion of debate. It is a subterfuge embedded in a method that seeks to ultimately undermine the OP by making the speaker concentrate on defending him- or herself personally and it serves, most importantly, to shift the audience’s attention away from the speaker’s argument and towards the OP's personality and state of mind.

I decided to think about the implicit claims this method attempts to make. I wanted to take these comments and run a fine-toothed comb through them to identify what a comment like this seeks to achieve (power), whether it fails or hangs together logically (it fails), what it immediately implies (it implies that the speaker is unfit for proper and reasoned debate), and what it implicitly aims for as its ultimate goal (potential control over the debate’s existence itself).

It has not always been a fallacy. In fact, it was suggested by Germany's Arthur Schopenhaeur in 1831. Schopenhauer was a philosophical pessimist, and his book, "Eristic Dialectic: The Art Of Winning An Argument" was a book not designed to improve debate, but rather to "win" arguments by collecting "all the dishonest tricks so frequently occurring in argument and clearly presenting each of them in its characteristic setting, illustrated by examples and given a name of its own." Schopenhauer also "added a means to be used against them, as a kind of guard against these thrusts...". These "tricks, dodges, and chicanery" were arranged into a "systematized and formal . . . anatomical specimen." These thirty-eight tactics should be seen to be believed. They're a compendium of subtle and dirty debating tricks.

Schopenhauer says responding to an argumentum ad personam is possible but it is difficult: “A cool demeanor may, however, help you here, if, as soon as your opponent becomes personal, you quietly reply, 'That has no bearing on the point in dispute,' and immediately bring the conversation back to it, and continue to show him that he is wrong, without taking any notice of his insults. Say, as Themistocles said to Eurybiades — Strike, but hear me. But such demeanor is not given to every one," meaning that if you've got a temper this might not work. What to do in that case? Well, Schopenhauer then says that if you can get too passionate about a topic or if you run a little heated in general you are susceptible to this technique, which is bad news for many of us.

He intones, "The only safe rule, therefore, is . . . not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him."

He continues, "From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool — desipere est jus gentium. Remember what Voltaire says : La paix vaut encore mieux que la verite (Peace is even better than the truth). Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace."

And so there you have it. Stop arguing with people that use this tactic and with those you don't know and trust unless you possess an equanimity befitting a stoic. And if you're quiet and okay with letting the madness go on around you, you might find a peace you didn't think you could attain. Then again, if you don’t ever debate, you might find that rules and laws you don’t agree with are passed without your input and the result of those rules and laws might upset the very peace you seek.

 

[-fish-]

all of this assumes that the one that initiated the debate was acting in good faith. perhaps in an in-person situation it is less likely, but in an anonymous online discussion where trolling is a distinct possibility questioning motives seems like a more legitimate response.

 

[rockaction]

all of this assumes that the one that initiated the debate was acting in good faith. perhaps in an in-person situation it is less likely, but in an anonymous online discussion where trolling is a distinct possibility questioning motives seems like a more legitimate response.

Yeah, sure. Who do you trust? It is always an issue. Some attacks against character aren't ad hominems. Some attacks on personality are valid and maybe sound. I'm talking about the obvious ones or ones where the presumption of good faith should be given to the person with whom one is discussing things. That's an overwhelming majority of the time depending on where you're hanging out.

eta* Even in online discourse there are common-sense guides. The passive-agressive retort of "y u mad?" is never an appropriate response to a substantive argument, anonymous or not. If somebody crashes a thread and starts metaphorically flinging poo around, I get it. But in your thirty-plus years here how often has that happened? Of course you notice when it does because it's very rare. But to assume a person you've interacted with in the past (say . . . over ten years) is arguing in bad faith because they're anonymous or you don't know their name or address seems like an excuse to engage in behavior that doesn't promote contemplation, truth, wisdom, or earnest inquiry. It sounds like an excuse to fling one's own poo at the speaker, although flinging poo is more honorable and accountable than comments like these.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

conscious effort aimed deliberately at a speaker who makes certain unpopular or unappealing arguments,

oh noes I'm getting called out

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Anyone who ever references "clutching of pearls" is probably worth putting on the ignore list.

 

[Hastur]

Good thread idea. I feel humanity has lost the 'art' of discussion/arguing logically. It devolves quickly with the fallacy of the argumentum ad personam as described above, or takes logical fallacies/cognitive bias to new levels.

I'm a fan of The Thinking Shop. Good products to introduce younger adults to. Help them learn what to look out for, and keep a discussion on track.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I feel like ad hominem is extremely common in online sports and politics discussions because of the extreme tribalism and the anonymity. You can see it every single day here if you're looking for it (much less so since the PSF was closed.) Many people's online identity is so closely tied to their tribe, its easier to just dismiss any contrary view by attacking the bias of the poster. I don't see it a ton in the Shark pool (Cowboys/Eagles excepted), but if a media person posts something online remotely positive or negative about a Euro soccer team, the responses are going to be 90% attacking the perceived bias rather than the merits of the comment.

 

[rockaction]

I feel like ad hominem is extremely common in online sports and politics discussions because of the extreme tribalism and the anonymity. You can see it every single day here if you're looking for it (much less so since the PSF was closed.) Many people's online identity is so closely tied to their tribe, its easier to just dismiss any contrary view by attacking the bias of the poster. I don't see it a ton in the Shark pool (Cowboys/Eagles excepted), but if a media person posts something online remotely positive or negative about a Euro soccer team, the responses are going to be 90% attacking the perceived bias rather than the merits of the comment.

I think motive questions in general have been rising in not only argument, but in accusation and attribution. I also think identity-based ad hominems are also more prevalent. I think I have been sensitive to these things for a long time, too (I began early with logic) and it just seems much more prevalent in people's daily thoughts about even commonplace occurrences. The thing that I'm really on the lookout for these days, if the OP wasn't redundant enough, is the indirect or oblique ad hominem.

It's very subtle and I think saying things like "you're an idiot" isn't as prevalent these days—it is too easy to spot, and few people use that sort of language because it's inflammatory and very easy to punish because it's obvious and sticks out. It's the subtler tactics that shift perspectives and use passive-aggressive techniques or are part of a public performance, where the person looking to debate or advance an unpopular opinion is sort of held up for the public to have a say, usually in harsh ways. It's almost like everything has the potential to be a constant public judgment or trial.

I've seen it on the rise since 2014 especially. There's something unidentifiable about when it specifically arrived, but I think it has. I'd really like to discuss those methods and strategies. Some of those phrases at the top were perfect for discussion and annoying as all get-out but they're not ad hominems, so I edited them out.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think -fish- nailed it above, specifically when it comes to regular discussions in forums where you spend enough time and know the posters you’re debating.

I get your frustration rock, and agree that offering a counterpoint that directly attacks the OP’s idea is best. But after awhile, it can become impossible to overlook inconsistencies and hypocrisies, especially when people cite moral or societal principles as their underlying rationale. At that point, seems more than fair to question motives and whether people are arguing in good faith.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

The Mason Taylor thread in the SP is a doozy. Almost makes me want to not draft him so as to guarantee I’ll never have to go there again.

 

[rockaction]

I think -fish- nailed it above, specifically when it comes to regular discussions in forums where you spend enough time and know the posters you’re debating.

I get your frustration rock, and agree that offering a counterpoint that directly attacks the OP’s idea is best. But after while, it can become impossible to overlook inconsistencies and hypocrisies, especially when people cite moral or societal principles as their underlying rationale. At that point, seems more than fair to question movies and whether people are arguing in good faith.

