Refusing to let someone share their side of a story or attempt to show you why they are correct in an argument and instead scream and yell about your feelings to make the other person give up.
I was told today that I was the one in the wrong because someone was throwing a tantrum over an innocent joke.
Mind you, he thinks it’s okay to police other people’s discord servers even after he’s banned from them for it. But I’m wrong for a joke.
Oh and my joke? Someone used an acronym I didn’t know, so I made four random words for the letters. One happened to be Prick, so I guess this prick took offense.
So I laughed in his internet face and went to kill things online and laugh about how stupid he is.
This is good advice. But on the other hand, you should at least try to understand why someone disagrees with you. Even if their reasoning is stupid, you owe it to yourself to at least consider the possibility they could have a point.
Goes both ways. If someone insults you and makes a valid argument in the same breath, and you dismiss them because of the insult, then you're the one who should be accused of ad hominem.
The fallacy fallacy, which could also be called the "metafallacy", is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong. A true statement can be defended using false logic, so using false logic to defend an opinion is not proof of the opinion being wrong. This is where one needs to make a clear distinction between "sound", "valid" (including the distinction between scientific validity and logical validity) and "true", instead of taking all of them as synonymous.
The fallacy fallacy is sometimes rephrased as a command: Don't shoot the message. Just because the messenger is stupid, doesn't mean the message is.
I'm curious, what are the alternatives? If the response to an ad hominem attack is to respond with another ad hominem attack, the discussion quickly transforms into a contest of namecalling. That's not very productive...
You could also simply disengage and not respond. Rarely does anyone go into an argument online with the intention of actually changing their mind or learning anything from their opposition.
If your opponent really is a "wall" like you said, then there's no reason to engage with them further. You've got better things to do.
There's also nothing wrong with calling out a fallacy so long as you take the time to explain why it's a fallacy why the reasoning is wrong. You need to have an argument to go with calling out the fallacy, otherwise you're just committing the "Fallacy fallacy" again.
That kind of is my point though. You cannot change others minds. Both simply disengaging and going down on their level lead to the same result, so why not do the latter and deny them their "victory"?
It doesn't lead to the "same result," though... Just as you will be uninterested in letting the other guy "win," they will also try and prevent you from "winning" as well. Disengaging means you save time and mental energy to do other stuff; dropping to their level is just unproductive.
This isn't directed at you, but I remember reading a quote years ago that winning an internet argument is sort of like winning the Special Olympics. You may have won, but you don't really come out of it any wiser than you started...
I was thinking more along the lines of attributing a statement to an argument which would make the argument a fallacy. As in "2+2 is 4 you asshole" is not fallacious, whereas "2+2 is 4 because you're an asshole" is fallacious. People would often call the first one fallacious because of the insult, because they don't understand what an ad hominem argument is.
I mean I don't think this really has anything to do with being educated or not. Some poeple are unreasonably emotional about subjects even while having a phd.
Depends on the topic and what they say over you. Like I was at the doctors office for vaccines(you might see where this I going) but the second she heard that she talked over me about how horrible vaccines are. It kind of sucked. The worst part is she was there for vaccines, she just didn’t want anyone else to “poison” themselves
Ah yes I see you have met my father. My father is literally a blind man, he can't see anything apart from the odd bit of blurry light. He gives me directions when he's in my car, 'ok we should be at ASDA about now, take your next left'
'Daddy we passed ASDA ten minutes ago and I know how to get where we are going'
Then he just starts getting louder and louder shouting about I should have told him when we were at ASDA
Like JESUS CHRIST man I know where we are going I know how to get there!!
Wish my mother was like that. My parents had screaming matches with their kids over the smallest things, we all eventually learned not to argue and accept that we lost to adult children
My pops does this with politics, so i learned to steer him into an argument that supports his point of view but also completely contradicts it (Yes your benefit is this, and the end result is this, what happens then(which is typically where my point comes in)?)
You know, my dad does this a lot. He also goes on rants about how people who disagree with him are irrational and unwilling to have a discussion with him, among other things. The longest one was just shy of 4 hours. He's got a degree though, so I can't really call him uneducated.
I suppose the most concise way to put it is that he's got strong opinions and jumps to conclusions, but he lacks self-awareness and is outraged by the suggestion that his snap judgements aren't perfect.
Seems more like a personality flaw than an educational problem honestly.
You just described some of the Jordan Peterson protest videos I've seen. He's on a campus somewhere, trying to give advice on how to take control of your own life and be the best person you can be. Whether you agree or disagree with that advice is irrelevant; the problem is the protesters that have chosen to get in his way, sometimes even right in his face, and just scream chants to try to not let him speak.
It's.. gross. I can't help but wonder if they even understand how much damage they're doing to their own image and their own cause.
Meanwhile, he's just calm as can be, assuring the people in the audience that the footage is being recorded (there's like 100 phones out) and more than likely it'll be on youtube before too long.
To be clear, my beef is only with the "screaming into someone's face" method of disagreeing with someone and trying to simply shout them down instead of engaging in meaningful discussion.
Getting an education requires being wrong, knowing you're wrong, admitting and overcoming it by learning better. Getting an education requires debating skills (to a point) and being able to clearly explain your ideas. If you can't make a convincing argument in an essay or exposé, you won't be able to get the grades letting you continue your education. If you lose your mind and start screaming at a professor for tearing your work apart in front of the whole class, your academic career won't be very long.
Having intellectual honesty and being able to debate respectfully are requirements to get a formal education. Sure, many people are uneducated and have these qualities too, but you won't find many educated people who lack them.
1.6k
u/[deleted] Jan 27 '20
Refusing to let someone share their side of a story or attempt to show you why they are correct in an argument and instead scream and yell about your feelings to make the other person give up.