Frequenting various forums and social networking sites I’m always amazed at the manner in which a statement can start a debate, and, in turn, an argument. With many of these venues related to discussion of the paranormal, I’ve come to expect a certain amount of snarky exchanges that descend into insults. Curiously though, this Texan sharp-shooter has been watching a trend pass from these often irrational discussions into the ‘skeptical community’. It grinds gears and my recently healed forehead is already sporting a new, corner of the table shaped gash.
So, what the hell am I talking about?
The person who is making a valid point and, in the heat of the moment, accompanies it with an insult. More sensitive than the abscess on my gum, the second party in the discussion throws their hands up and argues the other has used an insult, ergo, their point is invalid.
You, sir, are a vein examining monopod. Or am I lapsing into racism?
Maybe it’s my 27 year existence on the hill side of a Cotswold town, but this reasoning strikes me as pretty dumb. Regardless of whether I’ve called you a fish head, goat sucker, politically correct faux-left Guardian reading right winger (that always upsets) or similar, it doesn’t automatically invalidate my argument. As Ash Pryce and Keir Liddle of some foreign skeptical group noted, some people may not want to listen to anyone who uses insults.
But that misses the point somewhat.
Regardless of what I or anyone else has called you, two apples added to three bananas make five pieces of fruit.
And calling you King Cnut doesn’t change that.
11 Comments
I think part of the issue is that someone receiving an intelligent argument accompanied by an insult is going to wonder why the insult was necessary at all. It is easy to focus on the insult because it would seem so out of place alongside a valid point.
Yes, but that’s missing the point.
I see you’re point. However, if you have a valid point then it’s not necessary to begin to insult someone. Not only is it not going to help YOU win the debate, but it’ll make it harder for anyone else in the future to win that same debate with that person. It’s pretty irrational, but you have to acknowledge that people get pretty defensive when you insult them and will feel a connection with the feeling of being insulted and the topic that’s being debated on.
Good article!
Perhaps I should explain the context of the article – I’ve seen a few people who are skeptics get in debates with one another. It gets quite heated and insults get thrown both ways. X makes their point correctly, but Y dismisses it because an insult has been made at the same time (or previously).
I think your point is clear, Trystan. An argument cannot be labelled “incorrect” even if it is made in a heated debate where insults are flung.
Those claiming the moral high ground on this are equally guilty of resorting to unnecessary language and personal attacks.
There is very little reason to resort to insults when you have a valid point.
To be honest you sound like those members of FTB who accuse people of “tone-trolling”.
http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1007/mrt-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1279120782.jpg
Hey Cunt face. The problem is, you just can’t take abusive people seriously, just like I don’t take you seriously you stupid fuck. The other fucking problem, you dribbly little shitstain, is that people tend to fucking exaggerate whilst insulting you, and exaggeration is technically incorrect – technically might not matter to a stupid motherfucker like you, but it matters to reality you batshit cosmonaut – so when you say things like
“I think you’re wrong because insults, regardless of their actual logical lack of connection to the meat of the argument in reality and in practice STILL get in the way of the argument – because people can’t – and don’t look past the insult, and ALWAYS focus on ANY “technical inaccuracy” IN YOUR WHOLE POST without fileting out what *you* consider your “argument”"
and follow it up with
“You brainless spineless piece of shit. This kind of absolutist shit is just par for the course with your kind of people. You crawl in here, vomiting it up like your opinion is worth something, but you’re an idjit, a dirty stupid shit-for-brains bigoted idiot”
Then you will find that *regardless of how technically accurate your separate argument is* people will respond to your insults, and consider **you** the stupid one if your insults are off base, and *regardless of whether they should or not* they will not focus on your pure arguments like you want them to. It’s therefore not rational to include insults in your argument, if you want to be listened to. You stupid cunt.
(See how much you want to agree with me, see how rational I sound… …even though I carefully seperated any ‘argument’ from the pointless ‘insult’?)
Hey, p.s. because it’s NOT obvious, since you don’t know me, I don’t have anything against you, nor mean any of those insults above. But it demonstrates, to me at least, how unnecessary, unpleasant, and counter-productive using insults actually is.
It’s *technically true* that an *unrelated* insult can never affect the absolute truth of a statement – but it is absolutely true that the inclusion of insults affects where people think you are coming from, what they think you mean, and how they will react to what you are saying. So it kind of seems to me a bit like saying “Punches in the face don’t affect the logical truth of my argument” – Yes! But that’s trivially true and not exactly relevant – they’re bad for their own reasons and *do affect* how people receive your arguments regardless.
p.p.s if you’re just saying “separate insults do not affect the truth of statements” that’s trivially true and pretty much no-one disagrees, if you’re saying “and therefore you can’t say ‘you were rude, you are wrong’” then I think even more people will agree but if you’re going as far as “and they should be acceptable and ignored during an argument so that we can get to the meat of the disagreement” then some people will agree (though very few manage to ignore the insults when they’re on the receiving end); a LOT of people will say “Only when we’re safe in the majority like at FTB, otherwise you’re bullying us and that’s not acceptable”; others will say “I disagree, this is a question of culture and my opinion is different because [...]” and finally a few will say, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, but you’re fucking wrong about what’s good for the goose, you stupid cretin, I wonder if I can humiliate you out of your jejune attitude, or whether the only cure is life experience and being on the receiving end of abuse peppered with arguments and realising it’s really shit. Like as shit as the shit you have for brains”
“But that’s trivially true and not exactly relevant” – of course it’s relevant. A statement is not nullified by an insult. It’s the path of logic. I’ve been wrong about something and been on the end of some quite harsh abuse from the individual who was right. But right they still were.
That said, I understand the point you are making. Maybe it’s me – I’ve been called so many things in the past that I can sift through the rubbish.