ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Of rhetoric and Game

Badger points out how the vicissitudes of human psychology tend to elevate the rhetorical effectiveness of those with little ability to argue at the expense of the logically and dialectically correct:
Like the mistaking of kindness for weakness that plagues today’s nice guys, there is some element of the human mind that frames lengthy and incessant counter-argument as a position of weakness and insecurity. He who masters pithy, concise (and indirect and ambiguous, I might add) communication commands a stronger image of rhetorical confidence and state control than the bloviating firebrand whose logical appeals may indeed be without equal.

It is extremely rare the wordsmith who can write (or speak) at length without the perceptible loss of audience attention, credibility and alpha points. While there are publically-known exceptions, the fact that they are known and notable underlies the exception.
I suspect this is why what I think of as the "high-low" approach is unusually effective. It helps anchor one's more intellectually flighty sallies and secures them against rhetorical dismissal by those who can't follow them.

There is a massive difference in perception between being the recipient of a breathless, circuitous infodump and being the recipient of a long lecture after the lecturer first coldly informs you that this is going to be a long, detailed, and painful experience because you are so woefully ignorant that there is simply no other choice if you are not to be left drowning in the swamp of your stupidity.

Another factor here is that simple binary thinkers tend to view multiple reasons as being somehow contradictory even when they reinforce each other. After all, if reason X is correct, then reason Y is at best unnecessary, and therefore to mention it must be indicative of a weakness in X. This is, of course, profoundly stupid, but has a rational foundation in that people who have no case do tend to take the spaghetti approach and throw out everything they can in the hope that something will stick.

However, when each reason is not perceived as an alternative, but rather a hammer blow driving home the previous point, the perception of weakness disappears. Granted, fair or not, this tends to be viewed as cruelty, but the sad reality is that in a fallen world, a man often benefits more greatly from being viewed as cruel, and therefore strong, than as kind, and therefore weak. Kindness is not weakness, but far too many people, women in particular, perceive it to be so.

Labels:

98 Comments:

Anonymous mistaben November 21, 2013 1:09 PM  

Call it the TL;DR reaction.

Blogger JCclimber November 21, 2013 1:21 PM  

If the info is too short, you can cue up the anklebiters to make their appearance demanding details.

Why do they want details? Because you didn't provide them enough stuff so that they could find one tiny part that was partially untrue and use that to "invalidate" your entire argument. In their minds, at least.

Now this makes a little more sense. In their worldview, you provide extra point because each point is weak and needs reinforcement or the whole structure falls. So since their arguments are built that way, they think others must also operate that way. So, if they can pick up apart just one or two elements of your case, they believe your entire structure is crumbled.

Anonymous patrick kelly November 21, 2013 1:21 PM  

" this is going to be a long, detailed, and painful experience..."

This is why no one will have sex with you....

Anonymous VD November 21, 2013 1:24 PM  

This is why no one will have sex with you....

A very large penis is a heavy burden to bear.

Blogger IM2L844 November 21, 2013 1:46 PM  

A very large penis is a heavy burden to bear.

Amen.

Anonymous Marc Pisco November 21, 2013 1:47 PM  

"There is a massive difference in perception between being the recipient of a breathless, circuitous infodump and being the recipient of a long lecture after the lecturer first coldly informs you that this is going to be a long, detailed, and painful experience because you are so woefully ignorant that there is simply no other choice if you are not to be left drowning in the swamp of your stupidity."

Not to a girl unless she's already in awe of you. To girls, all that matters is who's talking.

Anonymous Marc Pisco November 21, 2013 1:49 PM  

...which I'll mention I learned in part from your other blog, to save you the trouble of finding a long, painful, detailed way to rephrase "no s**t, sherlock."

Anonymous Gecko November 21, 2013 1:55 PM  

However, when each reason is not perceived as an alternative, but rather a hammer blow driving home the previous point, the perception of weakness disappears. Granted, fair or not, this tends to be viewed as cruelty

This is exactly what I observe. You can be as emotionless and pointed as humanly possible, but people seem to view this as something malicious. They expect you to coat anything so definitely condemning with sugar. I usually view such sugar coating as a waste of words that detracts from the line of reasoning. (...but I suppose your past point about logically using rhetoric for rhetorical audiences shouldn't be ignored.)

The mere fact that a man would dare to believe in absolute truth, and that his opponent is absolutely wrong, means that must be a big jerk. How rude! Soundly refuted opponents will appeal to this emotion when they have nothing left, hoping that observing women and white knights will pile on.

Spock must have been viewed as the most cruel person on the Enterprise, ironically, because of his lack of emotion.

Anonymous Jamsco November 21, 2013 1:55 PM  

Kindness: In the list of the Fruit of the Spirit
Cruelty: Not.

Anonymous Noah B. November 21, 2013 2:00 PM  

"Cruelty: Not."

Need it be mentioned that no one advocated actual cruelty?

Anonymous VD November 21, 2013 2:03 PM  

Kindness: In the list of the Fruit of the Spirit Cruelty: Not.

True. And yet is it not written that it is better to marry than burn? Not all are given the gift of celibacy.

Anonymous kh123 November 21, 2013 2:03 PM  

"Kindness: In the list of the Fruit of the Spirit
Cruelty: Not."


Just playing Pilate for a moment: What is cruelty.

Anonymous Gecko November 21, 2013 2:04 PM  

Case in point.

