[...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

[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