posted
I had gotten the impression that you were initially talking about talking about people who were acting stupidly, not talking to them directly. Is that incorrect?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calling them stupid is not calling them out on anything. It isn't proving anything and doesn't expose holes in their argument. It is hurling an ad hominem in place of an argument.
"[Blank] is true." "You're/That's stupid!"
That is not an effective or interesting discussion.
"[Blank] is true." "[Blank A] and [Blank B] contradict that, and from this evidence we can conclude that [Blank C] is true instead."
Wouldn't that be better? You might even persuade the original person as well instead of putting them on the defensive.
quote:This is essentially what I mean by calling them out on their stupidity.
That's just it - if you can show why they are wrong, that's a million more times effective than just tossing an insult at them. If you CAN'T show or explain why you think the statement is wrong, then calling them stupid isn't going to change that. When you can't back it up, especially, then tossing insults like that doesn't do anything to change the perception of them and instead brings down the insult-hurler.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems a weird jump from the first to the second. I'd imagine that very different rules would apply.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat...I'm not really sure what you're missing here - or if perhaps I'm not being clear enough.
Okay, I just looked over my last post to you. That one at least presents what I'm trying to convey pretty clearly - enough so that your last post is completely unwarranted - at least as far as I can tell. Maybe you're taking something I said out of context?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, just saw your edit. What we disagree on is whether or not the term "stupid" is just an insult or a factual assessment.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm telling you that the word 'stupid' has no place in an interesting, effective political discussion, and if it appears, then the conversation has degraded into an exchange of ad hominems.
You are not the grand arbiter of factual assessments, and tossing around 'stupid' like you were does not make you look like one. It makes you look like you don't have an actual coherent argument yourself and so are resorting to pejoratives because you have nothing left. I don't think that's the impression you want to convey.
Additionally, it degrades the discussion.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I'm telling you that the word 'stupid' has no place in an interesting, effective political discussion, and if it appears, then the conversation has degraded into an exchange of ad hominems.
And what I was telling you was that if a person is being stupid or dishonest or both, then that discussion is certainly no longer effective, and in my opinion no longer interesting.
But that's beside the main point that we seem to be missing each other on: I don't (generally) call people stupid. But in describing a person who is being stupid, I have no qualms using the term because it is applicable.
I'm not just tossing the term around. I'm using it appropriately in context.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But in describing a person who is being stupid, I have no qualms using the term because it is applicable.
I think Kat's point is that you'll have more luck convincing others of the stupidity of your opponent if you refrain from actually calling them stupid, whether you think it is justified or not.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Calling them stupid is not calling them out on anything. It isn't proving anything and doesn't expose holes in their argument. It is hurling an ad hominem in place of an argument.
"[Blank] is true." "You're/That's stupid!"
That is not an effective or interesting discussion.
"[Blank] is true." "[Blank A] and [Blank B] contradict that, and from this evidence we can conclude that [Blank C] is true instead."
Wouldn't that be better? You might even persuade the original person as well instead of putting them on the defensive.
Of course, there's also this:
"[Blank] is true." "[Blank A] and [Blank B] contradict that, and if you don't see that [Blank C] is true instead, you're an idiot."
That's a lot more common, actually.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conservatives have successfully labeled liberals as "anti religious" because they have successfully defined religion as being about traditional sexual mores and traditional gender roles. Many religious concepts are really quite liberal: care for the poor, stewardship of natural resources, worker's rights, peace, social justice - all straight from Catholic social teaching. Jesus wasn't conservative; he was a radical. He hung out with hippies and hookers - and women, advocated overturning the social order and giving away all your possesions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand your point, Matt. I didn't have to be so blunt. Perhaps in using the term as I initially did, I was unconsciously promoting a pet peev of mine that people should generally take better care to understand words in context. Words aren't emotions. They're tools used for communication - that's all. So while a particular word can be used to convey insult, degradation, or condescension, that does not mean every use of the word is insulting, degrading, or condescending.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:makes more sense changing your vote because of a candidate's laugh.
Is that a reference to Hillary's recent laugh-capade?
To be perfectly honest...she creeped me out a little bit. The laughs didn't necessarily sound fake, but some of them seemed a little out of place, and further, I kind of thought she was high on something. Even Wolf Blitzer looked confused and amused at one point.
I think she spends way too much time forcing her personality into a mold of what she thinks voters want and not enough just being herself. I think she was fine as First Lady, and she was fine even up to the 2004 DNC when she introduced Bill, but ever since then I think you can see a lack of natural spontanaity.
The Daily Show episode on her laughs was hilarious. They placed robot voices in the pauses between her laughs and had a funny montage of all her laughs
posted
This is why I deliberately avoid any Ann Coulter (or Michael Moore, for that matter) media: it is quite difficult to refrain from using the same sorts (though not the same degree) of labels as they use, and once you've done that, you've ceded the discussion to them for all intents and purposes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