Anonymous kh123 November 21, 2013 2:07 PM  

"So, if they can pick up apart just one or two elements of your case, they believe your entire structure is crumbled."

Well, this is the 4chan textard generation, where everything is judged by the chapter heading alone. Hence, emphasis on sharpening the rhetorical sword. "Shut up. Adult conversation."

Anonymous Daniel November 21, 2013 2:07 PM  

Truth is cruel to error.
2 Cor. 6:14-16

Blogger Chiva November 21, 2013 2:13 PM  

"He who masters pithy, concise (and indirect and ambiguous, I might add) communication commands a stronger image of rhetorical confidence and state control than the bloviating firebrand whose logical appeals may indeed be without equal."

Could this be reinforced by the type of short messages enforced by social sites (facebook, twitter) and also texting?

Anonymous Pinakeli November 21, 2013 2:21 PM  

VD November 21, 2013 1:24 PM

This is why no one will have sex with you....

A very large penis is a heavy burden to bear.


After heart surgery my former boss said that his doctor told him not to lift anything over ten pounds, so he has to sit down to pee.

Anonymous Pinakeli November 21, 2013 2:22 PM  

mistaben November 21, 2013 1:09 PM

Call it the TL;DR reaction.


I think of it more like TS;DU (Too Stupid; Didn't Understand).

Blogger RobertT November 21, 2013 2:31 PM  

Cruelty or sadism? What's the difference?

I once was fooling around with a checker and decided to ridicule everyone in her line just to irritate her. (Who knows. it's just the way my mind works.) I ridiculed everything I could about everyone of them one at a time ... what they were buying ... their clothes ... their make up ... The results were amazingly positive. They were all jabbering to me ... trying to get my attention ... slapping me on the back. The checker couldn't believe it, and quite frankly, I couldn't either. Great lesson.

I generally have this kind of flippant attitude, and although I dress and look like I'm relatively prosperous, clerks are always giving me stuff. My friends and employees comment on it from time to time. I think people like my irreverent attitude.

Anonymous Mr. Stubby November 21, 2013 2:44 PM  

Calling Chuck Missler! Tests Could Reveal We Live In A Giant Computer Simulation!

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/09-do-we-live-in-the-matrix#.Uo5iVeL4Kuq

Anonymous Krul November 21, 2013 2:48 PM  

Most people pay attention to the speaker rather than the words. If they respect the speaker then they'll listen politely and nod, even if he's speaking gibberish. If they don't respect the speaker they'll scoff at him even if he makes perfect sense.

As a result, a person who advocates unpopular opinions already has an uphill battle. Knowing this, such advocates are prone to attempt utilizing oerwhelming force, hosing the interlocutor with a deluge of information intended to counteract as many possible contrary arguments as possible.

On the other hand, a person who advocates popular opinions has it easy. Such a person simply has to roll his eyes and say "Oh, you're one of them".

Note that the former advocate assumes he has to prove his case whereas the latter assumes that his case is already proven to the extent that reasonable, informed disagreement is impossible.

The perfect example of this approach is Richard Dawkins' response to his critics. Dawkins states outright that it is impossible for a reasonable and informed person to disagree with TENS, refuses to address or even acknowledge his critics' arguments, and mentions them only to contemptuously label them "fleas".

Anonymous Starbuck November 21, 2013 2:51 PM  

the sad reality is that in a fallen world, a man often benefits more greatly from being viewed as cruel, and therefore strong, than as kind, and therefore weak. Kindness is not weakness, but far too many people, women in particular, perceive it to be so. -VD

Problem I have is the women that have this perception remind me of bar flies. I don't really want anything to do with them any how..

Anonymous Starbuck November 21, 2013 2:53 PM  

If they don't respect the speaker they'll scoff at him even if he makes perfect sense. - Krul

Case in point - Ron Paul

People perceived him to be "weak" because he was not a large man and for the most part he spoke softly. So many people didn't have respect. Neve3rmind the fact that what he was saying was the spot on truth.

Anonymous Krul November 21, 2013 3:16 PM  

Like the mistaking of kindness for weakness that plagues today’s nice guys, there is some element of the human mind that frames lengthy and incessant counter-argument as a position of weakness and insecurity. He who masters pithy, concise (and indirect and ambiguous, I might add) communication commands a stronger image of rhetorical confidence and state control than the bloviating firebrand whose logical appeals may indeed be without equal.

For one thing, those people who are best at persuasion/manipulation tend to be those who are least interested in truth. For another, I find that most people have a sort of allergic reaction to logic. They find a person who uses logical arguments to be off-putting, and they react to him the same way they might react to someone they know to have a contagious disease.

Blogger Ever Light November 21, 2013 3:27 PM  

"What is cruelty."

SIN. Ask Jesus, He would know.

Make sure you are BORN AGAIN in spirit: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274709/still-only-solution-world-s-problems-dennis-prager#!

______________

1. http://www.godlovespeople.com/

2. http://www.jesusisprecious.org/

Anonymous Stephen J. November 21, 2013 3:31 PM  

"Another factor here is that simple binary thinkers tend to view multiple reasons as being somehow contradictory even when they reinforce each other. After all, if reason X is correct, then reason Y is at best unnecessary, and therefore to mention it must be indicative of a weakness in X. This is, of course, profoundly stupid, but has a rational foundation in that people who have no case do tend to take the spaghetti approach and throw out everything they can in the hope that something will stick."