I just typed this long thing out but nuked it because to me "good faith" needs to be defined before you go any further. I just went into the tu quoque fallacy and when relevance makes it a legitimate assertion, but I'm not sure how to deal with good faith. I mean, we just did this yesterday in the Mason Taylor thread Pip is talking about. I went in there and said maybe if they backed up and defined their terms with more clarity that would be better than furthering the debate they were in the midst of (didn't work). But yeah, I'm not sure if you're equating hypocrisy with bad faith or what, tommy.

 

[rockaction]

The Mason Taylor thread in the SP is a doozy. Almost makes me want to not draft him so as to guarantee I’ll never have to go there again.

I tried in there and I have some thoughts (that would make nobody happy) but they're best left to myself and saying anything isn't going to help the situation.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Is there a short version?

 

[rockaction]

Is there a short version?

How about a story? It’s longer than the edited general, but more interesting (relatively).

The School Board in, say, Dan Francisco, is very liberal. One day they meet at their meeting time and they begin to have discussions among themselves about names on city schools. They are going to reexamine those whom they have honored. They decide that there are modern standards the names have to meet. One member notes that Abe Lincoln made comments about slaves whereby he said they lacked the necessary mental faculties to succeed in America, and that if he could he'd send them all to Liberia as a matter of national policy. The board decides to remove his name from the elementary school in town. People notice and they use the regularly scheduled public meeting mandated by the city to address the removal. It's mandatory that the school board go and hear the public, but they've already decided to remove the name and their decision doesn't require a public vote. They're the school board and it's their discretion. The public, though, can vote on the issue if they get 2/3 of the public to agree to a referendum on the matter. The meeting is open to the public and has a Q and A session.

You are one of the lucky ones who gets to speak. You get up to the microphone and say, "I can't believe all these jerks—you jerks—who took Lincoln's name off the schools for being racist! What is your problem?! I want Lincoln's name on the school!"

Guy who agrees with taking the name off the school doesn't say, "We have credible evidence that Lincoln was unsuitable for modern sensitivities," he says, "Why are you so angry?"

What he's doing is presupposing you're angry and telling everybody there that you're angry. It's a tactic that serves to shift the debate to your emotional state, and now the audience is looking for a response and the ball is now in your court to respond. The audience has been asked to shift their focus and forget about that controversial school board decision and the conversation shifts to your mental state and not them taking Lincoln's name down. He presses and says, "No, really. No need for that tone. Why are you angry, man?" The audience waits for a response. Is he angry? They pay extra attention to your emotional state. You have two options: 1) respond or 2) ignore it. If you respond, you've now further focused that attention shift to your mental state and the audience will judge whether or not you're angry, and worse, the implied argument is that you're too angry to put forth a cogent argument and that your argument is so tainted by anger that it’s illegitimate and should be disqualified. If you don't answer, the audience might use that as evidence that you're ducking the charge and that your refusal to answer is evidence of the truth of the allegation, and this option also leads to the dismissal of your supposedly illegitimate argument.

Worse, say that there are a few people that are actually angry about it and they don't have great reputations. The speaker might nudge the audience and say something like, "Check him out. Everybody that wants to put Lincoln's name back on the schools has an anger problem and they're so emotional they can't be trusted." Or he says it more subtly. And now imagine some in the crowd know you know some unsavory people that agree with you and he simply asks, "Do you know so-and-so from that group?" which seems totally defensible on the surface but is designed to show your association with a group the crowd finds disreputable. Now the ones who didn’t know you knew them find out and they begin to associate the argument’s substance with all of you, and the position becomes invalid in their eyes because you're all "crazy," and therefore, so is your position. They've heard all the evidence about slavery and Lincoln's discussion about faculties and Back to Africa; and given your "anger" and the folks you travel with, they decide that the argument is inherently bad and illegitimate and worse, that everyone who holds it is crazy and they don't even want to waste time hearing it.

They think, “I'm not debating those crazies” and then move to table the resolution to get his name back on the schools and this is over. No more debate. You've lost and you're powerless. You're in the position where you need to be heard to have your policy preference enacted, so you start desperately debating the need to debate the issue. "Nope," they say, and they table the resolution.

All of this and they’ve never addressed the taking down of Lincoln's name in a debate or group setting. They smeared you as too angry to reason and it discredited your position, and worse, you never got to present your counterargument. Fin.

Now, what should you have done? Per Schopenhauer and propriety, you calmly say, "I'd like to stick to the issue. Why are we taking Lincoln's name off of the public schools?" You hope to defuse the situation that way. The other option he gives is to not debate at all. If you're either easily angered or your protestations won't work, you should sit it out. Move. Find different friends. All that. If that's not an option, he advocates returning the favor. Per Schopenhauer, you say, "Of course I'm angry. You loons want to take Lincoln's name off the schools. He's a national hero. He emancipated the slaves and saved the Republic. You're crazy."

And that's what this is all about. That was long but more readable. If you're interested in a more subtle example, there are internet debates all the time where you see this subtle tactic used. "You need to touch grass." "Take a breath and get back to me—you're way too online and it's affecting your judgment." And so on and so on. . .

 

[Pip's Invitation]

Worse, say that there are a few people that are actually angry about it and they don't have great reputations.

This came up in an interview with Steve Albini not long before his death. He was asked whether he still believed in the provocative sh!t he said/wrote when he was younger. He said that in many cases, he had changed his mind because as he got older, he realized that "if the worst people agree with you, then you're on the wrong side."

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think -fish- nailed it above, specifically when it comes to regular discussions in forums where you spend enough time and know the posters you’re debating.

I get your frustration rock, and agree that offering a counterpoint that directly attacks the OP’s idea is best. But after awhile, it can become impossible to overlook inconsistencies and hypocrisies, especially when people cite moral or societal principles as their underlying rationale. At that point, seems more than fair to question motives and whether people are arguing in good faith.

I feel like I'm missing something. What topics are we regularly debating here with moral or societal principles as the underlying rationale?

 

[rockaction]

This came up in an interview with Steve Albini not long before his death. He was asked whether he still believed in the provocative sh!t he said/wrote when he was younger. He said that in many cases, he had changed his mind because as he got older, he realized that "if the worst people agree with you, then you're on the wrong side."

That's sort of easily refutable. Say it's 1864 in Alabama . . .

Why are those abolitionists on the other side of town so angry?

 

[rockaction]

I think -fish- nailed it above, specifically when it comes to regular discussions in forums where you spend enough time and know the posters you’re debating.

I get your frustration rock, and agree that offering a counterpoint that directly attacks the OP’s idea is best. But after awhile, it can become impossible to overlook inconsistencies and hypocrisies, especially when people cite moral or societal principles as their underlying rationale. At that point, seems more than fair to question motives and whether people are arguing in good faith.

I feel like I'm missing something. What topics are we regularly debating here with moral or societal principles as the underlying rationale?

Joe, hello. I feel like I should say something to everybody and for everybody, really. This is supposed to address an entire societal increase in stuff like this and it is not a "here" thing. It might have grown from here, but I'm looking to depersonalize and defuse it here. I'm thinking more broadly. Like anywhere you go you might find this tactic. It is happening everywhere and more and more. This isn't an FBG thing.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I haven't read closely, but I do agree with @rockaction 's initial point on not liking the "you seem worked up or emotional".

