The Watchtower of Destruction: The Ferrett's Journal - How To Not Be An Asshole During Political Debates: The Easiest Method
August 16th, 2012
10:21 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
How To Not Be An Asshole During Political Debates: The Easiest Method

One of the best tricks the conservative troll ever learned was the Kobayashi Maru of troll tricks: the “You’re supposed to be inclusive!” cat-call.  Which is to say that the conservative troll becomes increasingly abusive, occupying your time with shoddy arguments and half-assed insults.  Just as you’re declaring this argument to be a waste of time and energy, they say with glee:

“Hey!  I guess you can’t really deal with other people’s world views, huh?  You’re so closed-minded!”

Thus, you’re left with two options: continuing to engage someone who’s patently insane…. or blocking them and reinforcing their world view that yes, those Democrats are sheltered and unable to deal with real argument.

But there is something even worse you can do in the course of a political argument, and here’s where I encourage you to strenuously avoid it.

It started with a debate with a usually-sane conservative friend of mine, who irrationally complained that Obama was “trying to lock [Ryan] fast into a box defined by what they think they can beat most easily.”  To which I replied that this was politics, not liberal politics, in that trying to lock the opponent into a box is what you do, even if the Republicans are usually better at that locking.

*Cue the sound of troll feet jumping into the argument*

The troll in question then said, quasi-reasonably enough, “They DID make hay with Bush’s past. They even invented some when that wasn’t enough (Texas Air Nat’l Guard smear).”  To which I replied that “And Republicans haven’t? Obama’s a Muslim/Kenyan/lazy. The point is, both sides try all the time; only some sticks.”  Not a terrible interplay.

At which point he said, “Muslim/Kenyan/lazy is an accruate reflection of his origin. He is certainly not culturally African American.”  So I replied, “If you believe he’s a Muslim, then you’re sufficiently removed from reality that I don’t see a need to engage. Enjoy.”

Cue flurry of angry responses, because what he meant was that Obama wasn’t a Muslim, but he had Muslim origins, and he’s an Arab and you’ll find virtually no one named Hussein who isn’t from a Muslim family, and how dare I misintepret his Tweet to say that he thinks Obama is a Muslim, and “His origins aren’t an issue. His socio-economic ideology is, and it’s based in a failure and is alien to American culture” and “Having lived in E.Germany, I know his core group’s methods: demagoguery, phony class enemies, strawmen, vote-buying.”

Which is a sucky argument, since my point was that the right has smeared Obama as a Muslim – not a man of Muslim origins, but a fucking Muslim now, with around 15% of the population thinking it despite it’s not being actually, you know, true.  And I called him on it, saying that “your own dismal ability to process is the issue, not my unworldiness” and exited the argument.

At which point, over the next couple of hours, he kept leaving increasingly insulting messages to me – “is baiting people all that your political view amounts to? Stay in your ethnographic bubble, sparky” – and finally ending with “Hey, have you called anyone ‘Chimpy’ lately?”, referencing the calling of Dubya Chimpy McFlightSuit, at which point I moved towards the “block” button.

Now.  Here’s how you avoid being a political asshole.

You might suspect that the problem here was his argument, but that’s not it; it was a shoddy argument that relied on the disjunct between “I believe Obama has Muslim origins” and “the conservatives have successfully caused a large percentage of people to believe that Obama is a Muslim,” but that could be explained away by Twitter’s crappy 140-character limit.  I might have engaged more if this had taken place in my journal, where there was more space to talk.

The assholeness was assuming that since I was a Democrat, all Democrats do this.

I blocked him because I personally find it offensive to call Dubya “Chimpy,” and have never been thrilled with those who do.  I have a friend who posts all sorts of Photoshopped images of Romney and Paul on Facebook, making them the Ambiguously Gay Duo or the Munsters or whatnot, and to me it’s disrespectful.  Romney and Paul’s policies are so offensive that frankly, that should be enough – and calling them silly nicknames just makes it harder to actually get across the point that these guys are terrible for America.  As a Democrat, I’m against it.