This is exactly a weakness I've observed in many arguments in which multiple reasons are advanced for adopting a position and the number of those reasons itself contended to be another reason... without the advocate admitting (or, possibly, even realizing) that the reasons are mutually exclusive: that if Reason A is true then Reasons B and C are irrelevant. What this boils down to, I suspect, is an attempt to eat one's cake and have it too by creating a "heads I win tails you lose" situation.

One example was a brouhaha at a convention a year or two ago where a particular male fan succumbed to a moment of gamma-ness and clumsily tried to hit on a female author; the fan was declared to have committed sexual harassment by the concom (the con itself had a zero-tolerance policy), but because he had some status in the community, and because the concom members initially used their own judgement and decided his apology was sufficiently regretful, the fan's penalty was merely banning for two years, rather than the lifelong ban that formal policy called for. The shrieking outrage from the rest of the con's community got this leniency reversed and the fan was banned for life. But what I found most interesting about people's reaction was their opinion of the apology: people were simultaneously asserting that the fan's apology was insincere and that no mere apology, however sincere, was enough, without realizing that this was an oxymoron. If the insincerity is the problem, then they are admitting that an apology sufficiently sincere would have been acceptable; if no apology would be sincere, then citing its insincerity is an irrelevant data point. But by advancing them both as reasons, the people who wanted this fan banned got to win either way.

Anonymous Josh November 21, 2013 3:51 PM  

SIN. Ask Jesus, He would know.

Was Jesus cruel to the money changers he whipped out of the temple?

Was he cruel to the pharisees when he called then used menstrual rags and the sons of the devil?

Was he cruel to Peter when he said "get behind me, satan"?

Blogger Nate November 21, 2013 3:57 PM  

So... chances Ever Light is a Jo Ho?

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2013 3:57 PM  

"He who masters pithy, concise (and indirect and ambiguous, I might add) communication commands a stronger image of rhetorical confidence and state control than the bloviating firebrand whose logical appeals may indeed be without equal.

It is extremely rare the wordsmith who can write (or speak) at length without the perceptible loss of audience attention, credibility and alpha points."


In watching my Husband I have learned that he handles these type of situations in two ways.
If he disagrees with the commenter, he does little more then smirk or take a long drag on his cigar and walk away and people follow him demanding that he tell them what he thinks.

He will usually insist on getting a drink first, or maybe do a little small talk with someone else (making the other person wait), get comfortable...then go into his opinion.

This is an important thing. Because otherwise people think he agrees with them or try to talk over him.

If they annoy him, or he is not in the mood to make a point, he does the same (to let them know he does not agree with them) but then starts playing his drums until they are willing to change the subject. If they bring it up again, he starts banging again.

It is really hot. Yes, he does this to me too LOL.

For me, I have found saying little more then a quiet "Wow" in the short amount of time a women is taking a breath sends them into flying hysterics. This at least lets the herd know that I do not agree and they begin to look at the commenter in a more critical way. Usually, if someone is interested, they find me alone later and ask what my thoughts were.

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2013 4:02 PM  

Could this be reinforced by the type of short messages enforced by social sites (facebook, twitter) and also texting?

@ Chiva

That is not the beginning of where this started. But yes. My Father would often remark 30 years ago that he was frustrated that you couldn't have someone's attention longer then the length of a commercial anymore.

Now it is ten seconds tops.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 21, 2013 4:04 PM  

Anyone who has ever bothered to read the entire speech or article, which contain words we can ever forget, cannot help but be impressed by how mundane and casual was the rest of what they had to say.

Phrases like "We the People" (Declaration of Independence), "give me liberty or give me death" (Patrick Henry), "We will never surrender" (Churchill), and "of the people, by the people, and for the people" (Lincoln), are convincing and inspiring in ways that are disproportionate to the weight of what else they may have said at the same time.

Was the punchline by design or did they stumble upon it mixed in a declaratory rant? I am not sure, both are possible.

Anonymous bw November 21, 2013 4:07 PM  

That I must be their scourge and minister...I must be cruel in order to be kind....Heaven hath pleased it so to punish with this


Anonymous DonReynolds November 21, 2013 4:14 PM  

Carlotta......I always get in the best arguments (with women) by agreeing with them......then they insist on telling me the rest of their thoughts anyway. In my mind, once I agree, there is no reason to beat the dead horse any more, but it seems they have a long receta that must be finished before the subject is finally exhausted.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2013 4:18 PM  

I insist on making long arguments, but in order to do so I work intensely on framing. I'll suggest in advance that the inability to listen to more than quick soundbites reflects a mental defficiency, that it might be a bit of a struggle, but when I'm done I promise to let them talk.

I've found that one of the best ways to neutralize most any BS rhetorical technique (and framing the debate as quick jabs instead of arguments is an especially effective one if reason's not your ally) is to name it as such. "All you're doing is name-calling, which proves you can't respond to any of my points." "Are you incapable of letting somebody else talk or are you just rude?"

I also work extra hard at keeping their attention once I've gotten it. I alternate cadences, revert from soft and sincere to harshly quick-witted to coldly rational. This helps neutralize their frame of non-lefty=heartless (well-placed emotion humanizes you). A well-placed (and deserved) jab works a lot better after I've shown how much I caaaare. I use feeling and manipulate it so as to re-frame the discussion in a more dialectical direction.

Sounds complicated, but it works. I don't ever lose verbal political discussions.