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think -fish- nailed it above, specifically when it comes to regular discussions in forums where you spend enough time and know the posters you’re debating.

I get your frustration rock, and agree that offering a counterpoint that directly attacks the OP’s idea is best. But after awhile, it can become impossible to overlook inconsistencies and hypocrisies, especially when people cite moral or societal principles as their underlying rationale. At that point, seems more than fair to question motives and whether people are arguing in good faith.

I feel like I'm missing something. What topics are we regularly debating here with moral or societal principles as the underlying rationale?

Joe, hello. I feel like I should say something to everybody and for everybody, really. This is supposed to be an entire societal thing, not a "here" thing. It might have grown from here, but I'm looking to depersonalize and defuse it here. I'm thinking more broadly. Like anywhere you are. This is happening everywhere and more and more. This isn't an FBG thing.

Thanks. I was worried you all had opened back up the test forum or something.

 

[rockaction]

Worse, say that there are a few people that are actually angry about it and they don't have great reputations.

This came up in an interview with Steve Albini not long before his death. He was asked whether he still believed in the provocative sh!t he said/wrote when he was younger. He said that in many cases, he had changed his mind because as he got older, he realized that "if the worst people agree with you, then you're on the wrong side."

I will say that in America and in democracies in general, Albini tends to be right. And it's not an accident. But that's more received wisdom than a debate with formal rules of logic. I think we're seeing a rise in irrationality (not that reason should be held in saintly regard) that emphasizes the volk and the folk. I posit that a lot of times whether folk wisdom is correct depends on context and other things that are in flux, whereas there are certain universals that are right and righteous everywhere and at any time, and those universals can be reached and deduced by reason. It’s in the Lockean tradition. Then again, I also think Edmund Burke and Scottish Enlightenment thinkers like Adam Smith with their empirical tradition and institutions and localized wisdom (contextual) are important. It's kind of fully American to try and synthesize the two. I think of the Lockean frame and the Scottish painter of the canvas, perhaps. That's not an evocative analogy, but you probably get what I'm saying. The Constitution and the people who comprise the small units of it, each community and then in aggregate—town, municipality, state, federal government. First selectman, mayor, governor, president.

Okay, now I'm just typing to type.

 

[dkp993]

Is there a short version?

School Board, say Dan Francisco's, is very liberal. They meet at their meeting time and they begin to have discussions in committee about names on schools. What is appropriate and what isn't. They decide that there are modern standards the names have to meet and that Abe Lincoln made comments about slaves whereby he said they lacked mental faculties and if he could, he'd send them to Liberia as a matter of national policy. They decide to remove his name from the elementary school in town. People notice and they use the mandated public meeting to address it. It's mandatory that the school board go, but they've already decided to remove the name and their decision doesn't require a public vote. They're the school board and it's their right. The public, though, can vote on an issue if they get 2/3 of the public to agree to a referendum on the matter. The meeting is open to the public and has a Q and A session. It's mandated.

You are one of the lucky ones who gets to speak. You get up to the microphone and say, "I can't believe all these jerks—you jerks—who took Lincoln's name off the schools for being racist! What is the problem?! I want Lincoln's name on the school!"

Guy who agrees with taking the name off the school doesn't say, "We have credible evidence that Lincoln was unsuitable for modern sensitivities," he says, "why are you so angry?"

What he's doing is presupposing you're angry and telling everybody there that you're angry. It's a tactic that serves to shift the debate to your emotional state, and now the audience is looking for a response and the ball is now in your court to respond. The audience has been asked to shift their focus and forget about that controversial school board decision and the conversation shifts to your mental state and not them taking Lincoln's name down. He presses and says, "No, really. No need for that language. Why are you angry, man?" The audience waits for a response. Is he angry? They pay extra attention to your emotional state. You have two options: 1) respond or 2) ignore it. You respond, and you've now affirmed the attention shift to your mental state and the audience will judge whether or not you're angry, and worse, the implied argument is that you're too angry to put forth a cogent argument and that your argument, born of anger, colors the statement so much that your argument should be disqualified. If you don't answer, the audience might use that as evidence that you're ducking the charge and that your ducking is evidence of the truth of the allegation, and therefore your argument (again) is colored by your anger and they should dismiss it.

Worse, say that there are a few people that are actually angry about it and they don't have great reputations. The speaker might nudge the audience and say something like, "Check him out. Everybody that wants to put Lincoln's name back on the schools has an anger problem and they're so emotional they can't be trusted." Or he says it more subtly. The crowd knows you know some unsavory people that agree with you and he simply asks, "Do you know so-and-so" which is totally defensible but he knows what it means to the crowd. Now they know and they begin to associate the debate with all of you, and the position becomes invalid in their eyes because you're all "crazy," and so is your position. They've heard all the evidence about slavery and Lincoln's discussion about faculties and Back to Africa and given your "craziness" and the folks you're with, they decide your argument is invalid and worse, that everyone who holds it is crazy and they don't even want to hear it. They go "I'm not debating those crazies—I move to table the resolution to get his name back on the schools and it's over. No more debate." You're pissed and powerless. Now you're in the position where you need to be heard, so you start desperately debating the need to debate the issue. "Nope," and they table the resolution.

They've never addressed the taking down of Lincoln's name in a debate. They smeared you as too angry to reason and it discredited your position, and worse, you never got to present your counterargument. Fin.

Now, what should you have done? Per Schopenhauer and propriety, you calmly say, "I'd like to stick to the issue. Why are we taking Lincoln's name off of the public schools?" You hope to defuse the situation that way. If you can't do that then, per Schopenhauer, you say, "Of course I'm angry. You loons want to take Lincoln's name off the schools. He's a national hero. He freed slaves. You're crazy."

And that's what this is all about. That was long but more readable. If you're interested in a more subtle example, there are internet debates all the time where you see this subtle tactic used. "You need to touch grass." "Take a breath and get back to me—you're way too online and it's affecting your judgment." And so on and so on. . .

Rock, love ya bud, but this is the short version?….

 

[rockaction]

Is there a short version?

School Board, say Dan Francisco's, is very liberal. They meet at their meeting time and they begin to have discussions in committee about names on schools. What is appropriate and what isn't. They decide that there are modern standards the names have to meet and that Abe Lincoln made comments about slaves whereby he said they lacked mental faculties and if he could, he'd send them to Liberia as a matter of national policy. They decide to remove his name from the elementary school in town. People notice and they use the mandated public meeting to address it. It's mandatory that the school board go, but they've already decided to remove the name and their decision doesn't require a public vote. They're the school board and it's their right. The public, though, can vote on an issue if they get 2/3 of the public to agree to a referendum on the matter. The meeting is open to the public and has a Q and A session. It's mandated.

You are one of the lucky ones who gets to speak. You get up to the microphone and say, "I can't believe all these jerks—you jerks—who took Lincoln's name off the schools for being racist! What is the problem?! I want Lincoln's name on the school!"

Guy who agrees with taking the name off the school doesn't say, "We have credible evidence that Lincoln was unsuitable for modern sensitivities," he says, "why are you so angry?"

