Arguement with a Libritarian Absolutist
June 3, 2010 9:54 AM Subscribe
I'm stuck in an arguement with a person who is a bit of an ass. Looking for ways of dealing with him that don't back down but don't end up being just as big an ass as he is.
So I'm part of this email group, started by a family friend, that involves sending quotes to people and those people responding back and getting a dialog going. For the most part this goes well except for a few people who take it way too personally, get too personal with their responses, and fail to fully read what others are saying.
One person particulary irks me with the way he responds to people and argues in general. I guess you'll have to take my word for it that he tends to act like an ass in his responses and does all of the above listed things. But I can sum up his argueing style as follows: (1) Proclaim what people who disagree with him believe in the most simplistic terms possible. (2) Easliy defeat his self-created straw man arugment and state what he believes. (3) When you disagree with him he states you are not well read enough on the subject (possibly included will be long links to his blog to get more informed) or just completely ignores or miscontstrues your arguement.
A few people have complained to me and the moderator about this and are close to giving up on the group all together so they no longer have to deal with him. The moderator's response was to ban the use of comparing people to Nazis or Hitler which just forced him to compare people to Stalin or Pol Pot.
What I want to do is come up with a way of responding to him that either gets him to stop acting this way or at least gets him to start responding to what people actually wrote and not what he thinks that they wrote.
I can't post examples of all of the above but enclosed is his most recent post that I would like to respond to. Prior to this XYZ posted something that was borderline racist related to the Arizona Immigration Law and ABC called him out on it and called for tollerance.
"I just wanted to respond briefly to the ABC, who was in turn responding to XYZ: it is funny how passionately everybody disagrees with, and to some extent, lambastes, those whose views are different from his own. XYZ expressed a simple moral premise: always do good, and always fight evil. ABC disagreed with his philosophy, preaching tolerance for those with other views, and in the process asserting the rightness of her view over his. As I have philosophized before, this argument defeats itself internally, and is baseless as a moral or ethical life-philosophy. To most liberals' demand that everybody practice tolerance all the time, I pose the question: what if I disagree? If you tolerate me, following your own philosophy, you recognize that other opinions are equally as relevant as yours, which begs the question, why follow your philosophy at all? If you demand that I conform to your rigid definition of tolerance, you are dictating to me an absolute that must be followed at all times, which certainly isn't a very tolerant position. Is not the contradiction hitting you upside the head?"
"Thus, the entire moral-relativist philosophy is neatly unwound. If you follow your own philosophy, you admit your philosophy is irrelevant, or at least equally-as-relevant as every other philosophy in existence.. If you seek to convince others of the rightness of your philosophy, you are violating your own philosophical axiom of tolerance for other philosophies, and again your philosophy unravels."
"If you do as XYZ does, and hold a personal - albeit imperfect - vision of right and wrong, then your philosophy is entirely rational, stating I am seeking to implement the right in the world, and though my vision of things is necessarily imperfect, it is all I have to go on. It follows quite naturally that right and good must destroy evil, lest evil destroy the good first. MLK, Gandhi, et. al.., were not practicing ABC's philosophy; on the contrary, they were fighting evil through the best means available to them, in this case nonviolent resistance. Malcolm X was fighting evil through more violent means. All were seeking to eliminate racial inequality in the law, a manifest evil."
Thanks for reading all that...if you got that far and any strategies for dealing with this without becoming just as big a bully as he is would be helpful. Also just in case your wondering the emails are public so I'm not posting anything that someone wouldn't expect to be posted.
So I'm part of this email group, started by a family friend, that involves sending quotes to people and those people responding back and getting a dialog going. For the most part this goes well except for a few people who take it way too personally, get too personal with their responses, and fail to fully read what others are saying.
One person particulary irks me with the way he responds to people and argues in general. I guess you'll have to take my word for it that he tends to act like an ass in his responses and does all of the above listed things. But I can sum up his argueing style as follows: (1) Proclaim what people who disagree with him believe in the most simplistic terms possible. (2) Easliy defeat his self-created straw man arugment and state what he believes. (3) When you disagree with him he states you are not well read enough on the subject (possibly included will be long links to his blog to get more informed) or just completely ignores or miscontstrues your arguement.
A few people have complained to me and the moderator about this and are close to giving up on the group all together so they no longer have to deal with him. The moderator's response was to ban the use of comparing people to Nazis or Hitler which just forced him to compare people to Stalin or Pol Pot.
What I want to do is come up with a way of responding to him that either gets him to stop acting this way or at least gets him to start responding to what people actually wrote and not what he thinks that they wrote.
I can't post examples of all of the above but enclosed is his most recent post that I would like to respond to. Prior to this XYZ posted something that was borderline racist related to the Arizona Immigration Law and ABC called him out on it and called for tollerance.
"I just wanted to respond briefly to the ABC, who was in turn responding to XYZ: it is funny how passionately everybody disagrees with, and to some extent, lambastes, those whose views are different from his own. XYZ expressed a simple moral premise: always do good, and always fight evil. ABC disagreed with his philosophy, preaching tolerance for those with other views, and in the process asserting the rightness of her view over his. As I have philosophized before, this argument defeats itself internally, and is baseless as a moral or ethical life-philosophy. To most liberals' demand that everybody practice tolerance all the time, I pose the question: what if I disagree? If you tolerate me, following your own philosophy, you recognize that other opinions are equally as relevant as yours, which begs the question, why follow your philosophy at all? If you demand that I conform to your rigid definition of tolerance, you are dictating to me an absolute that must be followed at all times, which certainly isn't a very tolerant position. Is not the contradiction hitting you upside the head?"
"Thus, the entire moral-relativist philosophy is neatly unwound. If you follow your own philosophy, you admit your philosophy is irrelevant, or at least equally-as-relevant as every other philosophy in existence.. If you seek to convince others of the rightness of your philosophy, you are violating your own philosophical axiom of tolerance for other philosophies, and again your philosophy unravels."
"If you do as XYZ does, and hold a personal - albeit imperfect - vision of right and wrong, then your philosophy is entirely rational, stating I am seeking to implement the right in the world, and though my vision of things is necessarily imperfect, it is all I have to go on. It follows quite naturally that right and good must destroy evil, lest evil destroy the good first. MLK, Gandhi, et. al.., were not practicing ABC's philosophy; on the contrary, they were fighting evil through the best means available to them, in this case nonviolent resistance. Malcolm X was fighting evil through more violent means. All were seeking to eliminate racial inequality in the law, a manifest evil."
Thanks for reading all that...if you got that far and any strategies for dealing with this without becoming just as big a bully as he is would be helpful. Also just in case your wondering the emails are public so I'm not posting anything that someone wouldn't expect to be posted.