Martel

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2013 4:21 PM  

@ DonReynolds

My Husband has told me more then once I am about to talk him out of agreeing with him LOL.

It used to get me all fired up.

Now I shut up. It took 20 years :)

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2013 4:22 PM  

Sorry.
Should be "I am about to talk him out of agreeing with me"

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2013 4:24 PM  

@ Martel

If I may, and I only have this to say because I was recently advised of this by my Husband, your technique may be effective to embarrass but it leaves no way for the person to actually end up changing their mind to truly agree with you.

I guess it depends on what your goal is.

Anonymous Stingray November 21, 2013 4:36 PM  

Pithy and ambiguous makes the hamster spin and spin and spin. This is a good thing when communicating with women. Online, it can backfire depending on your chosen words as your word choice is your only frame. In person, your body language is what does the rest.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 21, 2013 4:36 PM  

Stephen J......."One example was a brouhaha at a convention a year or two ago where a particular male fan succumbed to a moment of gamma-ness and clumsily tried to hit on a female author; the fan was declared to have committed sexual harassment by the concom...."

Men and women rank each other differently. For many men when ranking women, a simple Pass/Fail dichotomy is sufficient. Either she is interesting or she is not. This has the effect of widening the field considerably with regard to pairing.

Women discern much more finely. (I like to think it was a skill they developed while playing with paper dolls.) Most of the women I have ever known went well beyond the ordinal ranking to having a strongly ordered cardinal ranking of matched pairs when it came to pairing men and women. Research has shown that they are pretty good at estimating their own worth, if you do not mind that word, and the prospective mates to which they are entitled to. When a nerd or a dweeb crosses over the line and hits on them (outside his league), he can expect to be set to rights straight away in angry tones, because she finds it to be an insult (and sexual harassment, and demeaning, etc etc). Left to their own, the women in any given social setting could just as easily assign temporary couples (matchmaking) as they could assign seating at the dinner table. Those men who do not know or admit to their apparent score are definitely headed for quick correction. It is a bit like trespassing.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2013 4:41 PM  

@ Calotta: But that's but one of many techniques I use, and I "turn the volume down" so to speak when I'm dealing with a more reasonable person. It somebody's gently interrupting, I'll gently imply they're being rude. If somebody's being a loudmouth dumbass, all bets are off.

Also, I alter techniques depending on who I'm trying to persuade. I might not be able to convince the nose-ringed feminist of anything (at that time), but I might be able to convince the freshman in her first womyn's studies class who's listening in. My goal is to convince the low-hanging fruit. If it's just me and the feminazi, I'll work to persuade her, but if there are more reasonable bystanders, I'll handle that same feminazi differently so as to persuade those listening in.

My opponent (the person I'm arguing against) may not be the same person as my target (the person I'm trying to persuade). Sometimes I humiliate, sometimes I gently guide to reason. It all depends on who I'm with, the environment (dinner party, music in the background), etc.

Martel

Anonymous Josh November 21, 2013 4:42 PM  

I insist on making long arguments, but in order to do so I work intensely on framing.

Why can't you make effective short arguments?

Anonymous DonReynolds November 21, 2013 4:52 PM  

Stingray....."Pithy and ambiguous makes the hamster spin and spin and spin. This is a good thing when communicating with women. Online, it can backfire depending on your chosen words as your word choice is your only frame. In person, your body language is what does the rest."

It comes as something of a disappointment in a man's life when he finds out that women do not actually listen to much of what he has to say.

You can do this experiment.....just stop in the middle of conversation with a woman and ask her to repeat what you just said. Most of the time....they don't remember or they get it wrong or they confuse it with something you said five minutes ago. The truth is the women are constantly multi-tasking and too distracted by a dozen other things to hear what you are saying. Men end up thinking there is a communication "problem". There is no problem. Test yourself......when talking to other men, ask them what you just said. Your communication skills are fine. When men speak to each other it is like a telegraph message, each word is important.

What women do notice is your body language and most particularly your (all important) TONE. It does not matter much what you say but it matters very much how you say it. THIS they pick up. You can say the same exact same words using a different tone each time and get a different reaction.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2013 4:58 PM  

@ Josh: I can make effective short arguments, if "effective" is defined as seeming dominant and adept at verbal jousting.

However, one-liners rarely change minds. I also find they're much better at ripping apart somebody else's argument than they are at augmenting mine.


I'm not denying that short arguments have their place, but they're not my specialty. Fortunately, I'm able to frame things so as to get away with making long arguments, I'm better at them, and they serve my ends better.

So that's what I do.

Martel

Anonymous kh123 November 21, 2013 5:25 PM  

Whole lotta "I".

Anonymous VD November 21, 2013 5:28 PM  

I guess it depends on what your goal is.

His purpose is not to persuade, Carlotta: "I don't ever lose verbal political discussions."

His purpose is to be able to declare himself the winner. Notice how he posted three times in 40 minutes in order to talk about himself. He may well be an alpha, as he shows the classic signs of alpha status-mongering.

My dear Martel, you have to know you can't do the alpha chest-beating routine on a Sigma's blog without having the piss taken out of you.

Blogger SarahsDaughter November 21, 2013 5:28 PM  

Pithy and ambiguous makes the hamster spin and spin and spin. - Stingray

Exhibit A: Yohami in this thread.

Like a work of art.