What he's doing is presupposing you're angry and telling everybody there that you're angry. It's a tactic that serves to shift the debate to your emotional state, and now the audience is looking for a response and the ball is now in your court to respond. The audience has been asked to shift their focus and forget about that controversial school board decision and the conversation shifts to your mental state and not them taking Lincoln's name down. He presses and says, "No, really. No need for that language. Why are you angry, man?" The audience waits for a response. Is he angry? They pay extra attention to your emotional state. You have two options: 1) respond or 2) ignore it. You respond, and you've now affirmed the attention shift to your mental state and the audience will judge whether or not you're angry, and worse, the implied argument is that you're too angry to put forth a cogent argument and that your argument, born of anger, colors the statement so much that your argument should be disqualified. If you don't answer, the audience might use that as evidence that you're ducking the charge and that your ducking is evidence of the truth of the allegation, and therefore your argument (again) is colored by your anger and they should dismiss it.

Worse, say that there are a few people that are actually angry about it and they don't have great reputations. The speaker might nudge the audience and say something like, "Check him out. Everybody that wants to put Lincoln's name back on the schools has an anger problem and they're so emotional they can't be trusted." Or he says it more subtly. The crowd knows you know some unsavory people that agree with you and he simply asks, "Do you know so-and-so" which is totally defensible but he knows what it means to the crowd. Now they know and they begin to associate the debate with all of you, and the position becomes invalid in their eyes because you're all "crazy," and so is your position. They've heard all the evidence about slavery and Lincoln's discussion about faculties and Back to Africa and given your "craziness" and the folks you're with, they decide your argument is invalid and worse, that everyone who holds it is crazy and they don't even want to hear it. They go "I'm not debating those crazies—I move to table the resolution to get his name back on the schools and it's over. No more debate." You're pissed and powerless. Now you're in the position where you need to be heard, so you start desperately debating the need to debate the issue. "Nope," and they table the resolution.

They've never addressed the taking down of Lincoln's name in a debate. They smeared you as too angry to reason and it discredited your position, and worse, you never got to present your counterargument. Fin.

Now, what should you have done? Per Schopenhauer and propriety, you calmly say, "I'd like to stick to the issue. Why are we taking Lincoln's name off of the public schools?" You hope to defuse the situation that way. If you can't do that then, per Schopenhauer, you say, "Of course I'm angry. You loons want to take Lincoln's name off the schools. He's a national hero. He freed slaves. You're crazy."

And that's what this is all about. That was long but more readable. If you're interested in a more subtle example, there are internet debates all the time where you see this subtle tactic used. "You need to touch grass." "Take a breath and get back to me—you're way too online and it's affecting your judgment." And so on and so on. . .

Rock, love ya bud, but this is the short version?….

Yeah, it's a complex process that happens really quickly but in order to flesh it out and specify it, it needs to be explained painstakingly. If I edited it I would take out any redundancy, chop it down so that inferences remained, and I would cut it by 1/4-1/2. But I'm making a lot of claims here. And this is the short version that leaves an inference or two in. Believe me, you should see the word processor I'm using. I've got like a bunch of these saved and they are longer than this, sometimes by, again, 1/4-1/2 longer.

 

[dkp993]

Is there a short version?

School Board, say Dan Francisco's, is very liberal. They meet at their meeting time and they begin to have discussions in committee about names on schools. What is appropriate and what isn't. They decide that there are modern standards the names have to meet and that Abe Lincoln made comments about slaves whereby he said they lacked mental faculties and if he could, he'd send them to Liberia as a matter of national policy. They decide to remove his name from the elementary school in town. People notice and they use the mandated public meeting to address it. It's mandatory that the school board go, but they've already decided to remove the name and their decision doesn't require a public vote. They're the school board and it's their right. The public, though, can vote on an issue if they get 2/3 of the public to agree to a referendum on the matter. The meeting is open to the public and has a Q and A session. It's mandated.

You are one of the lucky ones who gets to speak. You get up to the microphone and say, "I can't believe all these jerks—you jerks—who took Lincoln's name off the schools for being racist! What is the problem?! I want Lincoln's name on the school!"

Guy who agrees with taking the name off the school doesn't say, "We have credible evidence that Lincoln was unsuitable for modern sensitivities," he says, "why are you so angry?"

What he's doing is presupposing you're angry and telling everybody there that you're angry. It's a tactic that serves to shift the debate to your emotional state, and now the audience is looking for a response and the ball is now in your court to respond. The audience has been asked to shift their focus and forget about that controversial school board decision and the conversation shifts to your mental state and not them taking Lincoln's name down. He presses and says, "No, really. No need for that language. Why are you angry, man?" The audience waits for a response. Is he angry? They pay extra attention to your emotional state. You have two options: 1) respond or 2) ignore it. You respond, and you've now affirmed the attention shift to your mental state and the audience will judge whether or not you're angry, and worse, the implied argument is that you're too angry to put forth a cogent argument and that your argument, born of anger, colors the statement so much that your argument should be disqualified. If you don't answer, the audience might use that as evidence that you're ducking the charge and that your ducking is evidence of the truth of the allegation, and therefore your argument (again) is colored by your anger and they should dismiss it.

Worse, say that there are a few people that are actually angry about it and they don't have great reputations. The speaker might nudge the audience and say something like, "Check him out. Everybody that wants to put Lincoln's name back on the schools has an anger problem and they're so emotional they can't be trusted." Or he says it more subtly. The crowd knows you know some unsavory people that agree with you and he simply asks, "Do you know so-and-so" which is totally defensible but he knows what it means to the crowd. Now they know and they begin to associate the debate with all of you, and the position becomes invalid in their eyes because you're all "crazy," and so is your position. They've heard all the evidence about slavery and Lincoln's discussion about faculties and Back to Africa and given your "craziness" and the folks you're with, they decide your argument is invalid and worse, that everyone who holds it is crazy and they don't even want to hear it. They go "I'm not debating those crazies—I move to table the resolution to get his name back on the schools and it's over. No more debate." You're pissed and powerless. Now you're in the position where you need to be heard, so you start desperately debating the need to debate the issue. "Nope," and they table the resolution.

They've never addressed the taking down of Lincoln's name in a debate. They smeared you as too angry to reason and it discredited your position, and worse, you never got to present your counterargument. Fin.

Now, what should you have done? Per Schopenhauer and propriety, you calmly say, "I'd like to stick to the issue. Why are we taking Lincoln's name off of the public schools?" You hope to defuse the situation that way. If you can't do that then, per Schopenhauer, you say, "Of course I'm angry. You loons want to take Lincoln's name off the schools. He's a national hero. He freed slaves. You're crazy."

And that's what this is all about. That was long but more readable. If you're interested in a more subtle example, there are internet debates all the time where you see this subtle tactic used. "You need to touch grass." "Take a breath and get back to me—you're way too online and it's affecting your judgment." And so on and so on. . .

Rock, love ya bud, but this is the short version?….

Yeah, it's a complex process that happens really quickly but in order to flesh it out and specify it, it needs to be explained painstakingly. If I edited it I would take out any redundancy, chop it down so that inferences remained, and I would cut it by 1/4-1/2. But I'm making a lot of claims here. And this is the short version that leaves an inference or two. Believe me, you should see the word processor I'm using. I've got like a bunch of these saved and they are longer than this, sometimes by, again, 1/4-1/2 longer.

You and I are very different people. lol.

 

[The Gator]

Is there a short version?