Ignore him and inspire others to do the same.
He's a troll, don't feed the trolls.
posted by royalsong at 9:59 AM on June 3, 2010 [12 favorites]
He's a troll, don't feed the trolls.
posted by royalsong at 9:59 AM on June 3, 2010 [12 favorites]
Also, He also needs his comma key removed from his keyboard.
posted by royalsong at 10:01 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by royalsong at 10:01 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Oh man I know a guy like this. I don't think he'll ever see himself as the ass he is. People like this are just not able to view themselves and their opinions objectively. They are always right/pure/moral/just (and anyone who dares disagree is Hitler!!!! Stalin!!!!) Yeah, I wish I had something to tell you, but you just have to kind of shake your head and think "oh, that guy, there he goes again." Blowhards will be blowhards.
posted by troika at 10:06 AM on June 3, 2010
posted by troika at 10:06 AM on June 3, 2010
which begs the question
Crush his armor with the +20 axe of pedantry.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 10:07 AM on June 3, 2010 [8 favorites]
Crush his armor with the +20 axe of pedantry.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 10:07 AM on June 3, 2010 [8 favorites]
Email everyone on the list aside from the person and set up a code word to respond to his emails with. Make it childish and silly. Every time he replies, instead of arguing with him, post the code word. He feels left out and humiliated, and probably eventually stops trying to contribute to the group. He doesn't get the troll response he's looking for, which is having someone care about what he says (and libertarian + blogger + email list correspondent equates to someone ineffectual in real life who turns to the internet to get validation, at least in my experience), but he does get a reply that says no one in the group cares what he has to say. The moderator doesn't have to ban him, but he gets the picture all the same.
Even if you can't get the whole group to follow along, you get enough people where it seriously effects the discussions, and he still gets the picture.
posted by codacorolla at 10:07 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Even if you can't get the whole group to follow along, you get enough people where it seriously effects the discussions, and he still gets the picture.
posted by codacorolla at 10:07 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is the quote on my huge whiteboard above my desk - I don't know who said it, but it certainly fits this situation!
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience!"
It serves as a reminder to me at my job every day.
posted by maxg94 at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2010 [9 favorites]
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience!"
It serves as a reminder to me at my job every day.
posted by maxg94 at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2010 [9 favorites]
Pretty much very listserv and forum in existence has a "well, answer this, you liberals!" poster or two like this character. As others have said, there's not much you can do other than not encourage him/her by responding and arguing.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2010
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2010
It seems to me, atleast with this example, that you just don't agree with him. He's presenting a valid point that I don't agree with. But I understand what he is saying.
posted by lakerk at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by lakerk at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
It's not clear to me how many people are on this list, but wouldn't it be possible to let everyone know about the new list except this rather frustrating individual? It's maybe not the most honest way of dealing with him, but it'll probably do the trick, unless it's likely he'll find out about the new list and cause a stir.
By the way, while he's certainly uses some grating/annoying rhetoric, it seems like he's more or less just arguing his (stupid) point of view. Is there any particular reason you couldn't just respond, or ignore him?
Although, if as you say in other e-mails he goes the ad-hominem route what with the Nazi comparisons etc, then maybe dumping him is a good idea.
Here's how I would respond to that passage you posted:
"You are misunderstanding the nature of "tolerance". Practicing tolerance toward others of differing appearance, point of view, etc, means you strive to live peacefully with them despite their differences. It does NOT mean that you have to bizarrely "become" them, or regard them or their philosophies as "equivalent". It merely means that you should recognize their right to think as they please. If you must simplify the idea, here's a sound bite: 'Everyone should be free to do as they please, as long as their actions don't restrict others' liberty to do as they please.' Rather than 'good' and 'evil', a tolerant philosophy seeks a way of life in which no one is persecuted, and everyone is as free as possible. I think MLK wasn't really fighting evil, he was looking for a better, more tolerant way for everyone to live."
posted by Salvor Hardin at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2010 [2 favorites]
By the way, while he's certainly uses some grating/annoying rhetoric, it seems like he's more or less just arguing his (stupid) point of view. Is there any particular reason you couldn't just respond, or ignore him?
Although, if as you say in other e-mails he goes the ad-hominem route what with the Nazi comparisons etc, then maybe dumping him is a good idea.
Here's how I would respond to that passage you posted:
"You are misunderstanding the nature of "tolerance". Practicing tolerance toward others of differing appearance, point of view, etc, means you strive to live peacefully with them despite their differences. It does NOT mean that you have to bizarrely "become" them, or regard them or their philosophies as "equivalent". It merely means that you should recognize their right to think as they please. If you must simplify the idea, here's a sound bite: 'Everyone should be free to do as they please, as long as their actions don't restrict others' liberty to do as they please.' Rather than 'good' and 'evil', a tolerant philosophy seeks a way of life in which no one is persecuted, and everyone is as free as possible. I think MLK wasn't really fighting evil, he was looking for a better, more tolerant way for everyone to live."
posted by Salvor Hardin at 10:08 AM on June 3, 2010 [2 favorites]
If the moderator refuses to moderate the list, start a new list yourself and invite all of the people who are contributing productively.
posted by decathecting at 10:09 AM on June 3, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by decathecting at 10:09 AM on June 3, 2010 [2 favorites]
"you've really got this mastered!"
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/
posted by crawfo at 10:11 AM on June 3, 2010
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/
posted by crawfo at 10:11 AM on June 3, 2010
If you do want to fight this battle, I think the way I'd do it would be to craft a ridiculously dense philosophical argument, thick with allusions to foreign scholars and maybe some quotes from Aeschylus. It probably doesn't even need to make sense, to be honest. This would bury his argument in a way that (A) shows you're in on the joke of his self-styled persona as some kind of internet philosopher-king; (B) makes him feel stupid. I have done this sometimes with obnoxious political e-mails from extended family. I warn you that it will solve nothing, but is nevertheless satisfying.
However, the guy sounds like a pompous douchebag, and I agree with Bromius that there is no way to "win" against such a person. That sort of douchebaggery is like the Force: strike him down, and he will only become more powerful.
posted by cirripede at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2010 [3 favorites]
However, the guy sounds like a pompous douchebag, and I agree with Bromius that there is no way to "win" against such a person. That sort of douchebaggery is like the Force: strike him down, and he will only become more powerful.
posted by cirripede at 10:12 AM on June 3, 2010 [3 favorites]
I'm stuck in an arguement with a person who is a bit of an ass.
You're stuck because you feel the need to not only respond to him but defeat him in some way. So you're expending all this energy to prove an ass wrong. You're setting the bar pretty low for your self.