But to this dude, because I’m liberal, this is naturally what I do.

That’s how you become an asshole.  Pigeonholing.

I’ve seen it time and time again – “Oh, you’re a Democrat?  You fucking hate guns!”  Well, no, I don’t.  “You’re a Democrat?  All you want to do is tax small business-owners!”  Well, no, actually, I think encouraging low business taxes is what makes America great.  (In fact, one of the main reasons I want socialized health care is so it’s that much easier for people to start their own business and not having to worry about paying exorbitant COBRA rates to protect their families.)  “You’re a Democrat?  Aww, you atheist scumbag!”

Look.  As a Democrat, I’m a unique person, not some fucking stereotype who chugs all the Democratic Kool-Aid.  I have serious problems with liberals, and I’m not down with everything they do – but there’s only two parties in this country that have a reasonable chance of getting elected, and the Democrats have more of what I want.

Treating me as though I had all the traits of your stereotypical Democrat just because I’ve expressed one wins you no points.  It tells me that you have demonized the enemy to the point where they’re a homogenous slur, where you don’t interact with the real world because to you, anyone who disagrees with you must adopt all the opposites to your world view.

That makes you a dick.

And Liberals!  You’re not exempt!  Time and time in this journal, I’ve seen people leave comments about their desire for lowered taxes – and idiot liberals have assumed that because they’re for low taxes, they hate gays and are die-hard Christians who want to put women in chains and hey, you fucking Reagan lover!  And that’s not cool, either.  I suspect many Republicans are in the same state that I am – which is to say, hey, I’m not entirely happy with the way my party’s going, but at this point in time there’s slightly more to like on my side… so reluctantly, I stand over here, wishing there was a third party who had what I really believed in. (And could, you know, get elected.)

Want to not be an asshole in a political debate? Don’t assume.  Ask what their take is on something, and then debate that.  But don’t debate people like they stood for the monolithic and ill-defined strategy of an entire political movement unless they’re actually leading that movement.  And don’t assume that any one person automatically has all the worst traits of the people you loathe.  They don’t.

In short: when debating, remember that people are unique. Thank you.

Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.

This entry has also been posted at http://theferrett.dreamwidth.org/236447.html. You can comment here, or comment there; makes no never-mind by me.

(35 shouts of denial | Tell me I'm full of it)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:anivair
Date:August 16th, 2012 03:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm confused. Are you implying that using a broad brush to paint a group of people as one way or another is bad? hrmm ....
[User Picture]
From:akirlu
Date:August 16th, 2012 04:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)
...and how dare I misintepret his Tweet to say...

Wait, what? You're getting into political arguments on Twitter? Seriously? Then what do you expect, quality-of-discourse-wise?
[User Picture]
From:vyolynce
Date:August 16th, 2012 04:13 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The best part of that is how EVERYONE who follows both of you gets to have their feed junked up by the back-and-forth.
[User Picture]
From:spideyj
Date:August 16th, 2012 08:47 pm (UTC)
(Link)

That's okay, people who follow me and my gaming buddies get their feeds cluttered with inanities too. The perils of twitter!
[User Picture]
From:fatbunnyghost
Date:August 16th, 2012 04:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I would elect you to be our token representative democrat whose job it is to engage in dialog with batshit republicans.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:August 18th, 2012 03:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I would decline. I don't particularly like doing it.
[User Picture]
From:daphne24
Date:August 16th, 2012 04:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
This is what I keep seeing - on both sides - that annoys the hell out of me. Someone does something that the other side disagrees with and the automatic answer is "Typical Democrat/Progressive/Republican/Tea Partier/whatever-your-nickname-for-"them"-happens-to-be."