School Board, say Dan Francisco's, is very liberal. They meet at their meeting time and they begin to have discussions in committee about names on schools. What is appropriate and what isn't. They decide that there are modern standards the names have to meet and that Abe Lincoln made comments about slaves whereby he said they lacked mental faculties and if he could, he'd send them to Liberia as a matter of national policy. They decide to remove his name from the elementary school in town. People notice and they use the mandated public meeting to address it. It's mandatory that the school board go, but they've already decided to remove the name and their decision doesn't require a public vote. They're the school board and it's their right. The public, though, can vote on an issue if they get 2/3 of the public to agree to a referendum on the matter. The meeting is open to the public and has a Q and A session. It's mandated.

You are one of the lucky ones who gets to speak. You get up to the microphone and say, "I can't believe all these jerks—you jerks—who took Lincoln's name off the schools for being racist! What is the problem?! I want Lincoln's name on the school!"

Guy who agrees with taking the name off the school doesn't say, "We have credible evidence that Lincoln was unsuitable for modern sensitivities," he says, "why are you so angry?"

What he's doing is presupposing you're angry and telling everybody there that you're angry. It's a tactic that serves to shift the debate to your emotional state, and now the audience is looking for a response and the ball is now in your court to respond. The audience has been asked to shift their focus and forget about that controversial school board decision and the conversation shifts to your mental state and not them taking Lincoln's name down. He presses and says, "No, really. No need for that language. Why are you angry, man?" The audience waits for a response. Is he angry? They pay extra attention to your emotional state. You have two options: 1) respond or 2) ignore it. You respond, and you've now affirmed the attention shift to your mental state and the audience will judge whether or not you're angry, and worse, the implied argument is that you're too angry to put forth a cogent argument and that your argument, born of anger, colors the statement so much that your argument should be disqualified. If you don't answer, the audience might use that as evidence that you're ducking the charge and that your ducking is evidence of the truth of the allegation, and therefore your argument (again) is colored by your anger and they should dismiss it.

Worse, say that there are a few people that are actually angry about it and they don't have great reputations. The speaker might nudge the audience and say something like, "Check him out. Everybody that wants to put Lincoln's name back on the schools has an anger problem and they're so emotional they can't be trusted." Or he says it more subtly. The crowd knows you know some unsavory people that agree with you and he simply asks, "Do you know so-and-so" which is totally defensible but he knows what it means to the crowd. Now they know and they begin to associate the debate with all of you, and the position becomes invalid in their eyes because you're all "crazy," and so is your position. They've heard all the evidence about slavery and Lincoln's discussion about faculties and Back to Africa and given your "craziness" and the folks you're with, they decide your argument is invalid and worse, that everyone who holds it is crazy and they don't even want to hear it. They go "I'm not debating those crazies—I move to table the resolution to get his name back on the schools and it's over. No more debate." You're pissed and powerless. Now you're in the position where you need to be heard, so you start desperately debating the need to debate the issue. "Nope," and they table the resolution.

They've never addressed the taking down of Lincoln's name in a debate. They smeared you as too angry to reason and it discredited your position, and worse, you never got to present your counterargument. Fin.

Now, what should you have done? Per Schopenhauer and propriety, you calmly say, "I'd like to stick to the issue. Why are we taking Lincoln's name off of the public schools?" You hope to defuse the situation that way. If you can't do that then, per Schopenhauer, you say, "Of course I'm angry. You loons want to take Lincoln's name off the schools. He's a national hero. He freed slaves. You're crazy."

And that's what this is all about. That was long but more readable. If you're interested in a more subtle example, there are internet debates all the time where you see this subtle tactic used. "You need to touch grass." "Take a breath and get back to me—you're way too online and it's affecting your judgment." And so on and so on. . .

You could have just said "No".

 

[rockaction]

You could have just said "No".

Very true. That hypothetical wasn't redundant once, though. I think up top I could edit it a bit for redundancy.

Maybe I'll copy it back to the computer and see if I can't condense it.

 

[rockaction]

Edited for brevity and clarity (removed redundancies)

 

[waiver wire]

Is there a short version?

there is never a short version when he posts

 

[rockaction]

Is there a short version?

there is never a short version when he posts

the long and constant edit

 

[Terminalxylem]

Well, at least no one can blame you for underthinking it.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

The Mason Taylor thread in the SP is a doozy. Almost makes me want to not draft him so as to guarantee I’ll never have to go there again.

That was painful reading. The sad thing is that none of the participants in that 2 page debacle will understand why it was a mess.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The Mason Taylor thread in the SP is a doozy. Almost makes me want to not draft him so as to guarantee I’ll never have to go there again.

That was painful reading. The sad thing is that none of the participants in that 2 page debacle will understand why it was a mess.

Every time I try and dip my toe back into the pool to read, I see immediately why I stopped participating there.

It’s always a handful of posters that ruin every topic - and it’s always so obvious who owns what players. Honestly that’s probably one place where the “calm down, it’s not THAT important” is an appropriate response.

 

[zamboni]

The Mason Taylor thread in the SP is a doozy. Almost makes me want to not draft him so as to guarantee I’ll never have to go there again.

That was painful reading. The sad thing is that none of the participants in that 2 page debacle will understand why it was a mess.

I think that's the case with any of those instances in The Shark Pool, or anywhere else for that matter. It becomes much less about the topic at hand and more about having to one-up the other side. Which I guess is what rock is alluding to in this thread (much more eloquently, as usual).

ETA: there really is that kind of argument about a Jets' rookie tight end? The apocalypse is truly upon us.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The Mason Taylor thread in the SP is a doozy. Almost makes me want to not draft him so as to guarantee I’ll never have to go there again.

That was painful reading. The sad thing is that none of the participants in that 2 page debacle will understand why it was a mess.

Every time I try and dip my toe back into the pool to read, I see immediately why I stopped participating there.

It’s always a handful of posters that ruin every topic - and it’s always so obvious who owns what players. Honestly that’s probably one place where the “calm down, it’s not THAT important” is an appropriate response.

Agreed. That one was painful.

Can you folks please help us keep things more on the rails? A lot of it will be good posters helping with a comment to help get back.

Or clicking the report button so a moderator can try and help.

It's a challenge moderating as that usually turns into an ugly thing. A few of those are happening now. But we want to do all we can to have good discussion in the Shark Pool.

 

[rockaction]

The Mason Taylor thread in the SP is a doozy. Almost makes me want to not draft him so as to guarantee I’ll never have to go there again.

That was painful reading. The sad thing is that none of the participants in that 2 page debacle will understand why it was a mess.

Every time I try and dip my toe back into the pool to read, I see immediately why I stopped participating there.

It’s always a handful of posters that ruin every topic - and it’s always so obvious who owns what players. Honestly that’s probably one place where the “calm down, it’s not THAT important” is an appropriate response.

That’s not an argumentum ad personam, guy. That’s absolutely genuine and fine. It only becomes fallacious when you’re trying to attack or raise doubts about someone’s state of mind to discredit someone’s argument that doesn’t depend upon their calmness. You’re more than legitimate if you tell someone to calm down because you think it’s best they calm down.



I know you know.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Joe, hello. I feel like I should say something to everybody and for everybody, really. This is supposed to address an entire societal increase in stuff like this and it is not a "here" thing. It might have grown from here, but I'm looking to depersonalize and defuse it here. I'm thinking more broadly. Like anywhere you go you might find this tactic. It is happening everywhere and more and more. This isn't an FBG thing

Its pretty prevalent here. Its almost a sliding scale with anonymity. The more anonymity we have, the more it happens. The question is, how do we address it? For me, I'm just inclined to ignore it and not respond to it. At least here, it's rather obvious when its happening and pretty consistent with several of the posters. Its just not worth engagement. It was mentioned in one of the comments as I was catching up that we need to be clear and specific in our terms. I think that's 100% spot on. What do we then do when it's asserted that we are arguing semantics or picking nits? To me, another sign just to bow out. I don't always get it right and get sucked in more than I'd like, but I'm getting better at it.

