For all the pseudointellectuals out there

Post Reply New Topic

This.


Saying "ad hominem" when the person(s) you're debating calls you stupid. You can easily point out that someone is ignorant, but commenting on someones intelligence("pointing out that you are in fact stupid") does not make you correct nor does it make your argument valid. Only DUMB people think that calling someone stupid in a debate makes you right!

Cracked dot com is one of the most pathetically unfunny humor webzines in existence. They try to be witty, but in fact they come across as really stupid and flippant.

The article struck a nerve, then?

Causeries are not supposed to be something like The Simpsons, where you laugh your ass off, but are intended as opinion pieces that use exaggerations and a slight riddicule to convey a point.

There are plenty of pseudointellectuals on any political board who will gladly misuse quotes from both Kafka, Nietzsche, and Marx. Lilewise, many college know-it-all hippies often force themselves to listen to jazz and pretend they like it.

Thank You

They also come across as douchebaggy.
I get all the laughs I need from YouTube, ytmnd and r/funny.

Many of the problems I encounter in discussions I deeply care about more mostly matters of ignorance that can be cured with open minds and information.

If I ever cross paths with someone that I come to think is stupid, I won't call them that. Even if I start to slip, I just do a quick facepalm and remind myself to use the word "misinformed" in place of "stupid."

I also learned living out in the trailer park the last few years how to avoid racist statements when I realized certain things I heard were actually code words. The thing is, I don't use racial/ethnic slurs and prefer not to attribute things to race; and if my mom caught me talking like that I'd be up for a beating when I got home. "Ign'r'nt people" (you don't get the full force of it without the distinct dialect) is just another word for "n!@#$%." Being the literal person I am, though, I like the term as a catchall for stupid people in general without relating the term to racial issues. And I try to even avoid describing people as being stupid. I prefer the term "acting stupid" because it puts the focus not on the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the person, but on the actions themselves. Even my kids know it's bad to call someone stupid, so if I tell one of them they're acting stupid, they say "That's a bad word," to which I reply, "OK, so stop acting like that!" They get the message.

I prefer the term "misinformed" because, again, it takes the focus away from the intelligence of the target and places it on just how knowledgable the target is about the topic. If a person's position changes slightly with good information, then great. I think too often, though, people generally despise being wrong about things. Admitting to being "misinformed" appears to be extremely difficult for many.

Nope. It's just rather stupid. They are awesomely bad at satire and parodies.





Nor does it invalidate your opponents argument.

The problem is the "fallacy" status of an argument can be in the eye of the beholder. Whether a satirical "reductio as absurdum" type of argument is seen as humorous commentary, exaggerated but containing more than a grain of truth, or a 100% fallacious straw man attack depends on the ideological identification of the reader. Just read the infamous "you know you're a <insert insulting ideological slur> when ....." threads. I don't interpret that kind of thing as serious "logical" debate anyways but a lot of people here seem to misinterpret it as such.

I know a Kafkaesque thing when I see it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That's not really true, though. A straw man is a fallacy no matter which side of the table you're on.

For example, I'm against abortion. Suppose someone were to approach me and say, "I think women should have the right to do what they want with their bodies and it's nobody's business to tell them otherwise."

And say I replied with, "So, you're saying it's ok to murder babies?" My counterargument has nothing to do with the first argument that women should have the right to choose.

Similarly, suppose I said, "I think we should protect the rights of the unborn."

And suppose a woman responded with, "So, you think men have the right to subjugate women and force them to have babies against their will." Protecting the unborn does not have oppressing women as its main focus. It's the same thing. In both cases, rather than delineating what human rights actually are (no one really has the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies), and resolving the issue of when to define human life as being a person, the opponent deflects the argument into territory he or she will find easier to debate and win.

What I tend to see the most of are straw man arguments used more as rhetorical devices to unsettle the person making the initial claim. And I don't mind saying that falling for straw man argumentation is amateurish. Deliberately misrepresenting someone's position is dishonest. If this happens to you, you should call the person out on it rather than take the bait.

I mean, it doesn't matter where you are ideologically. If your claims are misrepresented to make it easier for an opponent to win an argument, then very little if anything is logically connected to the initial argument. It's possible to have a rational discussion in favor of or against abortion, gay marriage, Christianity, atheism, Republicans, whatever... Straw-manning is a suspension of logic, and nobody likes a cheater.

Most of its articles are nice.

True, you can tell a bit about someone by how they come at you, and yeah, there is a line that WILL cause me to simply ignore the person or even PM a mod if insulting people is literally all that poster does, but most people that use personal attacks fall into the "occasional interesting posts/perspective marred by prickly personality" category, and it's those people that I usually will actually engage with. There are completely unreasonable people that I will engage with if it allows me to explore a position that interests me or really pound a point home, but I do try and steer clear of certain types of ideologues and demi-trolls, of which we have a few here. Rage posters are ones that I sometimes have trouble with, as their "venting" behavior is often offensive to me and triggers my reflexive rebuke, but I'd have been better off ignoring them as their posts tend to be more damaging to them than anything I could add.



No need to respond emotionally, just note the insult and make a cutting remark about the level of debate the insulter is operating at, especially if it's one of those stupid political portmanteaus like "liberal" or "repugnican". A simple "clever" is often enough to get the point across, or "how long did it take you to put that one together?" if you're feeling a bit wordy. Incredulousness works too, "really?", "seriously?", or depending upon the insulting party, "how old are you?" all can be very effective at reflecting an insult back to it's source. Also, I'm completely uninterested in "winning" arguments, posting solely for my own enjoyment and mental stimulation, so that element isn't particularly relevant to me.



When I use the term condescension in this context, what I'm really referring to is verbal judo; using the energy and momentum of the person making the personal attack against them to make them look ignorant/immature/douchey for having made the attack; i.e. hanging them with their own rope. My purpose in doing so is usually two fold, punishment and deterrence, with a bit of my own competitive nature thrown in. I try and make it very clear that my participation in PPR carries no agenda beyond my own enjoyment, and to be completely honest I enjoy a bit of verbal combat, and I dare say I'm pretty good at it too. That being said, I try and respect a certain non-initiation of force principle, with the occasional exception for truly reprehensible statements and the like, and even in those cases I tend to let the other person's own words do the real damage. There's no skill involved in simply calling someone an a**hole or stupid or grossly uninformed, while using their own words to demonstrate exactly that while never actually having to say the words themselves is much more gratifying.