And this isn't on Twitter. This is on news sites where there is plenty of room for more intelligent discourse. But when that is someone's reply, that's when I start tuning out. I won't even begin a debate at that level.
[User Picture]
From:fallconsmate
Date:August 16th, 2012 04:24 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*headdesk* you make excellent points, and i can respect all of them.

then you used the phrase that i absolutely abhor ever since i saw an interview with a gentleman who survived the massacre in Jonestown. not everyone who died there died of their own free will, many had the "koolaid" forced down their throats. they looked peaceful because someone laid them out that way.

the gentleman i speak of...his wife and child were both poisoned against their will. forcibly. why? because he saw the light and wanted to leave. that phrase "drinking the koolaid" cheapens the deaths of the victims, every bit as much as making jokes about the killings at the batman movie, or the tragedy of the victims of 9-11.
[User Picture]
From:enderfem
Date:August 16th, 2012 04:28 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thank you.
[User Picture]
From:mariadkins
Date:August 16th, 2012 05:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
thank you.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:August 18th, 2012 03:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm aware of that. However, some of the Jonestown people did drink the poison voluntarily, and those are the people I'm discussing.

Yes, there were bystanders who got roped into it, and I feel sorry they got involved in a cult that did them harm. But the take on those who did go willingly into that foul night remains intact, despite the exceptions. Or even, depending on whose eye witness you take it, the majority.
[User Picture]
From:christilyn
Date:August 16th, 2012 06:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The other day, my 8 year old daughter said to me, "I don't like Mitt Romney because he hates women." She extrapolated from some of the negative advertising that Mitt Romney hates all women. I'm a liberal leaning moderate and wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney in a million years, but I don't think for even a moment that he hates women. I had to have a protracted discussion with my kids about Super PACs and Freedom of Speech and about not believing everything they see on TV.

The dickish behavior isn't limited to online or in-person debates. It's plastered all over prime time.
[User Picture]
From:merle_
Date:August 16th, 2012 06:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
but there’s only two parties in this country that have a reasonable chance of getting elected, and the Democrats have more of what I want.

Sadly you're right, we're a two party country. Which is why I pledged in this election to not vote for anyone from those two parties. Maybe I'll screw over the better candidate this way, but I want no truck from either of those two parties. We deserve more than a boolean choice.
[User Picture]
From:ccr1138
Date:August 16th, 2012 07:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hear, hear!
[User Picture]
From:ccr1138
Date:August 16th, 2012 07:36 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You're so right, and it's only human nature to try to slot everything into neat pigeonholes, so we all have to be careful. I bristle when anybody says, "Conservatives think [insert pet straw man here]" or "Christians think [insert stupidity here]" or anything else. I even bristle when such a statement is made about a group I don't belong to: "Black people behave thusly," "Liberals do thus-and-such," etc.

As I tell my teenage son, the moment you start thinking that ALL people in a group are alike, YOU FAIL.

I am about to unsubscribe from the blog of a good RL friend, not because we are polar opposites in ideology (we are), but because I find the following quote from her latest post so offensive I just can't be bothered to read further: "The Republicans yearn to undo Roe v. Wade, bring back sexual repression, and rein in women/ minorities to their liking. They would love to end critical scientific and historical education, because the particular biases of the far right are unstable in an educated public. They worship guns and encourage the bizarre belief of some right-wingers that it would be possible to fight off an out-of-control government (complete with weapons of mass destruction) by personal armaments."

What I don't understand is how she can know so many Republicans who are decent, intelligent people of goodwill and still spout such crap. What sort of echo chamber do you have to live in to truly believe the other side is made up of evil, moronic scumbags?

Thing is, if you can limit yourself to facts and logic, and appeal to people on that basis and not on name-calling and other juvenile tactics unworthy of serious discussion, you stand a chance of convincing people. For instance, I am so disgusted with the Republicans at the moment I am thinking Obama is not looking so bad. Don't tell anyone, though, or I'll be pilloried at home. ;D

Finally, regarding your title, the easiest way not to be an asshole in political discourse is to zip the lip.
From:anonymousalex
Date:August 16th, 2012 08:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It's a fine distinction, but a statement of the form "X are Y" is not necessarily the equivalent of "all X are Y." The former type of statement can mean that characteristic Y is true of group X on average, or in the majority of cases, whereas the latter type means that every member of group X has characteristic Y. This latter form is rarely a true statement, except in the case of definitions (e.g., all Christians believe in Christ).