Blogger SarahsDaughter November 21, 2013 5:30 PM  

Sorry,
this thread

Blogger Nate November 21, 2013 5:44 PM  

"My dear Martel, you have to know you can't do the alpha chest-beating routine on a Sigma's blog without having the piss taken out of you."

if he could at least make it entertaining....

Anonymous Stingray November 21, 2013 5:47 PM  

i've seen Yohami get men's hamsters going with single word comments. He is quite good.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2013 5:52 PM  

My dearest Mr. Day:

I concede that I may have left the impression that my "purpose is to declare myself the winner", but that's most decidedly not the case. If it were, I wouldn't bother with any techniques, I'd simply boldly declare myself the winner.

But that's not what I do. I don't win when I declare myself as such, I win when I hear the black guy admit he finally gets why affirmative action is wrong, when the Christian conservative concedes that drug war is a failure.

Or when the die-hard lefty true believer tearfully mutters to herself "I can't believe it. I can't. This is my life! He has to be wrong. He HAS to be! GO AWAY! I HATE YOU!"

(That last one isn't exactly a victory in the persuasive sense. In that case I defined victory as having fun.)

So this is the fourth time I've posted about myself in however many minutes. If I didn't respond for the fourth time in however many minutes, I could easily be described as cowering in the face of your piss-taking. On the other hand, a response is more "alpha chest-beating".

Which is excellent framing, BTW. I can count on one hand the people who I think could beat me in a debate, and you're one of them.

Martel

Blogger JCclimber November 21, 2013 6:16 PM  

Dude, when I encounter someone who insists on making a long-winded argument, it is very easy to AMOG them, if you are able to outrace their thinking.
If you're on my side of an argument and we're speaking to someone else, I'll interject when you're done "what my long-winded friend here is saying" and summarize your diatribe into 1 sentence.

If you're not on my side, I'll make a humorous comment such as "without turning this into the War and Peace debate society and further boring the crap out of everyone here, what you're saying is - summarize your position into the least favorable caricature" -.... and continue on with a short rebuttal.

In this day and age, it is pretty easy to gain a short attention span audiences' favor. Ronald Reagan did this quite well despite not having the highest IQ in the world. "There you go again". Masterful. He already had half the victory right there by getting everyone to laugh at the blowhard.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2013 6:34 PM  

@ JC: Long isn't necessarily superfluous (although I'll admit it often is). Part of what takes longer is that I'll often refute what I suspect will be their retort before they make it or ensure that specific phrases really stick in their heads. It's of paramount importance to hold people's interest, so I change things up enough when I talk to make sure I do.

I may seem like I'd be a windbag droning on and on, and I use a lot of words, but I don't waste them.

Regarding your "debating society" comment for opponents, highly effective.

Reagan was great at what he did, but one-liners aren't my strong suit, so I avoid them.

Martel

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2013 6:35 PM  

His purpose is to be able to declare himself the winner. Notice how he posted three times in 40 minutes in order to talk about himself. He may well be an alpha, as he shows the classic signs of alpha status-mongering.



Ah. Well, I shall get the popcorn.
I so enjoy these learning moments.

Anonymous Josh November 21, 2013 6:41 PM  

I may seem like I'd be a windbag droning on and on, and I use a lot of words, but I don't waste them.

Fascinating

Anonymous Noah B. November 21, 2013 6:41 PM  

Where is it that some here have these lengthy, high-minded debates with leftists? I find that, with rare exception, they resort to some form of name calling after I've made only a few solid points. dh seems to be the most "reasonable" leftist I've debated.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 21, 2013 6:43 PM  

Carlotta....."Ah. Well, I shall get the popcorn.
I so enjoy these learning moments."

Bring enough for everyone.
We like popcorn.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2013 7:02 PM  

@ Noah: Correct about the name-calling. There are two ways to handle this, one preventative, the other reactive. But ultimately, ad hominem is just another BS rhetorical device that can be re-framed to advantage.

unfortunately, I'm in a parking lot typing this on my phone, so I'll have to describe how after I'm done here at the gym and get home.

Anonymous Josh November 21, 2013 7:26 PM  

unfortunately, I'm in a parking lot typing this on my phone, so I'll have to describe how after I'm done here at the gym and get home.

Do you even lift, bro?

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2013 7:44 PM  

@ DonReynolds
Ok, made with coconut oil or butter?

Here is for you and your wife to share.

Martel is coming off a testosterone boost so I am hoping for great things.

Anonymous zen0 November 21, 2013 7:44 PM  

In a world where Obama is considered an orator .............

Anonymous roger u November 21, 2013 8:00 PM  

<140 characters or its too long!

Anonymous DonReynolds November 21, 2013 8:11 PM  

Carlotta...."Here is for you and your wife to share."

In the state of Texas, if you do not immediately deny being married when someone says that, you ARE married under the common law marriage provisions of Texas. Since I still have a Texas drivers license, I may still be subject to Texas law, so I specifically deny being married to anyone......including any who may have thought so at one time or another.

But I am curious. Vox is probably not the only married man here but I do not recall anyone mentioning their current wife. The women are more likely to mention that they have a husband. I tried that several times since 1973 (without success), but I am not sure if it would be considered bigamy or adultery, since I was already married to my work. Oh well, it is better to be a boyfriend than a husband in my experience. Much better deal.

Blogger JACIII November 21, 2013 8:26 PM  

Texas just keeps getting scarier and scarier.

Anonymous zen0 November 21, 2013 8:33 PM  

Texas just keeps getting scarier and scarier.