I'd recommend pouring yourself a Long Island Ice Tea and taking a sip of it each time he annoys you. Living well is the best revenge.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:14 AM on June 3, 2010 [10 favorites]
You're stuck because you feel the need to not only respond to him but defeat him in some way. So you're expending all this energy to prove an ass wrong. You're setting the bar pretty low for your self.
I'd recommend pouring yourself a Long Island Ice Tea and taking a sip of it each time he annoys you. Living well is the best revenge.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:14 AM on June 3, 2010 [10 favorites]
Well, the first best option is to email him and tell him that his participation is unhealthy for the community and he's being removed from the list.
The second best option is not to respond, as Royalsong said. He's a gas bag. They need responses. You don't type out a screed like he did without needing validation; all you can do is withhold it.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 10:16 AM on June 3, 2010
The second best option is not to respond, as Royalsong said. He's a gas bag. They need responses. You don't type out a screed like he did without needing validation; all you can do is withhold it.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 10:16 AM on June 3, 2010
What I want to do is come up with a way of responding to him that either gets him to stop acting this way or at least gets him to start responding to what people actually wrote and not what he thinks that they wrote.
In my experience, there is no way to do this, particularly the latter. Anything you post will get the same treatment as the things he's already responding to. There are only two effective ways to deal with this kind of behavior on a mailing list:
1. From the moderators' perspective: strong moderation, private "knock it off" conversations, eventual kicking off the list if the person doesn't change behavior.
2. From the other list-members' perspective: do not engage. Kill-file e-mails from this person.
posted by not that girl at 10:16 AM on June 3, 2010
In my experience, there is no way to do this, particularly the latter. Anything you post will get the same treatment as the things he's already responding to. There are only two effective ways to deal with this kind of behavior on a mailing list:
1. From the moderators' perspective: strong moderation, private "knock it off" conversations, eventual kicking off the list if the person doesn't change behavior.
2. From the other list-members' perspective: do not engage. Kill-file e-mails from this person.
posted by not that girl at 10:16 AM on June 3, 2010
I agree that there is no reasoning with people like this. They have a rebuttal for everything and it will be like bouncing a ball against a wall: it will always come back to you, incessantly, until you decide to stop bouncing the ball against the wall.
In this case I have to agree with a) starting a new list, or b) hellban. If you can get everyone else in the group to block his email, for example, he'll be railing into a black hole. I mean, you could just ignore him and not feed the troll, but that is hard to do when you can still see his messages and they still have the ability to rile you up.
posted by DrGirlfriend at 10:18 AM on June 3, 2010
In this case I have to agree with a) starting a new list, or b) hellban. If you can get everyone else in the group to block his email, for example, he'll be railing into a black hole. I mean, you could just ignore him and not feed the troll, but that is hard to do when you can still see his messages and they still have the ability to rile you up.
posted by DrGirlfriend at 10:18 AM on June 3, 2010
Man, I feel your pain. My fingers were twitching, just aching to argue with this guy. He pushes your buttons and is so damn smug about it. The problem, of course, is that there is no argument that will penetrate his self-consistent smug zone.
You have to just ignore him. He doesn't seem to be vicious or nasty, just irritating, and really the ones who are irritated are the ones with the problem and the only ones who can solve it. Don't let him push your buttons. Just visualize him as a 15-year-old who read Atlas Shrugged and thinks he understands everything. He may have a need to be right that is connected to all kinds of insecurities and you should respond to this with kindness, not anger, if you respond at all.
posted by PercussivePaul at 10:20 AM on June 3, 2010
You have to just ignore him. He doesn't seem to be vicious or nasty, just irritating, and really the ones who are irritated are the ones with the problem and the only ones who can solve it. Don't let him push your buttons. Just visualize him as a 15-year-old who read Atlas Shrugged and thinks he understands everything. He may have a need to be right that is connected to all kinds of insecurities and you should respond to this with kindness, not anger, if you respond at all.
posted by PercussivePaul at 10:20 AM on June 3, 2010
Nothing new in pointing out that tolerant people (like myself) can run into systematic problems when they are driven into defending their position. His comment may be wordy, but not deep at all.
Two obvious flaws in his reasoning
1) above statement doesn't make tolerance "rigid". It just means that tolerance is a difficult thing to maintain when certain emotions kick in (It says, by the way, nothing whether or not it is worthwhile trying to maintain it nevertheless).
2) if you merely seek to convince others that tolerance is worth living for, there is no such principal problem at all. If you would instead try to beat down people with your arguments under the banner of some higher-value true tolerance, that would be a different matter.
But all this is entirely beside the point. You cannot change people, especially not the smarter-than-thou kind. You've nothing to loose not trying.
posted by Namlit at 10:22 AM on June 3, 2010
Two obvious flaws in his reasoning
1) above statement doesn't make tolerance "rigid". It just means that tolerance is a difficult thing to maintain when certain emotions kick in (It says, by the way, nothing whether or not it is worthwhile trying to maintain it nevertheless).
2) if you merely seek to convince others that tolerance is worth living for, there is no such principal problem at all. If you would instead try to beat down people with your arguments under the banner of some higher-value true tolerance, that would be a different matter.
But all this is entirely beside the point. You cannot change people, especially not the smarter-than-thou kind. You've nothing to loose not trying.
posted by Namlit at 10:22 AM on June 3, 2010
Just ignore him. If you can, pm everyone who gets embroiled in an argument with him and does not appear to be enjoying it to do the same. Explain to everyone you know in real life what your plan is.
On the "tolerance" issue - the way I read this example was that this guy may be misrepresenting both what XYZ and ABC actually said, which would be more annoying than the long-winded quasi-philosophical "argument" itself.
posted by wending my way at 10:32 AM on June 3, 2010
On the "tolerance" issue - the way I read this example was that this guy may be misrepresenting both what XYZ and ABC actually said, which would be more annoying than the long-winded quasi-philosophical "argument" itself.
posted by wending my way at 10:32 AM on June 3, 2010
So, basically Idealogue + Tireless Rebutter. Man, I love the Flame Warriors illustrations. Classic.
What I do with jerks is to set my email program to filter their emails so that the label "bozo" appears next to threads on which they contribute. It's very comforting.
I don't think there's a way to rebut a jerk like this in a way that changes their mind. All you can do is reply point by point and point out all the fallacies and straw men and all the rest of their bozosity.
posted by artlung at 10:35 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
What I do with jerks is to set my email program to filter their emails so that the label "bozo" appears next to threads on which they contribute. It's very comforting.