 

[rockaction]

Joe, hello. I feel like I should say something to everybody and for everybody, really. This is supposed to address an entire societal increase in stuff like this and it is not a "here" thing. It might have grown from here, but I'm looking to depersonalize and defuse it here. I'm thinking more broadly. Like anywhere you go you might find this tactic. It is happening everywhere and more and more. This isn't an FBG thing

It’s pretty prevalent here. It’s almost a sliding scale with anonymity. The more anonymity we have, the more it happens. The question is, how do we address it? For me, I'm just inclined to ignore it and not respond to it. At least here, it's rather obvious when it’s happening and pretty consistent with several of the posters. It’s just not worth engagement. It was mentioned in one of the comments as I was catching up that we need to be clear and specific in our terms. I think that's 100% spot on. What do we then do when it's asserted that we are arguing semantics or picking nits? To me, another sign just to bow out. I don't always get it right and get sucked in more than I'd like, but I'm getting better at it.

It’s really important to define terms. That was me talking about it. There are so many ambiguities in common parlance that you really need to be on the same page with the person you are having the discussion with.

It can get down to a semantics game at times. That is frustrating.

Interesting that you brought up ignoring or walking away. That is something I think most people get better at with experience and age, but damn if I have figured it out. Did you read the second post (I know that they’re long walls of text) with Schopenhauer talking about just that? He was almost a bit poetic in his outlook, which wasn’t too generous.

As far as here at FBG goes, I’m finding it everywhere. It’s become the new way to argue. It’s so passive-aggressive and I’m just not a fan. I was never a big fan of people that use the loaded question fallacy to make you look bad. This tactic is close to that. It is very close to that and it has the effect of leaving you with a choice that is totally contingent on the insight and temperament of your audience, or onlookers, if you prefer that term. Not very sporting in my book.

eta* I think language can be really ambiguous. I meant to say "I'm finding it everywhere in the world." Not kidding nor trying to back off of it. I think Sparky also misunderstood what I was saying. That's why one shouldn't write like one talks. What sounds right in one's head doesn't necessarily translate and things get ambiguous.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Joe, hello. I feel like I should say something to everybody and for everybody, really. This is supposed to address an entire societal increase in stuff like this and it is not a "here" thing. It might have grown from here, but I'm looking to depersonalize and defuse it here. I'm thinking more broadly. Like anywhere you go you might find this tactic. It is happening everywhere and more and more. This isn't an FBG thing

It’s pretty prevalent here. It’s almost a sliding scale with anonymity. The more anonymity we have, the more it happens. The question is, how do we address it? For me, I'm just inclined to ignore it and not respond to it. At least here, it's rather obvious when it’s happening and pretty consistent with several of the posters. It’s just not worth engagement. It was mentioned in one of the comments as I was catching up that we need to be clear and specific in our terms. I think that's 100% spot on. What do we then do when it's asserted that we are arguing semantics or picking nits? To me, another sign just to bow out. I don't always get it right and get sucked in more than I'd like, but I'm getting better at it.

It’s really important to define terms. That was me talking about it. There are so many ambiguities in common parlance that you really need to be on the same page with the person you are having the discussion with.

It can get down to a semantics game at times. That is frustrating.

Interesting that you brought up ignoring or walking away. That is something I think most people get better at with experience and age, but damn if I have figured it out. Did you read the second post (I know that they’re long walls of text) with Schopenhauer talking about just that? He was almost a bit poetic in his outlook, which wasn’t too generous.

As far as here at FBG goes, I’m finding it everywhere. It’s become the new way to argue. It’s so passive-aggressive and I’m just not a fan. I was never a big fan of people that use the loaded question fallacy to make you look bad. This tactic is close to that. It is very close to that and it has the effect of leaving you with a choice that is totally contingent on the insight and temperament of your audience, or onlookers, if you prefer that term. Not very sporting in my book.

You mean the statements like "I really disagree with how Israel is handling situation X" being translated into "So, you're antisemitic?" I was coming into this site when the PSF was on its last leg. I saw that stuff all the time there and now its creeping into the FFA.

 

[rockaction]

Joe, hello. I feel like I should say something to everybody and for everybody, really. This is supposed to address an entire societal increase in stuff like this and it is not a "here" thing. It might have grown from here, but I'm looking to depersonalize and defuse it here. I'm thinking more broadly. Like anywhere you go you might find this tactic. It is happening everywhere and more and more. This isn't an FBG thing

It’s pretty prevalent here. It’s almost a sliding scale with anonymity. The more anonymity we have, the more it happens. The question is, how do we address it? For me, I'm just inclined to ignore it and not respond to it. At least here, it's rather obvious when it’s happening and pretty consistent with several of the posters. It’s just not worth engagement. It was mentioned in one of the comments as I was catching up that we need to be clear and specific in our terms. I think that's 100% spot on. What do we then do when it's asserted that we are arguing semantics or picking nits? To me, another sign just to bow out. I don't always get it right and get sucked in more than I'd like, but I'm getting better at it.

It’s really important to define terms. That was me talking about it. There are so many ambiguities in common parlance that you really need to be on the same page with the person you are having the discussion with.

It can get down to a semantics game at times. That is frustrating.

Interesting that you brought up ignoring or walking away. That is something I think most people get better at with experience and age, but damn if I have figured it out. Did you read the second post (I know that they’re long walls of text) with Schopenhauer talking about just that? He was almost a bit poetic in his outlook, which wasn’t too generous.

As far as here at FBG goes, I’m finding it everywhere. It’s become the new way to argue. It’s so passive-aggressive and I’m just not a fan. I was never a big fan of people that use the loaded question fallacy to make you look bad. This tactic is close to that. It is very close to that and it has the effect of leaving you with a choice that is totally contingent on the insight and temperament of your audience, or onlookers, if you prefer that term. Not very sporting in my book.

You mean the statements like "I really disagree with how Israel is handling situation X" being translated into "So, you're antisemitic?" I was coming into this site when the PSF was on its last leg. I saw that stuff all the time there and now it’s creeping into the FFA.

Ah, welp. I can’t help an anti-Semite. Have a good one!

No, I guess sorry about that. The Israel issue is fraught with a lot of emotion and some strong feelings. That might be one where Schopenhauer’s advice is sound.

"The only safe rule, therefore, is . . . not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him."

Peace and have a good one.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe, hello. I feel like I should say something to everybody and for everybody, really. This is supposed to address an entire societal increase in stuff like this and it is not a "here" thing. It might have grown from here, but I'm looking to depersonalize and defuse it here. I'm thinking more broadly. Like anywhere you go you might find this tactic. It is happening everywhere and more and more. This isn't an FBG thing

It’s pretty prevalent here. It’s almost a sliding scale with anonymity. The more anonymity we have, the more it happens. The question is, how do we address it? For me, I'm just inclined to ignore it and not respond to it. At least here, it's rather obvious when it’s happening and pretty consistent with several of the posters. It’s just not worth engagement. It was mentioned in one of the comments as I was catching up that we need to be clear and specific in our terms. I think that's 100% spot on. What do we then do when it's asserted that we are arguing semantics or picking nits? To me, another sign just to bow out. I don't always get it right and get sucked in more than I'd like, but I'm getting better at it.