What's the matter boy? Can't get it up. Here, let officer Violet help you out.

We need that sample, boy.

Ya. This is a state that has secession on its mind.

Blogger SarahsDaughter November 21, 2013 8:33 PM  

You're just not paying attention to the men, Don. I know several on this thread are married. Archived in my brain and used to form a mind picture of them when I read their comments. You should see what some of you guys look like. Heh.
I do the same with the ladies. It's all part of having the role of tending to relationships.

Anonymous zen0 November 21, 2013 8:44 PM  

It's all part of having the role of tending to relationships.

Scary.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 21, 2013 8:54 PM  

JACIII......"Texas just keeps getting scarier and scarier."

I guess it was 2006 when Texas voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution to enable judges to deny bail to men (who else) accused of domestic violence. It could take two years or more for their case to come to trial, during which time they are ruined financially, lose their job, and held incommunicado from their kids. Given that this is a normal and ordinary lawyer tactic in Texas to win a favorable divorce and get CPS involved on her side, I cannot imagine living in Texas again.

I got a divorce in Arkansas in 1995. I took a job in Texas in January 2001 and my ex moved there in August. Ten months later she moved in with her biker boyfriend she met while working overnight together at the local Wal-Mart, even signed the lease in the trailer park using his last name.

A year later she wanted a divorce (again) from me, without the bother of having remarried in the meantime. While I was at the district court arguing that no divorce is possible because we had been divorced EIGHT YEARS, Child Protective Services came to my house and picked up my kids. The judge ruled that a marriage existed (no license, no county record, no witnesses) and she got temporary custody of the kids. Had to go through yet another divorce and I got visitation with my kids for six months. Ten years later and she still has temporary custody and refuses to allow the kids visitation with Dad. (Yeah, I still got four court orders that say my kids get to visit me every Saturday.) All perfectly legal in Texas, even though neither one of us live in Texas anymore. I hired five different lawyers to change it and got nowhere. Yes, Texas is a "whole nuther country".

If anyone tells you that Texas is a conservative state, you can know they never lived there.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 21, 2013 9:11 PM  

SarahsDaughter....."You're just not paying attention to the men, Don. I know several on this thread are married. Archived in my brain and used to form a mind picture of them when I read their comments. You should see what some of you guys look like. Heh.
I do the same with the ladies. It's all part of having the role of tending to relationships."

Dear, I do not doubt you in the least.

Blogger Nate November 21, 2013 9:44 PM  

"unfortunately, I'm in a parking lot typing this on my phone, so I'll have to describe how after I'm done here at the gym and get home."

For the love of God don't keep us waiting. We cannot wait to here more about you.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 21, 2013 9:46 PM  

people were simultaneously asserting that the fan's apology was insincere and that no mere apology, however sincere, was enough, without realizing that this was an oxymoron

It's not an oxymoron, it's defense in depth. The particular point they are trying to defend may be obnoxious, but it doesn't make the two points inconsistent.

You've never filed a patent, have you?

Anonymous zen0 November 21, 2013 9:55 PM  

You've never filed a patent, have you?

I don' think I have ever heard that argument here before. Bravo.

Its always nice to be around when important stuff happens,

November 21, 2013

Anonymous Jack Amok November 21, 2013 10:00 PM  

Always a hoot to watch a noob try something he doesn't' really understand. Keep practicing zen0.

Anonymous Myrddin November 21, 2013 10:01 PM  

Granted, fair or not, this tends to be viewed as cruelty,

The love of a hero is more terrible than the hatred of a tyrant. The hatred of a hero is more generous than the love of a philanthropist.

Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith) (1994-05-01). Orthodoxy (p. 42). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

...but the sad reality is that in a fallen world, a man often benefits more greatly from being viewed as cruel, and therefore strong, than as kind, and therefore weak.

What is perceived as 'kind' or 'cruel' are not necessarily related to what is kind or cruel.

Anonymous bob k. mando November 21, 2013 10:09 PM  

so, is what yer sayin is, i'd have been better off just saying

1 - Peter was a lying beta appeaser

2 - who spends all that time daydreaming about Holy Mother Mary's cooch?

Anonymous Godfrey November 21, 2013 10:09 PM  

Maybe it's contraception. I’m talking about the pill in particular. Maybe it chemically alters a woman's judgment. Furthermore, contraception detaches sex from procreation. A woman would be more particular in choosing a man if she viewed the choice in the light of procreation. She would have to ask herself the question: Would I want to have children with this man? You’ll find if you ask yourself that question, the answer is usually no.

Anonymous zen0 November 21, 2013 10:11 PM  

Always a hoot to watch a noob try something he doesn't' really understand. Keep practicing zen0.

Hey. That was a compliment. I was impressed.

Not sarcasm.

Anonymous Myrddin November 21, 2013 10:16 PM  

This is proving more educational than usual.

Anonymous Godfrey November 21, 2013 10:21 PM  

@DonReynolds November 21, 2013 4:36 PM
"Women discern much more finely... Research has shown that they are pretty good at estimating their own worth, if you do not mind that word, and the prospective mates to which they are entitled to. When a nerd or a dweeb crosses over the line and hits on them... he can expect to be set to rights straight away in angry tones, because she finds it to be an insult... Those men who do not know or admit to their apparent score are definitely headed for quick correction. It is a bit like trespassing."