I don't think there's a way to rebut a jerk like this in a way that changes their mind. All you can do is reply point by point and point out all the fallacies and straw men and all the rest of their bozosity.
posted by artlung at 10:35 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
These types are a dime a dozen on the Internet. He's troubled and odd -- and you're not his therapist. Just ignore him. If he keeps it up, pick another activity to get involved with. Or set up a bulletin board, invite everyone else and deny him access.
posted by teedee2000 at 10:36 AM on June 3, 2010
posted by teedee2000 at 10:36 AM on June 3, 2010
Why are you on a group that is focused on debates if you don't want to get into debates? From the example you give, the guy is presenting his case pretty fairly. Now it's your turn to explain exactly what tolerance means to you and why his example is a misunderstanding.
I do agree with many other posters that it's unlikely to result in anyone changing their mind, at least not at this time. But that is just how debates go - you are often going to get people who just reinforce each other's world view, or people who just reject each other's world view.
However, in my experience, occasionally these kinds of arguments will have an impact on a person's thought process even years down the line, so it can sometimes be worth going through the nitty-gritty even if the ideas don't really seep through until much later...
posted by mdn at 10:40 AM on June 3, 2010 [2 favorites]
I do agree with many other posters that it's unlikely to result in anyone changing their mind, at least not at this time. But that is just how debates go - you are often going to get people who just reinforce each other's world view, or people who just reject each other's world view.
However, in my experience, occasionally these kinds of arguments will have an impact on a person's thought process even years down the line, so it can sometimes be worth going through the nitty-gritty even if the ideas don't really seep through until much later...
posted by mdn at 10:40 AM on June 3, 2010 [2 favorites]
Just start a new email loop or group or whatever and don't invite him. Have all his email sent to trash. Problem solved.
posted by crankylex at 10:47 AM on June 3, 2010
posted by crankylex at 10:47 AM on June 3, 2010
I'd just ask him what he wants to get out of the discussion. A useful debate requires that both parties are actually listening to one another and willing to entertain alternative ideas in an honest way. It doesn't seem like he is interested an actual philosophical debate with the other members, just how his (inaccurate) interpretation of other people's positions validates his absolutist worldview. No one is interested in hearing him self-validate, this is all about a give and take and the quality of the ideas in the discussion, etc.
If he doesn't respond well to that, then kick him out or leave yourself. Some people don't really get the difference between an argument and a discussion, and just want to be right all the time. Conversation is wasted in those cases.
posted by _cave at 10:50 AM on June 3, 2010
If he doesn't respond well to that, then kick him out or leave yourself. Some people don't really get the difference between an argument and a discussion, and just want to be right all the time. Conversation is wasted in those cases.
posted by _cave at 10:50 AM on June 3, 2010
Isn't this the purpose of these kinds of lists? The guy sounds a little difficult to deal with, but maybe you can learn something from his dialogues. Isn't this the meaning of tolerance also? to at least listen to the opposing viewpoint and decide on its validity? The biggest problem with what he posted, at least to me, is that he is anticipating your responses and responding to that, not actually responding to you. Point this out to him, answer just the first assertion he made and ignore the rest (and pointedly tell him what you are doing) and then argue with him point by point. This is the nature of political discourse, there is no absolute in much of this (unlike arguing about the speed of light in a vacaum is pointless-its pretty well established as a fact) polictical philosophies are not absolute in either time or context. I don't know the full history of the converse between the two of you, and how he is most of the time, but the example you gave is not that bad, and not even really trollish. Remember you may be wrong and annoying to him or someone else on the list, but you can probably learn from him, or at least come to an understanding of where his coming from and his concerns with the current state of the nation (or world, or block or whatever). From reading your description I actually think you are coming across as a little close minded and intolerant of his polictical viewpoint (probably conservative). Now if you try to engage him in a resonable point by point debate honestly and forthrightly than give up on him- he isn't a good candidate for it.
These things always remind me of a zen tale-a student asks for admittance to a monastery and the master comes out and serves him tea, as he is pouring the student's glass he doesn't stop when the cup is full but keeps on pouring and the tea runs over everything. The student says "master can't you see the cup is full and you can't get any more tea in?", the master replies "come back when you are not the tea cup".
posted by bartonlong at 10:52 AM on June 3, 2010
These things always remind me of a zen tale-a student asks for admittance to a monastery and the master comes out and serves him tea, as he is pouring the student's glass he doesn't stop when the cup is full but keeps on pouring and the tea runs over everything. The student says "master can't you see the cup is full and you can't get any more tea in?", the master replies "come back when you are not the tea cup".
posted by bartonlong at 10:52 AM on June 3, 2010
It sounds to me like the word "liberal" is pushing your button. Just ignore that word and discuss with him the merits of his claim. This assumes that the group was set up for discussing different points of view and opinions. If you want everyone to agree, start a new group without him.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 11:01 AM on June 3, 2010
posted by JohnnyGunn at 11:01 AM on June 3, 2010
The point of the list is to engage in discussion/debate, right? And your problem is that he's too long-winded and makes straw-man arguments?
Well, if he's too long-winded, you can get around that by skimming or not reading all his comments.
But making straw-man arguments is a different issue. People make straw-man arguments and other intellectually dishonest all the time. Sometimes they're not aware they're doing it. OTOH, you yourself might be incorrect about how intellectually dishonest he is. Maybe he has a valid point that you're disregarding. (I can't really judge this from your excerpt since I don't know if his descriptions of people's views are accurate.) If you're going to start a discussion group like this, you can't really have a rule that no one can ever be intellectually dishonest -- that's unenforceable. People are routinely intellectually dishonest, and this isn't the worst thing in the world, especially since errors can be corrected through further discussion. What you can do is either (1) ignore his comments, (2) read but not be bothered by his comments, or (3) explain the flaws with his comments. Saying "no straw-man arguments allowed" is unlikely to be effective; what's more likely to get through is calmly, briefly explaining why something is a straw-man argument (without using that term). For instance, "I agree with you that tolerance can't work if it's absolute. I'm in favor of tolerance, but it's a complex concept and there have to be limitations on it."
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:07 AM on June 3, 2010
Well, if he's too long-winded, you can get around that by skimming or not reading all his comments.
But making straw-man arguments is a different issue. People make straw-man arguments and other intellectually dishonest all the time. Sometimes they're not aware they're doing it. OTOH, you yourself might be incorrect about how intellectually dishonest he is. Maybe he has a valid point that you're disregarding. (I can't really judge this from your excerpt since I don't know if his descriptions of people's views are accurate.) If you're going to start a discussion group like this, you can't really have a rule that no one can ever be intellectually dishonest -- that's unenforceable. People are routinely intellectually dishonest, and this isn't the worst thing in the world, especially since errors can be corrected through further discussion. What you can do is either (1) ignore his comments, (2) read but not be bothered by his comments, or (3) explain the flaws with his comments. Saying "no straw-man arguments allowed" is unlikely to be effective; what's more likely to get through is calmly, briefly explaining why something is a straw-man argument (without using that term). For instance, "I agree with you that tolerance can't work if it's absolute. I'm in favor of tolerance, but it's a complex concept and there have to be limitations on it."