It’s really important to define terms. That was me talking about it. There are so many ambiguities in common parlance that you really need to be on the same page with the person you are having the discussion with.

It can get down to a semantics game at times. That is frustrating.

Interesting that you brought up ignoring or walking away. That is something I think most people get better at with experience and age, but damn if I have figured it out. Did you read the second post (I know that they’re long walls of text) with Schopenhauer talking about just that? He was almost a bit poetic in his outlook, which wasn’t too generous.

As far as here at FBG goes, I’m finding it everywhere. It’s become the new way to argue. It’s so passive-aggressive and I’m just not a fan. I was never a big fan of people that use the loaded question fallacy to make you look bad. This tactic is close to that. It is very close to that and it has the effect of leaving you with a choice that is totally contingent on the insight and temperament of your audience, or onlookers, if you prefer that term. Not very sporting in my book.

You mean the statements like "I really disagree with how Israel is handling situation X" being translated into "So, you're antisemitic?" I was coming into this site when the PSF was on its last leg. I saw that stuff all the time there and now it’s creeping into the FFA.

Ah, welp. I can’t help an anti-Semite. Have a good one!

No, I guess sorry about that. The Israel issue is fraught with a lot of emotion and some strong feelings. That might be one where Schopenhauer’s advice is sound.

"The only safe rule, therefore, is . . . not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him."

Peace and have a good one.

Yes. Drop this tangent please here.

We are not doing the political forum again here.

 

[Gally]

Every time I try and dip my toe back into the pool to read, I see immediately why I stopped participating there.

Well, now I have to go look at what this is all about...hahaha

 

[Joe Bryant]

Every time I try and dip my toe back into the pool to read, I see immediately why I stopped participating there.

Well, now I have to go look at what this is all about...hahaha

It's people arguing past each other and taking snarky shots at each other. When they're seemingly more concerned with being right or feeling smug than they are with good discussion for a player.

It's what will happen if nobody says anything or reports anything.

The good news is the posters have total say in if it happens or not and if they care to help us keep the discussion more on the rails. I hope they do.

 

[rockaction]

Joe, hello. I feel like I should say something to everybody and for everybody, really. This is supposed to address an entire societal increase in stuff like this and it is not a "here" thing. It might have grown from here, but I'm looking to depersonalize and defuse it here. I'm thinking more broadly. Like anywhere you go you might find this tactic. It is happening everywhere and more and more. This isn't an FBG thing

It’s pretty prevalent here. It’s almost a sliding scale with anonymity. The more anonymity we have, the more it happens. The question is, how do we address it? For me, I'm just inclined to ignore it and not respond to it. At least here, it's rather obvious when it’s happening and pretty consistent with several of the posters. It’s just not worth engagement. It was mentioned in one of the comments as I was catching up that we need to be clear and specific in our terms. I think that's 100% spot on. What do we then do when it's asserted that we are arguing semantics or picking nits? To me, another sign just to bow out. I don't always get it right and get sucked in more than I'd like, but I'm getting better at it.

It’s really important to define terms. That was me talking about it. There are so many ambiguities in common parlance that you really need to be on the same page with the person you are having the discussion with.

It can get down to a semantics game at times. That is frustrating.

Interesting that you brought up ignoring or walking away. That is something I think most people get better at with experience and age, but damn if I have figured it out. Did you read the second post (I know that they’re long walls of text) with Schopenhauer talking about just that? He was almost a bit poetic in his outlook, which wasn’t too generous.

As far as here at FBG goes, I’m finding it everywhere. It’s become the new way to argue. It’s so passive-aggressive and I’m just not a fan. I was never a big fan of people that use the loaded question fallacy to make you look bad. This tactic is close to that. It is very close to that and it has the effect of leaving you with a choice that is totally contingent on the insight and temperament of your audience, or onlookers, if you prefer that term. Not very sporting in my book.

You mean the statements like "I really disagree with how Israel is handling situation X" being translated into "So, you're antisemitic?" I was coming into this site when the PSF was on its last leg. I saw that stuff all the time there and now it’s creeping into the FFA.

Ah, welp. I can’t help an anti-Semite. Have a good one!

No, I guess sorry about that. The Israel issue is fraught with a lot of emotion and some strong feelings. That might be one where Schopenhauer’s advice is sound.

"The only safe rule, therefore, is . . . not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him."

Peace and have a good one.

Yes. Drop this tangent please here.

We are not doing the political forum again here.

What is neat about that quote is that given each individual’s cognitive ability and temperament, we’re all going to have radically different people that meet the threshold he sets out. He is basically saying to think about who has those qualities and to offer up your debates and yearning for truth to them! Iron sharpens iron.

Anyway, if it’s one out of one hundred, I nominate BB. And a few unnamed—I just want to shout him out—he’s a guy who handles it all well and whose patience and tolerance, yet non-doormat, no guff stuff is equanimity and grace incarnate

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Joe, hello. I feel like I should say something to everybody and for everybody, really. This is supposed to address an entire societal increase in stuff like this and it is not a "here" thing. It might have grown from here, but I'm looking to depersonalize and defuse it here. I'm thinking more broadly. Like anywhere you go you might find this tactic. It is happening everywhere and more and more. This isn't an FBG thing

It’s pretty prevalent here. It’s almost a sliding scale with anonymity. The more anonymity we have, the more it happens. The question is, how do we address it? For me, I'm just inclined to ignore it and not respond to it. At least here, it's rather obvious when it’s happening and pretty consistent with several of the posters. It’s just not worth engagement. It was mentioned in one of the comments as I was catching up that we need to be clear and specific in our terms. I think that's 100% spot on. What do we then do when it's asserted that we are arguing semantics or picking nits? To me, another sign just to bow out. I don't always get it right and get sucked in more than I'd like, but I'm getting better at it.

It’s really important to define terms. That was me talking about it. There are so many ambiguities in common parlance that you really need to be on the same page with the person you are having the discussion with.

It can get down to a semantics game at times. That is frustrating.

Interesting that you brought up ignoring or walking away. That is something I think most people get better at with experience and age, but damn if I have figured it out. Did you read the second post (I know that they’re long walls of text) with Schopenhauer talking about just that? He was almost a bit poetic in his outlook, which wasn’t too generous.

As far as here at FBG goes, I’m finding it everywhere. It’s become the new way to argue. It’s so passive-aggressive and I’m just not a fan. I was never a big fan of people that use the loaded question fallacy to make you look bad. This tactic is close to that. It is very close to that and it has the effect of leaving you with a choice that is totally contingent on the insight and temperament of your audience, or onlookers, if you prefer that term. Not very sporting in my book.

You mean the statements like "I really disagree with how Israel is handling situation X" being translated into "So, you're antisemitic?" I was coming into this site when the PSF was on its last leg. I saw that stuff all the time there and now it’s creeping into the FFA.

Ah, welp. I can’t help an anti-Semite. Have a good one!

No, I guess sorry about that. The Israel issue is fraught with a lot of emotion and some strong feelings. That might be one where Schopenhauer’s advice is sound.

"The only safe rule, therefore, is . . . not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him."

Peace and have a good one.

A good FFA-safe equivalent would be: "I think Jordan Love is going to finish in the bottom half of the league this season." Response: "Of course you do, you're a Bears fan."

