[...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

[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 -.-