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:07 AM on June 3, 2010
Correction: People make straw-man arguments and other intellectually dishonest arguments all the time.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:08 AM on June 3, 2010
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:08 AM on June 3, 2010
I'm not getting a giant ass vibe from this guy based on the excerpts you posted, but he does sound like someone who would be exhausting to try to debate with. Chances are he believes what he's saying and isn't just trying to get you all riled (though the comparisons to Pol Pot are of course obnoxious, and he should've taken the hint at the Hitler-ban instead of just moving onto Stalin). Name-calling aside, why can't you all just ignore him if you have nothing to say in response to him? If he gets upset about being ignored, he can leave the list. And next time he compares one of you to Stalin, you have ample reason to boot him out.
posted by wondermouse at 11:09 AM on June 3, 2010
posted by wondermouse at 11:09 AM on June 3, 2010
Nthing the basics that you don't engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, I'd leave it be, although the first half of the last paragraph response by Salvor Hardin is on point with the misunderstanding of the concept of tolerance. It does not mean "agree with all points of view" or "accept all points of view as equally valid," and in that, he is begging the question (definitely in the top 10 of logical fallacies that any self-styled "philosophizer" will engage in).
He also negates his own "philosophy" when he reduces the moral-relativist stance to irrelevance:
"Thus, the entire moral-relativist philosophy is neatly unwound. If you follow your own philosophy, you admit your philosophy is irrelevant, or at least equally-as-relevant as every other philosophy in existence.. "
Yes, and at equally as relevant as his stance, both are deemed (by his argument, and by using the same sort of circuitous, tortured logic) worthless.
Finally, no one really says "as I have philosophized before" without laughing, do they?
posted by beelzbubba at 11:12 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
He also negates his own "philosophy" when he reduces the moral-relativist stance to irrelevance:
"Thus, the entire moral-relativist philosophy is neatly unwound. If you follow your own philosophy, you admit your philosophy is irrelevant, or at least equally-as-relevant as every other philosophy in existence.. "
Yes, and at equally as relevant as his stance, both are deemed (by his argument, and by using the same sort of circuitous, tortured logic) worthless.
Finally, no one really says "as I have philosophized before" without laughing, do they?
posted by beelzbubba at 11:12 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
As others have said, the best way to deal with trolls is to not engage them. Ever.
I'm an active participant on an email listserv where a few users have gotten so annoying I now filter their posts to a separate folder called "asshats". It's the rough equivalent of a client-side hellban (mentioned above, which btw I *love* the idea of). If I choose to read what the asshats are writing, I go to that folder, but I go in with the explicit context that they are asshats.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:14 AM on June 3, 2010
I'm an active participant on an email listserv where a few users have gotten so annoying I now filter their posts to a separate folder called "asshats". It's the rough equivalent of a client-side hellban (mentioned above, which btw I *love* the idea of). If I choose to read what the asshats are writing, I go to that folder, but I go in with the explicit context that they are asshats.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:14 AM on June 3, 2010
This is what bozofilters were made for. I'm on a mailing list with someone I consider a blowhard. I block his e-mails, and I've let it be known that I do so.
posted by adamrice at 11:15 AM on June 3, 2010
posted by adamrice at 11:15 AM on June 3, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks everyone for all the responses they've been very helpful.
Just a couple of points of clarification based on questions and comments that keep coming up:
Fistly this isn't really a debating email group just a group of friend's and family sharing quotes that they find interesting and the moderater reviewing and posting one a day. He also posts the reponses he gets back from people, which isn't usually political in tone normally its just a lot of "Wow nice quote" or "This reminds me of this thing that happened to me once...". I'm sure nearly everyone is or has been in email group similar to this at some point.
Secondly I don't really have a problem with his political point of view or the basis of his arguements and certainly don't find him to be an ass because he expresses them (also I should tone that down to say again a bit of an ass because he's certainly not the most pompus jerk I've ever met or something). The problem I have is the way he structures his arguements. Not responding to what you said or sumarrizing your points in a way that changes what you've written and as someone pointed out predicting arguements that haven't been made and attempting to defeat them.
Thidly I have a problem with ad hominem attacks that he makes and his overall smarter than thou smug attitude. This has led to some people leaving the group and led to others questioning whether to remain part of it. I'm sorry that I didn't include more examples of his direct writing I just didn't want to post pages and pages of material. I tried to use the use of Hitler/Nazi ban and the blog post linking as examples of the above.
The reason I did post the above email of his was not to say that this was the worst example of his kind of argueing but rather because this is the one that I want to respond to. In this email I find him ignoring what the original poster wrote and then setting up a straw man out of her arguements and then prediciting her responses. Also as people have pointed out I think his overall attitude is pretty smug.
Thanks again for the responses and I'm certainly open to the idea that I'm blowing this out of propotion or being intollerant of his ideas, if that's what you think is going on. Or that the whole thing is pointless and should just ignore it.
posted by trojanhorse at 11:38 AM on June 3, 2010
Just a couple of points of clarification based on questions and comments that keep coming up:
Fistly this isn't really a debating email group just a group of friend's and family sharing quotes that they find interesting and the moderater reviewing and posting one a day. He also posts the reponses he gets back from people, which isn't usually political in tone normally its just a lot of "Wow nice quote" or "This reminds me of this thing that happened to me once...". I'm sure nearly everyone is or has been in email group similar to this at some point.
Secondly I don't really have a problem with his political point of view or the basis of his arguements and certainly don't find him to be an ass because he expresses them (also I should tone that down to say again a bit of an ass because he's certainly not the most pompus jerk I've ever met or something). The problem I have is the way he structures his arguements. Not responding to what you said or sumarrizing your points in a way that changes what you've written and as someone pointed out predicting arguements that haven't been made and attempting to defeat them.
Thidly I have a problem with ad hominem attacks that he makes and his overall smarter than thou smug attitude. This has led to some people leaving the group and led to others questioning whether to remain part of it. I'm sorry that I didn't include more examples of his direct writing I just didn't want to post pages and pages of material. I tried to use the use of Hitler/Nazi ban and the blog post linking as examples of the above.