A problem arises when one sloppily takes one form for another. To use your first concrete example, a statement that all Republicans yearn to undo Roe v. Wade is trivially untrue, as shown by a single counterexample of a Republican who has no such desire. However, a statement that Republicans yearn to undo Roe may be true, if, for example, the majority of Republicans do have this desire.

It would be a logical fallacy of the first order, of course, to take that statement (if true) and conclude that if someone is a Republican, he or she therefore wishes to overturn Roe. But it is throwing out the baby with the bathwater to conclude instead that one can never make statements about a group (provided one recalls that there will be counterexamples, sometimes in as many as 49% of the cases).

-Alex
[User Picture]
From:kenp_v3
Date:August 17th, 2012 01:04 am (UTC)
(Link)
In her example her first example of "Republicans yearn to undo Roe v. Wade" is an example of a fair generalization to me. It's a policy statement that is generally true about Republicans and is in fact right in their platform. It's the ones after that are offensive. "Bring back sexual repression" for example.
From:anonymousalex
Date:August 17th, 2012 03:52 am (UTC)
(Link)
It seems to me the issue under discussion is not the accuracy or offensiveness(*) of the statements, but rather the degree of unfounded generalization from them.

-Alex

(*) Note that these are independent variables, and not opposites.
[User Picture]
From:alyoshaak
Date:August 17th, 2012 03:07 am (UTC)
(Link)
I realize that there are many Republicans out there who do not match those stereotypes, and I think it is good to realize that almost no one in a group holds the exact same beliefs as the other members of the group.

However, that said, Paul Ryan sponsored a bill that would criminalize abortion and most forms of birth control. Legislators in Kentucky are pushing back against teaching evolution in schools because they don't want high schoolers to lose the ability to think critically. We can't have a serious discussion about limiting high-capacity magazines or extending firearm purchase regulations to gun shows because... I'm not sure why!

I do think there is a limit to painting the opposition. I get upset when I see insults, name-calling, or outright misinformation or blatant falsehoods. I recognize that the examples I've given above are not representative of all Republicans. Missouri, of all places, voted down a personhood law. However, these beliefs seem to a frighteningly common part of the agenda and it doesn't seem unfair to say so.

Edited at 2012-08-17 03:09 am (UTC)
[User Picture]
From:ccr1138
Date:August 17th, 2012 08:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Try this, then: "Blacks suffer from an entitlement mentality and like to paint themselves as victims of the system."

I realize that there are many [Blacks] out there who do not match those stereotypes, and I think it is good to realize that almost no one in a group holds the exact same beliefs as the other members of the group.

Does such a disclaimer make the original sentence less offensive? Even though I could point to Jackson and Farrakhan et alto prove that the "leaders" of this group do indeed foster such beliefs?

NO. You do not get to lump all people in a group together with a blanket statement and then backpedal with the excuse that you were obviously talking about the leaders. You do not get to paint with a broad brush and then excuse the faux pas by accusing the offended party of false inference.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/139-overwhelming-exception
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:August 18th, 2012 03:29 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Actually, I'd have a problem with that, mainly because Blacks didn't choose to be born Black. When it's a party that you're free to join or leave at will, then it becomes a matter of "Who you associate with."

If you choose to run around in [GROUP] circles, and a large portion of [GROUP] advocate for awful and terrible things, then you have three choices:

1) Work very, very hard and publicly to change [GROUP]'s beliefs so they don't do these things.

2) Accept that you are sharing a name with these nutbags, and that by standing complacently by, you're tacitly approving of these things.

3) Complain that people are tarring you with a brush of people you chose to stand with.

For Black people, hey, they can't suddenly decide, "Hey, today I'm white!" (Well, maybe the Jacksons.) But for Republicans, who have a stated agenda that by lining up as one of them, you have chosen to support? Then yes, it's fair to have to deal with people thinking of you poorly.

