[...another day, another pointless post]

[reenka]

In my increasing habit of asking rhetorical questions so I don't have to think too hard: what is it when even when 'you' see an argument you disagree with in fannish circles (see example in the community for ms_manna's Administration series), what bothers 'you' isn't the faulty argument assumptions but rather the form of argument? (...and NO, it's not that it's impolite :P haha)
    No, what really gets up my collar is things like projection, over-simplification, people who simply don't -read- the other person's comments closely enough, and various other forms of 'conversational terrorism'. It gets to the point where even when I basically agree with a person, I have to fight the urge to go, OKAY, BUT YOU'RE OVER-SIMPLIFYING AND EXAGGERATING FOR YOUR OWN ENDS, DUDE!! :O!!1 STOP THAT, STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!! (...this is what happens when one's mum is a rationalist conversational Nazi, man... one gets a bit... sensitive. -.- Okay, so most of the time I don't really care or take it seriously, but it builds up, okay. Plus it's worse when I actually otherwise respect the other person's opinion. -.-;)


This also came up more forcefully when I came across a mention of Dan Simmons' (a sf writer I'd never read) old column on this blog listing/discussing writers people had given up on & the reasons why. Anyway, the essay in question was provocative, to say the least-- y'know, current politics, the 'Muslim menace', wacky time-travel metaphors/quasi-fiction, etc-- but what I myself found more interesting was Simmons' follow up essay where he responded to people's wild & ranty responses in quite a reasonable tone. And okay, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with him-- I'm just saying that I can really empathize with the frustration of people overreacting and reacting to the wrong things & just jumping to conclusions rather than engaging in a real dialogue, though I must say if he realistically wanted dialogue he should've chosen a less inflammatory method to say what he wanted.
    (Still... much as I basically blame him for his own mess, I still -wish- people at least -sometimes- bothered to wonder what the writer's intent was, I mean, seriously, not in the service of their bias.... And in that sense, I categorically disagree with people who disagree too categorically with ideas or essays I otherwise don't... uh, agree with. Because they don't think openly, out-of-the-box enough and just regurgitate already-stated ideas again and again.)

On the one hand, people seem to react more-- to respond more immediately, to care about the subject more intensely-- if you say things in a way that can be seen as inflammatory or controversial, so in that sense I can why people would use flawed/over-simplified rhetoric. On the other hand, being cutesy or melodramatic or even just overly categorical seriously cripples your actual message-- if you care about that sort of thing. If you say things as if they're patently obvious and it's oh-so-amusing-- sure, you'll get people to give you a high-five & agree and others to grumble and rant-- but what's the point, besides fleeting self-satisfaction? So you've now convinced yourself and some non-discriminating or easily influenced flunkies, so what?? :P (If I respect the person's intelligence, again, this seems more frustrating than if I don't.)

Sure, rhetoric gives you an audience, but why is audience so important that so many otherwise intelligent people sacrifice their message for it??? UGH.
~~

In other news, I still think Blair is hot :D

Comments

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

i agree.

i think that's where the "don't be on my side' thing comes from. It's utterly frustrating to see poor arguments, even if they support your point!!!

(And i've stopped trying to discuss Administration in that group, b/c for a story by an author who's as hanfdsoff s they come, people are striving for authorial intent a wee bit too much!!!)

and no, Torreth is many things, but adorable is really not one of them!!!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hahah I could almost see where he was coming from (in -his- mind) with the 'adorable' thing, even though I disagree, but what annoys me is that he wouldn't give me the same courtesy, y'know? Or like, anyone else, either :/ I can see if you totally chose to see Toreth as pathetic and weren't afraid of him (likely 'cause he's "just a character" and you weren't in danger), you could say his cluelessness about emotions and yet denial about his need/obsessiveness with Warrick is 'adorable' the way a little panther knocking its head against the wall could be called 'adorable' by cruel people, y'know? I dunno if I'm explaining it well :>

But yeah, I dipped into that comm rather randomly, and was shocked by how many people took the complete opposite tack to the 'adorable Toreth' and yet managed to be so extremist and just as difficult to agree with. All that stuff about Toreth killing Warrick... I mean, so he might, but seeing it as 'the point' or the thing you care to think most about just... escapes me. Ahh, my kingdom for a balanced argument -.-

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Here I wanted to answer your post, but had to read all the links, and now my mind's off on fifty different directions.:-) But in general, ITA. And with cathexy's "stop being on my side" argument. That sort of thing always reminds you that there isn't usually a side, just a spectrum of things people believe. You might wind up more like another person without having a lot in common with them, and disagreeing on a lot of other things. But to people on the other end of the spectrum they don't see those differences as much.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oooh, I really like the spectrum idea! It sounds true, yes. People's opinions are on a three-dimensional model rather than a simple scale, with scattered or clustered possibly correlating points :> heh. Oh, I feel math-geeky, of all things :>

And! I'm curious what you thought of the Simmons links, now that you say you've read them!! :D

[dmwmd.livejournal.com]

Hi, lunacy,

Excuse me for dropping in on your lj here--I just wanted to say I was pleased with our last exchange (I don't like to argue, either), thanks for being patient, and to say I think you're pretty damn cool. :-) Hadn't run into you before on lj and am glad I have. Sorry, it looks like I contributed to your off-pissedness with our exchange. Please accept my sincere apology. I think I get where you're coming from, and it's an okay place with me.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hi! :D

Ahh, now I'm embarrassed, ahaah. I really wasn't having any problem with our discussion in particular except the feeling that we're talking about different things/past each other, which isn't really anyone's fault, generally (if you don't know each other, anyway). I wasn't that pissed either, really, just sort of frustrated in an overall 'why do people ALL SUCK' sort of way that overcomes me at times :>

You don't need to apologize! Besides, I am also pleased that I somehow managed to clarify myself eventually, and thank you for being patient as well (because I know I'm not the most clear person at the best of times, heh).

~reena

[dmwmd.livejournal.com]

Oh, hey, please don't feel embarrassed. It's all right to have to talk a bit and get a feel for what the other person's saying, especially, as you say, when you don't know each other. I thought you were very kind and I really like that. Feel better, hon! Hope to see you again on lj.