The reason I did post the above email of his was not to say that this was the worst example of his kind of argueing but rather because this is the one that I want to respond to. In this email I find him ignoring what the original poster wrote and then setting up a straw man out of her arguements and then prediciting her responses. Also as people have pointed out I think his overall attitude is pretty smug.
Thanks again for the responses and I'm certainly open to the idea that I'm blowing this out of propotion or being intollerant of his ideas, if that's what you think is going on. Or that the whole thing is pointless and should just ignore it.
posted by trojanhorse at 11:38 AM on June 3, 2010
'Never argue with a fool. Most people won't know the difference'
posted by TheOtherGuy at 11:41 AM on June 3, 2010
posted by TheOtherGuy at 11:41 AM on June 3, 2010
normally its just a lot of "Wow nice quote" or "This reminds me of this thing that happened to me once..."
Oh, OK, that's different from what I was imagining when you said that "getting a dialog going" is the purpose of the group. In that case, you don't want to engage with him at all. Just send him a short, polite email saying he makes some interesting points, but the group isn't really supposed to be about having a rigorous philosophical debate.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:48 AM on June 3, 2010
Oh, OK, that's different from what I was imagining when you said that "getting a dialog going" is the purpose of the group. In that case, you don't want to engage with him at all. Just send him a short, polite email saying he makes some interesting points, but the group isn't really supposed to be about having a rigorous philosophical debate.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:48 AM on June 3, 2010
What I want to do is come up with a way of responding to him that either gets him to stop acting this way or at least gets him to start responding to what people actually wrote and not what he thinks that they wrote.
You cannot accomplish either of these things, honestly. Your solution is simply to refuse to engage; people like that take a great deal of pleasure from arguing, and the behavior you're describing is simply the mechanism by which they (consciously or not) encourage people to get frustrated and argue with them. Most of us grow past this point by the time we reach college (which of us didn't think they knew everything about the world when they were 17?) but some don't.
For example, my father-in-law: during most of W's tenure, would argue that W was the best president ever, in the same kind of terms you're talking about. Once people stopped engaging him on it (because they were paying attention to the upcoming election and whatnot) his arguments dried up -- until the teabagger thing started. Now he's adopted the teabagger ideology (which he'd never shared before, not even a little bit) and has resumed his old methods of getting people to argue with him. It's transparent and embarrassing and sad, really.
In short: just don't feed the troll. At most, say "How interesting that you believe that!" Then change the subject. It will make his face explode with impotent rage -- the very emotion he's working so hard to trigger in you and other folks.
posted by davejay at 12:10 PM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
You cannot accomplish either of these things, honestly. Your solution is simply to refuse to engage; people like that take a great deal of pleasure from arguing, and the behavior you're describing is simply the mechanism by which they (consciously or not) encourage people to get frustrated and argue with them. Most of us grow past this point by the time we reach college (which of us didn't think they knew everything about the world when they were 17?) but some don't.
For example, my father-in-law: during most of W's tenure, would argue that W was the best president ever, in the same kind of terms you're talking about. Once people stopped engaging him on it (because they were paying attention to the upcoming election and whatnot) his arguments dried up -- until the teabagger thing started. Now he's adopted the teabagger ideology (which he'd never shared before, not even a little bit) and has resumed his old methods of getting people to argue with him. It's transparent and embarrassing and sad, really.
In short: just don't feed the troll. At most, say "How interesting that you believe that!" Then change the subject. It will make his face explode with impotent rage -- the very emotion he's working so hard to trigger in you and other folks.
posted by davejay at 12:10 PM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Oh man, I'm on a couple of lists that have some of these. First of all, know that you cannot get into this guy without going on a multi-post listbinge. If you're not in the mood to spend 50 or 100 posts getting this guy to STFU, don't even bother. But if you are. . .
First, carefully read his argument fifteen or twenty times, and see if you can pinpoint where he goes from "gross oversimplification" to "factually wrong." It'll be in there somewhere. There may even be more than one of these junctures in a given post. Once you've found that point, isolate it out and go find the sources and statistics that prove him wrong. MAKE SURE that the source is as unimpeachable as possible; if you can't find solid, peer-reviewed, high-confidence-interval statistics, see if you can find either primary source data or data from a source that you would think would support him, not you. (Frex, on an SB1070 debate, look for quotes from an Arizona sheriff.) If he tries to handwave your sources away, keep returning him to the point by making him disprove them, not just ignore them.
For more epistemological arguments, like the one you quote above, you'll need to be more rhetorical and more delicate. It will help your argument a lot if you can reference actual living, contemporary philosophers, so you're probably going to need to do a lot of personal research. The factual error he makes in the argument you quote, for example, is of confusing "tolerance" with "indifference." Being tolerant to different viewpoints doesn't mean being indifferent between them, and if you can tease apart the two meanings and make him explain his point in conflating them, it will go a long way towards deflating his argument.
In order to get him to engage you, you can employ a tactic of accusing him of either ignorance or disingenuousness; if you preface your reply with "Oh dear. Where to even begin," and pull out his error line with "This is a depressingly common error amongst philosophy students," you can basically guarantee that he'll come back swinging. Which is good; you're looking for a fight. (If you're not looking for a fight, then your only option is to ignore him.) Why are you looking for a fight? Because once he gets emotionally involved and feels that the intellectual tables have turned, his smug detachment will go away and be replaced by angry, brutish shouting, which is MUCH easier to handle, both rhetorically and emotionally.
He will never admit he is wrong. All you can do is make it hurt for him to be such an asshole, by continually provoking him into screaming meltdowns. If his orbit starts to get erratic, you can help him along by using lmgtfy.com to link to definitions of words he's misusing, quoting him from 7 or 12 or 20 posts back to show how he's moving the goalposts, or painting him into an absurdist, reductionist corner. (Or responding by labelling every argument he makes with the rhetorical fallacy that describes it, complete with a link. Ideally a lmgtfy.com link. This is particularly effective if you can make a whole post that consists only of these links, if he spans 4 or 5 different fallacies in one post.)
If, as he becomes more and more unhinged, you want a nuclear option, I have one. It is important to note that you can only do this once. Not even just once per argument, but once per forum, once per crowd. And you need him to start by having a blistering, incoherent, rant-filled post that goes on and on and on and ON and on and on. Once you have one of these in hand -- if you think it's time, you can poke him with the techniques I describe above until he breaks if he's not complying -- you select the whole thing, paste it into a word processor that has an autosorting feature, and do a search/replace to replace all the spaces with paragraph marks, making a huge column one word wide. Then autosort the column, alphabetically. Then replace all the paragraph marks with spaces again, resulting in something that looks like this: "A A A A a a a a a an an an an an an an and and and and and and aptitude Arizona Arizona Arizona. . ." Then you paste that block of text into your reply and say "I'm sorry, those words didn't seem to be in any particular order, so I alphabetized them for you."