I disagree. Generally speaking it's been my observation that a woman will put more effort in choosing a blouse than a man. When it comes to a woman it's often a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Timing is important. We've all seen attractive women who settled well below their league. It's often a result of a pregnancy at an early age.

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2013 10:28 PM  

@ DonReynolds
Whoops!
I mixed you up with someone else. So sorry.

Ah....popcorn?

Anonymous Carlotta November 21, 2013 10:32 PM  

@SD
I know exactly what you mean. Almost like a mini comic avatar in my mind of everyone.

Anonymous zen0 November 21, 2013 10:34 PM  

"When it comes to a woman it's often a matter of being in the right place at the right time. "

You'll start to notice signs that you're fertile about five days before you ovulate. Ovulation usually occurs between 12 and 14 days before your period starts. This is an average, so it could be a couple of days earlier or later.


Anonymous Godfrey November 21, 2013 10:38 PM  

@Carlotta November 21, 2013 10:32 PM
"...like a mini comic avatar in my mind of everyone."


Actually it would be interesting if we each had an avatar to go with our pseudonym.

Blogger SarahsDaughter November 21, 2013 10:38 PM  

Godfrey,
A result of pregnancy at an early age?

Could you explain this further?

Also you seem to be making a case against hypergamy which is interesting as well. You disagree that women have an aversion to dweebs?

Anonymous DonReynolds November 21, 2013 10:56 PM  

Godfrey......"I disagree. Generally speaking it's been my observation that a woman will put more effort in choosing a blouse than a man."

Why, of course. In this society, men are expected to do the asking and women are worried sick about their biological clock running out of time and often a bit impatient. Who wants to be an "old maid"? Hey, I asked my wife (at the time) why she married me.....she said, "nobody else asked me". She was 18 when we got married.

Godfrey......"When it comes to a woman it's often a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Timing is important. We've all seen attractive women who settled well below their league. It's often a result of a pregnancy at an early age."

Too many women suffer from low self esteem. They really do not know how beautiful they truly are, so they have a skewed perception of their own self worth. True, there are some others who have an exaggerated estimate of how they stack up.....no pun intended.

I would agree with your perception for too many (men and) women. Yes, it does seem to be a matter of timing too often.

Blogger rycamor November 21, 2013 11:20 PM  

One thing I like to do when someone tries to draw me into discussion:

"That is a very good question for which I think I've got a very good answer. But first: does it really matter?"

You're saying 'yes'? So then if I convince you that [XYZ], you're going to [make an actual change based on this]?"

If they don't say 'yes', I do an imperturbable shrug and talk about something else. It lets them know they can't waste my time, but it often has the effect of getting them curious where they weren't before. And, if they answer "yes", they have just become more invested in the discussion.

It's the classic sales technique called the "qualifying question". Very valuable as long as you don't overuse it, and good for dealing with the annoying spaz who just wants to bloviate.

Anonymous Anonymous November 21, 2013 11:22 PM  

My response to Noah's query here.

Martel

Blogger SarahsDaughter November 21, 2013 11:37 PM  

Rycamor,
Have you found, though, with feminists, that their yes is actually deceptive and their desire for you to expound is to be able to judge you further and find that tiny bit of inconsistency that JCclimber mentioned above. IRL this isn't as likely to happen as their body language gives them away. Online it is easier for them to do.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus November 21, 2013 11:40 PM  

Krul: "Most people pay attention to the speaker rather than the words. If they respect the speaker then they'll listen politely and nod, even if he's speaking gibberish. If they don't respect the speaker they'll scoff at him even if he makes perfect sense. "

Right. I call it the "Stevie Ray effect". (A French crowd booed Stevie Ray Vaughan off the stage, because he was unknown. After he was famous, he came back and did the same show again and was cheered.)

Krul: "As a result, a person who advocates unpopular opinions already has an uphill battle. Knowing this, such advocates are prone to attempt utilizing oerwhelming force, hosing the interlocutor with a deluge of information intended to counteract as many possible contrary arguments as possible."

Right. It's tempting to do that, because often there are a lot of standard "squelching" objections, all of them easy to beat from a logical point of view. You know that whichever one of them you don't cover in advance will be trotted out, to cheers of "you didn't think of that, did you? Owned!" So the temptation is to cover them all, producing a laundry list of preemptive answers to the answers.

Alas...

Krul: "On the other hand, a person who advocates popular opinions has it easy. Such a person simply has to roll his eyes and say "Oh, you're one of them".

That's so painfully true.

And I don't think it has to be even actually popular opinions. It's enough that the anti-white mass media creates a false impression that "practically everyone" thinks A and repudiates B, and that they punish people arguing B even if in polls B is quite a common opinion.

The mass media gets to say who is a winner and who is a loser, and women in particular love to be on the side of the winners.

Blogger Ragin' Dave November 21, 2013 11:47 PM  

I've been taught public speaking, and one of the main thrusts was that if you go on too long in any topic, you're going to lose folks.

The man who spoke before Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address spoke for two hours. Lincoln spoke for five minutes. Anyone care to name the prior without going to Google? I've read the speech. It's enough to make your eyes cross just reading it, much less listening to it.

