Yeah, I’m going to continue on with me bitching about how people talk to each other.
I was having a conversation with my friend Roxanne, and we got discussing the “whataboutism” in regards to the government refuting allegations of systematic racism in our past. He compares us directly to the United States, then refers to how we are not as bad as them.
In making such a ridiculous argument, he basically says that racism is okay if there is someone MORE racist than you. (one of many articles.)
It got me watching an old Idea Channel video (link.), which I highly recommend. In the video, the presenter outlines several examples of argumentative fallacies that are common, especially on the internet.
I am not, like the presenter makes clear that he is not, stating these are intentionally done. God knows, I am notorious for presenting rebuttals in similar ways, noting the “Strawman” in particular. It is, however, important that we notice these in our arguments and try to avoid them.
The only functional way to avoid making these stupid, stupid arguments that I have come up with is to take your point stand-alone. Consider if it can be refuted. Also, consider if you want to have a discussion, or just harpoon the whole conversation.
Having arguments, like the ones detailed in the video, do NOT win arguments. They do NOT change minds. They do, however, stop the argument from spiralling into a pissing match. They can also cause a pissing match that functionally ends the conversation.
Roxanne and I had quite the excellent conversation surrounding the topics of censorship, gender politics, and company responsibility. I am still deconstructing bits of it, but I am sure that I have enough material in that conversation for at LEAST one more blog post.
Roxanne: I am not sorry.
plain text. 