I try not to assume you believe all of the Republican fallacies. However, by voting Republican, you're helping to forward many of the things that they believe in that you don't... and that leads to legitimate calls like, "Republicans want to repeat Roe vs. Wade."
[User Picture]
From:alyoshaak
Date:August 20th, 2012 02:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
At least in theory, a political party has certain positions and/or a shared ideology. If a member isn't close enough to the party line, they could be excluded from funding or removed from membership altogether. In practice, you probably couldn't find two Democratic or two Republican politicians that have all the same policy positions anyway, though.

I see your point about the overwhelming exception fallacy, and I'll try and keep it in mind in the future.
[User Picture]
From:roniliquidity
Date:August 17th, 2012 12:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
While somewhat hyperbolic, that is an accurate description of the end result of the current policies of the Republican Party. Your friend isn't saying every single Republican believes this, it's possible not many Republicans actually believe all that and the leaders are gaming the system by pushing far right to drag the "center" over. However, Republican attacks on women's rights, attacks on science and history that don't meet their ideological standards and rhetoric about stockpiling guns to fight the government have all be recent documented issues pushed by fairly mainstream Republicans.
[User Picture]
From:celandine13
Date:August 16th, 2012 08:31 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I haven't done actual political debates in a while -- learning enough facts to keep up is a time sink. But I noticed that awkwardness always came up when two people were arguing at different levels of discourse. One person's just spoiling for a big damn FIGHT and the other wants a reasoned discussion and maybe a third just wants to crack cynical jokes. Doesn't work. Back in my forum days I tried to decide ahead of time if I wanted discussion or fighting and choose venue accordingly.
[User Picture]
From:kenp_v3
Date:August 17th, 2012 01:06 am (UTC)
(Link)
maybe a third just wants to crack cynical jokes

Not that there's anything wrong with that...
[User Picture]
From:cameoflage
Date:August 17th, 2012 07:06 am (UTC)
(Link)
Learning enough facts to keep up is indeed a time sink, which is why I don't really do political debates anymore. I do occasionally drop in for cynical jokes, though.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:August 18th, 2012 03:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
An excellent way of dissecting it, I think. I hadn't thought of it in that way before.
[User Picture]
From:baronbrian
Date:August 16th, 2012 10:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I was so tempted to call you out on some points but as an Independent, I'm above that.

Yes, I'm kidding.
[User Picture]
From:jeffpalmatier
Date:August 17th, 2012 01:18 am (UTC)
(Link)
Years ago I had a person in a number of my courses with me. Since it was a relatively small college and we shared a concentration, we got to know each other. I realized years later that she used this simplistic and unfair approach to groups of people she didn't like. She treated them as this monolith rather than individuals. On one hand, I wish I could have pointed this unfair use of the monolith to her, but I doubt it would have did any good. Still, it would have been great to be able to articulate why she was so full of shit. Back then when I debated her, I didn't have this knowledge, so I couldn't debate as effectively as I could have.
[User Picture]
From:jeffpalmatier
Date:August 17th, 2012 01:30 am (UTC)
(Link)
One of the best tricks the conservative troll ever learned was the Kobayashi Maru of troll tricks: the “You’re supposed to be inclusive!” cat-call.