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Joe, hello. I feel like I should say something to everybody and for everybody, really. This is supposed to address an entire societal increase in stuff like this and it is not a "here" thing. It might have grown from here, but I'm looking to depersonalize and defuse it here. I'm thinking more broadly. Like anywhere you go you might find this tactic. It is happening everywhere and more and more. This isn't an FBG thing

It’s pretty prevalent here. It’s almost a sliding scale with anonymity. The more anonymity we have, the more it happens. The question is, how do we address it? For me, I'm just inclined to ignore it and not respond to it. At least here, it's rather obvious when it’s happening and pretty consistent with several of the posters. It’s just not worth engagement. It was mentioned in one of the comments as I was catching up that we need to be clear and specific in our terms. I think that's 100% spot on. What do we then do when it's asserted that we are arguing semantics or picking nits? To me, another sign just to bow out. I don't always get it right and get sucked in more than I'd like, but I'm getting better at it.

It’s really important to define terms. That was me talking about it. There are so many ambiguities in common parlance that you really need to be on the same page with the person you are having the discussion with.

It can get down to a semantics game at times. That is frustrating.

Interesting that you brought up ignoring or walking away. That is something I think most people get better at with experience and age, but damn if I have figured it out. Did you read the second post (I know that they’re long walls of text) with Schopenhauer talking about just that? He was almost a bit poetic in his outlook, which wasn’t too generous.

As far as here at FBG goes, I’m finding it everywhere. It’s become the new way to argue. It’s so passive-aggressive and I’m just not a fan. I was never a big fan of people that use the loaded question fallacy to make you look bad. This tactic is close to that. It is very close to that and it has the effect of leaving you with a choice that is totally contingent on the insight and temperament of your audience, or onlookers, if you prefer that term. Not very sporting in my book.

You mean the statements like "I really disagree with how Israel is handling situation X" being translated into "So, you're antisemitic?" I was coming into this site when the PSF was on its last leg. I saw that stuff all the time there and now it’s creeping into the FFA.

Ah, welp. I can’t help an anti-Semite. Have a good one!

No, I guess sorry about that. The Israel issue is fraught with a lot of emotion and some strong feelings. That might be one where Schopenhauer’s advice is sound.

"The only safe rule, therefore, is . . . not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him."

Peace and have a good one.

Right. It's one of many of examples that continue around here. Just not worth engaging.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe, hello. I feel like I should say something to everybody and for everybody, really. This is supposed to address an entire societal increase in stuff like this and it is not a "here" thing. It might have grown from here, but I'm looking to depersonalize and defuse it here. I'm thinking more broadly. Like anywhere you go you might find this tactic. It is happening everywhere and more and more. This isn't an FBG thing

It’s pretty prevalent here. It’s almost a sliding scale with anonymity. The more anonymity we have, the more it happens. The question is, how do we address it? For me, I'm just inclined to ignore it and not respond to it. At least here, it's rather obvious when it’s happening and pretty consistent with several of the posters. It’s just not worth engagement. It was mentioned in one of the comments as I was catching up that we need to be clear and specific in our terms. I think that's 100% spot on. What do we then do when it's asserted that we are arguing semantics or picking nits? To me, another sign just to bow out. I don't always get it right and get sucked in more than I'd like, but I'm getting better at it.

It’s really important to define terms. That was me talking about it. There are so many ambiguities in common parlance that you really need to be on the same page with the person you are having the discussion with.

It can get down to a semantics game at times. That is frustrating.

Interesting that you brought up ignoring or walking away. That is something I think most people get better at with experience and age, but damn if I have figured it out. Did you read the second post (I know that they’re long walls of text) with Schopenhauer talking about just that? He was almost a bit poetic in his outlook, which wasn’t too generous.

As far as here at FBG goes, I’m finding it everywhere. It’s become the new way to argue. It’s so passive-aggressive and I’m just not a fan. I was never a big fan of people that use the loaded question fallacy to make you look bad. This tactic is close to that. It is very close to that and it has the effect of leaving you with a choice that is totally contingent on the insight and temperament of your audience, or onlookers, if you prefer that term. Not very sporting in my book.

You mean the statements like "I really disagree with how Israel is handling situation X" being translated into "So, you're antisemitic?" I was coming into this site when the PSF was on its last leg. I saw that stuff all the time there and now it’s creeping into the FFA.

Ah, welp. I can’t help an anti-Semite. Have a good one!

No, I guess sorry about that. The Israel issue is fraught with a lot of emotion and some strong feelings. That might be one where Schopenhauer’s advice is sound.

"The only safe rule, therefore, is . . . not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him."

Peace and have a good one.

Right. It's one of many of examples that continue around here. Just not worth engaging.

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

Beav: so when I tell some real jerk that his mother swims after troop ships ...it says a lot more about me than it does him?

Wally: well, pretty much beav.

 

[rockaction]

Beav: so when I tell some real jerk that his mother swims after troop ships ...it says a lot more about me than it does him?

Wally: well, pretty much beav.

I have no idea which emoji to pick for that one but I'm grinning ear to ear like Mike Tyson in an ear factory.

eta* changed the emoji. that's some wisdom there. but our modern world unfortunately rarely sees it that way. then again, i'm very modern, so . . .

 

[rockaction]

This one’s a doozy. The “it doesn’t matter” or “why do you care?” tactic is totally eviscerated in this article.

“No, most people, especially in the media, said some version of “they’re just college kids, it’s just crazy places like Yale, it doesn’t matter, why do you care?” Again and again and again, the arguments that defined the progressive consensus were arguments to irrelevancy. It wasn’t so much that I was wrong, it was more that I was focusing on the wrong thing, and also old man yells at cloud, and also it’s a little weird that you care about college kids so much, isn’t it Freddie? Not a good look! Such were the tactics of the time. Few people were saying that it was good when, say, students at an elite college tried to shutter the campus newspaper because they published a conservative editorial. Instead they were saying that it just didn’t matter.

Whoops!

You know what happened next. By 2020, the concepts, vocabulary, rhetorical strategies, and social norms that dictated campus politics had spread from the campuses and into the media, the nonprofit sector, certain aspects of government, and the front-facing parts of many corporations. The activist discourse so recently dismissed as irrelevant had become the basic terms under which politics were debated. Plenty of people rejected those politics, as the basic nature of partisanship and culture war hadn’t evaporated. But the language that was used to discuss politics, the topics of interest within politics, certain assumptions about what constitutes the core disagreements of politics, the purpose and goals of political organizing and elections, the scope of change that would be necessary to achieve real progress - all of these had changed radically over the course of the prior decade, and it was under those terms that the various sides debated. You might have been the kind of person to mock the way that “white supremacy” had replaced “racism” in our culture. But you had an opinion on that question because that was a change that had legitimately happened in our culture.

“Yet as someone who’s done this for 15-plus years now, I more and more often find it impossible to escape hand-waving complaints that a given argument of mine might be right, but isn’t worth arguing and doesn’t matter. ‘You’re not wrong, but this isn’t really worth talking about, is it?’ It’s a maddening tic, one that poisons conversations and makes critical analysis of the world we live in impossible. It also makes you look very, very weak, like you can’t actually argue the merits of anything and so are trying to simply sidestep the argument part. But that’s the whole game, isn’t it?”

You Can't Just Say "Oh, That Doesn't Matter" About Every Single Political Question

is it really irrelevant, or would you rather just avoid talking about it?

freddiedeboer.substack.com