After that, either he will leave the list or nobody will ever take him seriously ever again.
IMPORTANT NOTE: These techniques require you to be, basically, nearly the prick he is, and certainly to drive up the level of bullshit arguing on the list. Many of the other people on the list will likely grow weary of the arguing before your process is finished. But it might, honestly, be worth it.
posted by KathrynT at 12:16 PM on June 3, 2010 [13 favorites]
First, carefully read his argument fifteen or twenty times, and see if you can pinpoint where he goes from "gross oversimplification" to "factually wrong." It'll be in there somewhere. There may even be more than one of these junctures in a given post. Once you've found that point, isolate it out and go find the sources and statistics that prove him wrong. MAKE SURE that the source is as unimpeachable as possible; if you can't find solid, peer-reviewed, high-confidence-interval statistics, see if you can find either primary source data or data from a source that you would think would support him, not you. (Frex, on an SB1070 debate, look for quotes from an Arizona sheriff.) If he tries to handwave your sources away, keep returning him to the point by making him disprove them, not just ignore them.
For more epistemological arguments, like the one you quote above, you'll need to be more rhetorical and more delicate. It will help your argument a lot if you can reference actual living, contemporary philosophers, so you're probably going to need to do a lot of personal research. The factual error he makes in the argument you quote, for example, is of confusing "tolerance" with "indifference." Being tolerant to different viewpoints doesn't mean being indifferent between them, and if you can tease apart the two meanings and make him explain his point in conflating them, it will go a long way towards deflating his argument.
In order to get him to engage you, you can employ a tactic of accusing him of either ignorance or disingenuousness; if you preface your reply with "Oh dear. Where to even begin," and pull out his error line with "This is a depressingly common error amongst philosophy students," you can basically guarantee that he'll come back swinging. Which is good; you're looking for a fight. (If you're not looking for a fight, then your only option is to ignore him.) Why are you looking for a fight? Because once he gets emotionally involved and feels that the intellectual tables have turned, his smug detachment will go away and be replaced by angry, brutish shouting, which is MUCH easier to handle, both rhetorically and emotionally.
He will never admit he is wrong. All you can do is make it hurt for him to be such an asshole, by continually provoking him into screaming meltdowns. If his orbit starts to get erratic, you can help him along by using lmgtfy.com to link to definitions of words he's misusing, quoting him from 7 or 12 or 20 posts back to show how he's moving the goalposts, or painting him into an absurdist, reductionist corner. (Or responding by labelling every argument he makes with the rhetorical fallacy that describes it, complete with a link. Ideally a lmgtfy.com link. This is particularly effective if you can make a whole post that consists only of these links, if he spans 4 or 5 different fallacies in one post.)
If, as he becomes more and more unhinged, you want a nuclear option, I have one. It is important to note that you can only do this once. Not even just once per argument, but once per forum, once per crowd. And you need him to start by having a blistering, incoherent, rant-filled post that goes on and on and on and ON and on and on. Once you have one of these in hand -- if you think it's time, you can poke him with the techniques I describe above until he breaks if he's not complying -- you select the whole thing, paste it into a word processor that has an autosorting feature, and do a search/replace to replace all the spaces with paragraph marks, making a huge column one word wide. Then autosort the column, alphabetically. Then replace all the paragraph marks with spaces again, resulting in something that looks like this: "A A A A a a a a a an an an an an an an and and and and and and aptitude Arizona Arizona Arizona. . ." Then you paste that block of text into your reply and say "I'm sorry, those words didn't seem to be in any particular order, so I alphabetized them for you."
After that, either he will leave the list or nobody will ever take him seriously ever again.
IMPORTANT NOTE: These techniques require you to be, basically, nearly the prick he is, and certainly to drive up the level of bullshit arguing on the list. Many of the other people on the list will likely grow weary of the arguing before your process is finished. But it might, honestly, be worth it.
posted by KathrynT at 12:16 PM on June 3, 2010 [13 favorites]
Hm, I just thought of a tweak to my previous comment -- how about if you preface your message to him by specifically referencing the subject matter of his comment:
If you try to explain why his arguments are flawed, you know what his reaction will be: he'll defend his position even more. You're more likely to make an impression if you seem like you have no real problem with what he's saying; you're just letting him know that this isn't the forum for saying it.
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:18 PM on June 3, 2010
You make an interesting point about tolerance and moral relativism. However, this email group wasn't really intended to be a forum for this kind of rigorous philosophical debate. It's pretty much supposed to be sharing quotes and anecdotes and things like that.Notice that you wouldn't be lying by saying this. You at least found his diatribe "interesting" enough to quote his comment on AskMetafilter. Using the word "interesting" can be a way of acknowledging that he has made a point while also hinting that you're not actually interested in pursuing the discussion.
If you try to explain why his arguments are flawed, you know what his reaction will be: he'll defend his position even more. You're more likely to make an impression if you seem like you have no real problem with what he's saying; you're just letting him know that this isn't the forum for saying it.
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:18 PM on June 3, 2010
Sorry for the multi-commenting, but one more idea: try to frame things in terms of "we," not "you" (as contrived as this might be). "I think we should be focusing on X, not Y" has a better chance of winning him over than "The problem is that your comments are ____."
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:20 PM on June 3, 2010
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:20 PM on June 3, 2010
Why not just reply to him along the lines of "hey, this isn't fight club, and we're trying to enjoy our discussion here without so much GRAR, do you mind?"
posted by desuetude at 12:26 PM on June 3, 2010
posted by desuetude at 12:26 PM on June 3, 2010
Also, He also needs his comma key removed from his keyboard.
I think the real problem is that he writes sentences that are much longer than they need to be.
I agree that there is no reasoning with people like this. They have a rebuttal for everything and it will be like bouncing a ball against a wall: it will always come back to you, incessantly, until you decide to stop bouncing the ball against the wall.
Yep, the guy is just dying to get into a flame war and you can never "win" with this type of poster. Be grateful that he isn't the kind of wingnut who quotes random Scripture to try to make their argument.
If the moderator is willing to make a little extra effort, I think Boing Boing's "disemvoweling" approach might be effective for this guy, if to do nothing else but show him how his postings are generally being received.
posted by fuse theorem at 12:37 PM on June 3, 2010
I think the real problem is that he writes sentences that are much longer than they need to be.
I agree that there is no reasoning with people like this. They have a rebuttal for everything and it will be like bouncing a ball against a wall: it will always come back to you, incessantly, until you decide to stop bouncing the ball against the wall.