When I was in my early twenties, one of the characteristics of liberalism that appealed to me was the idea that liberals are supposed to be more tolerant of ideas with which they disagree. As I worked my way through my undergraduate years and then into grad study, I realized how naive this belief had been. I'm not arguing that liberals should have to accept any belief under the threat of being called a hypocrite because they're not being 'tolerant'. No, not at all. However, I was deeply disappointed in various people I came into contact with who would present themselves as being so open-minded and tolerant, and then would flip out at any sign of disagreement with them. I ran into behavior that enough that I stopped calling myself a liberal even though I still held many beliefs that most would characterize as liberal. What's really sad about this is that some of these people I used to respect and I was deeply disappointed and disillusioned to realize how intolerant they often acted.
[User Picture]
From:cameoflage
Date:August 17th, 2012 07:13 am (UTC)
(Link)
Liberals are probably about as tolerant of disagreement (as opposed to tolerant of minority groups and lifestyles they don't personally follow and so forth, the stuff that's usually implied when people just say "tolerant") as any other political faction, but I think the intolerance is rather more noticeable when contrasted against the fact that you're at least partially staking your political identity on being tolerant.
[User Picture]
From:roniliquidity
Date:August 17th, 2012 01:17 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yes. I feel like I don't know any reasonable conservatives, like there's some kind of basic training class to teach them to make weak arguments and hurl around personal insults and call anyone that tried to debate a big liberal meanie and/or stupid depending on how verbally abusive they'e being. I know one liberal like that, I'm not friends with him anymore, either. They;re not all the same, some of them believe "Obama is a secret Muslim Socialist Nazi out to destroy America" (actual quote) and some just are big Glenn Beck fans that believe everything on Fox because every other media source has a liberal bias. I don't believe all Republicans are like that, but it's true of all the ones I know that participate in discussions.

I do maintain there is a difference in assuming someone believes in the all policies of their party, with regards to the economy, the wars, banking regulation and recognizing guilt by association when it comes to discrimination. If you support someone trying to take way my equal rights, it doesn't matter if you personally want to take them away. As in if you support someone against marriage equality it doesn't matter if you personally hate gay couples, you're still for anti-gay policies. It's like someone asking me to agree to disagree as to whether or not I can have the same rights they enjoy; when it's personal matter, not abstract politics, it's not appropriate.

Incidentally, why is "Chimpy" a disrespectful silly nickname, while "Dubya" isn't? I find them both problematic.
[User Picture]
From:kenp_v3
Date:August 17th, 2012 03:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I do maintain there is a difference in assuming someone believes in the all policies of their party, with regards to the economy, the wars, banking regulation and recognizing guilt by association when it comes to discrimination. If you support someone trying to take way my equal rights, it doesn't matter if you personally want to take them away. As in if you support someone against marriage equality it doesn't matter if you personally hate gay couples, you're still for anti-gay policies. It's like someone asking me to agree to disagree as to whether or not I can have the same rights they enjoy; when it's personal matter, not abstract politics, it's not appropriate.

I find myself voting for candidates who I disagree with on certain issues all the time. An issue like gay marriage is so far down the list of things I care about that I just don't take it into consideration in most elections. I couldn't even tell you where my senator (Scott Brown) stands on gay marriage, but I'll be voting for him. Gay people may hate me for this (well some anyway- the one I work with is an outright Republican so I guess marriage equality isn't that important for him either), but I just view it one of the many distasteful aspects of dealing with our political system.

In fact I've often wondered if the moral thing to do would be to abstain from our two-party system. Both parties are controlled by the special interest groups. Primaries are a joke. I think most good candidates decide not to run because they realize they'd have to follow the party line on almost every issue. I voted in the Republican presidential primary, but the choices were awful. I ended up voting for Ron Paul. With more and more people registering an independent I would think something will have to change eventually.

Because of the extreme polarization of politics today (and yes I do blame a lot of this on Fox News) there are huge portions of the population that aren't represented in congress, or in most online political debates for that matter (the people on the extremes are more likely to be vocal and passionate about their political beliefs).

Sorry only the first paragraph really had anything to do with what you were talking about. The rest was just my own rant.
[User Picture]
From:theferrett
Date:August 18th, 2012 03:31 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Dubya's a nickname he himself has used, and a mere contraction of his name. Chimpy is actually calling him a chimp. I think that's reasonably obvious.
[User Picture]
From:roniliquidity
Date:August 18th, 2012 04:01 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It's not reasonably obvious if you've never heard him refer to himself as Dubya, and only heard in a condescending tone in liberal circles.
The Ferrett's Domain Powered by LiveJournal.com