Yep, the guy is just dying to get into a flame war and you can never "win" with this type of poster. Be grateful that he isn't the kind of wingnut who quotes random Scripture to try to make their argument.
If the moderator is willing to make a little extra effort, I think Boing Boing's "disemvoweling" approach might be effective for this guy, if to do nothing else but show him how his postings are generally being received.
posted by fuse theorem at 12:37 PM on June 3, 2010
I should probably point out that while I'm really pretty good at the techniques I describe above (thank you, high school education that included rhetoric classes), they only ever seem to be worth it to me to actually use when I'm off my crazy meds. (I am currently off my crazy meds.) So, you know, that's probably some important context.
posted by KathrynT at 12:40 PM on June 3, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 12:40 PM on June 3, 2010 [3 favorites]
Fistly this isn't really a debating email group just a group of friend's and family sharing quotes that they find interesting and the moderater reviewing and posting one a day. He also posts the reponses he gets back from people, which isn't usually political in tone normally its just a lot of "Wow nice quote" or "This reminds me of this thing that happened to me once...". I'm sure nearly everyone is or has been in email group similar to this at some point.
Ah! well, that is different. For the record I've never been part of a group remotely like that, but to each their own. It sounds like you just have to make the parameters of the group a little more clear.
The problem as a larger issue is not uncommon, of course - some people have their pet issue they can't give up, and every conversation with them turns into that same argument that you don't want to go through again. You can try engaging them each time, if the issue matters to you and you hope to change their mind. You can try confronting them directly, telling them it's an "agree to disagree" situation, and they have to stop bringing it up. Or you can do the old smile-and-nod, where you accept their proclamations as if they're just opinions about favorite colors, and change the subject as fast as you can.
posted by mdn at 1:11 PM on June 3, 2010
Ah! well, that is different. For the record I've never been part of a group remotely like that, but to each their own. It sounds like you just have to make the parameters of the group a little more clear.
The problem as a larger issue is not uncommon, of course - some people have their pet issue they can't give up, and every conversation with them turns into that same argument that you don't want to go through again. You can try engaging them each time, if the issue matters to you and you hope to change their mind. You can try confronting them directly, telling them it's an "agree to disagree" situation, and they have to stop bringing it up. Or you can do the old smile-and-nod, where you accept their proclamations as if they're just opinions about favorite colors, and change the subject as fast as you can.
posted by mdn at 1:11 PM on June 3, 2010
grandpa lfr
"Never wrestle with a pig, kid. You both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it."
/grandpa lfr
posted by lonefrontranger at 2:37 PM on June 3, 2010
"Never wrestle with a pig, kid. You both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it."
/grandpa lfr
posted by lonefrontranger at 2:37 PM on June 3, 2010
Just tell him what you don't like.
For example, just tell him that his tone hurts his arguments, because when he uses phrases like "begs the question", "the entire moral-relativist philosophy is neatly unwound", "Is not the contradiction hitting you upside the head", etc., they sound ultra-pompous, so when his argument is weak it's a massive backfire. And then tell him how and why his argument is weak. In this case, you could go with his notion of 'liberal tolerance' is (in rough terms) just some made up cartoon shit in his own brain. Feel free to drop the notion that he shouldn't try to win by being the last one standing (if he does that too), and that it's exhausting to parse his arguments to the net effect is no one is listening to him; he's failing to communicate his ideas.
Doing this will also probably help you clarify your own feelings as well.
And who knows, you might find that sometimes he has a good point, and maybe you can help him shave off all the crap.
And remind me never to get on the bad side of KathrynT in an fight.
posted by fleacircus at 2:38 PM on June 3, 2010
For example, just tell him that his tone hurts his arguments, because when he uses phrases like "begs the question", "the entire moral-relativist philosophy is neatly unwound", "Is not the contradiction hitting you upside the head", etc., they sound ultra-pompous, so when his argument is weak it's a massive backfire. And then tell him how and why his argument is weak. In this case, you could go with his notion of 'liberal tolerance' is (in rough terms) just some made up cartoon shit in his own brain. Feel free to drop the notion that he shouldn't try to win by being the last one standing (if he does that too), and that it's exhausting to parse his arguments to the net effect is no one is listening to him; he's failing to communicate his ideas.
Doing this will also probably help you clarify your own feelings as well.
And who knows, you might find that sometimes he has a good point, and maybe you can help him shave off all the crap.
And remind me never to get on the bad side of KathrynT in an fight.
posted by fleacircus at 2:38 PM on June 3, 2010
I'm part of this email group, started by a family friend, that involves sending quotes to people and those people responding back and getting a dialog going.
Well there's your mistake right there! Any time a dialogue starts between people, an argument will break out. It's inevitable.
I can definitively state that if you ban this guy, someone else just like him will take his place. In any group of people, someone's always the asshole.
The weaselly and short-term solution, of course, is to set up an entirely separate mailing list and quietly migrate over everyone but the asshole. I can't condone this, but it does work.
posted by ErikaB at 3:36 PM on June 3, 2010
Well there's your mistake right there! Any time a dialogue starts between people, an argument will break out. It's inevitable.
I can definitively state that if you ban this guy, someone else just like him will take his place. In any group of people, someone's always the asshole.
The weaselly and short-term solution, of course, is to set up an entirely separate mailing list and quietly migrate over everyone but the asshole. I can't condone this, but it does work.
posted by ErikaB at 3:36 PM on June 3, 2010
Remember in a situation like this list, you're not arguing with him so much as talking to everyone - trust their judgement and make your points, including pointing out the rhetorical trickery if necessary.
posted by Abiezer at 3:58 PM on June 3, 2010
posted by Abiezer at 3:58 PM on June 3, 2010
Clarify the group's purpose and establish clear rules (e.g., no debating, quotes and supportive responses only). Then, change the list settings so that a moderator must approve an email before it goes to everyone. The moderator can then not approve any "blah blah Hitler you are oversimplifying" emails. Somewhere along the line, he'll probably lose interest.
posted by salvia at 5:21 PM on June 3, 2010
posted by salvia at 5:21 PM on June 3, 2010
Who invited him to the forum? Does that person have issues with his actions to date? If so, that is the person who should approach him or take him on.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 10:35 PM on June 3, 2010
posted by JohnnyGunn at 10:35 PM on June 3, 2010
I suggest responding to the poster the ass is replying to. Show some support for her comments, back up her points with your own. Engage her in the kind conversation you would like to have on the group. You don't have to fight with this other guy. He's just shadowboxing. No need to get involved in that.
posted by wobh at 2:59 AM on June 5, 2010
posted by wobh at 2:59 AM on June 5, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Bromius at 9:58 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]