If you have more than three main points in a speech, you're going to lose folks. Especially in today's world of txt and "LOL!" and Tweets. I don't think it's about intelligence or status, I think it's about humanity's limits to listening for extended periods of time.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 22, 2013 12:25 AM  

There's a simple test you can use in order to avoid having to debate or discuss anything with stupid people (the universal set of stupid people = all leftists, plus various other types of stupid people which have to be individually identified and diagnosed, but leftists is a group diagnosis). Just mention in passing, quite casually, that George W. Bush was a leftist. Don't say "Aha! Bush was a LEFTIST!! So THERE!!" Just say something like "typical idiot leftists like Rachel Maddow and George W. Bush..." If the person understands this, then you can have a productive conversation. If they point and splutter and say "WHAAAT??!?" then you know they aren't worth talking to. I usually change the subject to something that interests me more, like Ernie Bushmiller.

99% of this whole rhetoric/dialectic thing reminds me of that old Gary Larson cartoon...

WHAT WE SAY TO DOGS: Catch the tennis ball, Ginger! Atta girl, Ginger! Good dog, Ginger! Who's a good dog? Ginger is! Ginger is a good dog! Way to go, Ginger!

WHAT DOGS ACTUALLY HEAR: xxxxxxxxGinger! xxxxx, Ginger, xxxxxxx! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxGinger, Ginger, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx!!

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 22, 2013 12:28 AM  

"Lincoln spoke for five minutes."

Of course, what he managed to say in those five minutes was an outrageous lie, perhaps the single hugest falsehood ever uttered in public in American politics.

So he had THAT goin' for him.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 22, 2013 12:37 AM  

scoobius dubious....."WHAT WE SAY TO DOGS: Catch the tennis ball, Ginger! Atta girl, Ginger! Good dog, Ginger! Who's a good dog? Ginger is! Ginger is a good dog! Way to go, Ginger!"

....and another thing: We will no longer be called "dogs". That is the slave name given us by old dead white racist guys. From now on, you will call us CANINE-AMERICANS.

Blogger rycamor November 22, 2013 12:45 AM  

SarahsDaughter November 21, 2013 11:37 PM

Rycamor,
Have you found, though, with feminists, that their yes is actually deceptive and their desire for you to expound is to be able to judge you further and find that tiny bit of inconsistency that JCclimber mentioned above. IRL this isn't as likely to happen as their body language gives them away. Online it is easier for them to do.


Exactly. This works in person, not via email or forums. It might be possible to use it in real-time chat, but that's about it. In fact, sometimes I really draw out the 2nd question and play coy a bit: "You're sure you want to hear it? I mean, this could be life-changing. You've just told me that you're willing to act on this if you are convinced. I don't want cause you any distress over this. Maybe we'd better leave it 'til another time."

This sort of thing is only worthwhile if you think the person is a genuine prospect, and works best if you are setting up for a quasi-Socratic discussion. When it is a man, I have even gotten him to commit 2 hours to the discussion ("It's not going to be worth it unless you can set aside a couple hours. Wattaya say?"), and it is amazing the focus you can get from a man who really has gotten the bug for the discussion.

With women I don't bother getting into long Socratic dialogues, but hit them with a quick series of escalating question/answer points, and it is over within 15-20 minutes. I always end it with at least a minimal commitment question like "So, have I gotten you to see it from another viewpoint?" (the answer to that is always "yes"). And then if I'm feeling like it I can go for the jugular and push for full commitment, or just part with "Fair enough. I want you to think about this and see if you can really live with your viewpoint, given what you know now." (mannerism has to be friendly, slightly teasing)

Of course... men need to understand that this is not the kind of argument you can have with a wife. It just doesn't work that way. When the woman already has a close relationship with you *everything* has to pass through the "but don't you really love me?" filter first. So truth has to be administered in much smaller doses over a much longer time. But of course, time is what you've got.

Blogger SarahsDaughter November 22, 2013 1:12 AM  

With women I don't bother getting into long Socratic dialogues

Yes. We can handle about 3-5 questions before frustration ensues (if that). Then we'll turn the questions into perceived insults. ;)

Of course... men need to understand that this is not the kind of argument you can have with a wife. It just doesn't work that way. When the woman already has a close relationship with you *everything* has to pass through the "but don't you really love me?" filter first. So truth has to be administered in much smaller doses over a much longer time. But of course, time is what you've got.

Kind of. Yes to smaller doses but you must remain a dog on a bone. It seems as though time is what you've got, after all she said "until death parts us." However...don't get too comfortable with the slow leak of wisdom. Small, yet potent, doses are needed coupled with, not so much "I love you's" but with a firm swat to the ass and a "go get naked!"

Analyze if she's getting it or not. Clue: she will reveal what she "gets" in her conversations with other women and about other women. If she "gets it" she will judge those who don't.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 22, 2013 1:19 AM  

Jamsco said...
Kindness: In the list of the Fruit of the Spirit
Cruelty: Not.


Do you not know that there are times that you have to be cruel to be kind?


Martel said...M "All you're doing is name-calling, which proves you can't respond to any of my points." "Are you incapable of letting somebody else talk or are you just rude?"

Start with a smirk and a short, mocking laugh. Very powerful stuff.

Anonymous Anonymous November 22, 2013 2:28 AM  

Thanks for the pingback. In the spirit of the post, I will say no more.

Anonymous Stephen J. November 22, 2013 9:47 AM  

@Jack Amok: "It's not an oxymoron, it's defense in depth. The particular point they are trying to defend may be obnoxious, but it doesn't make the two points inconsistent. You've never filed a patent, have you?"

I have not, no; I'd be interested in hearing how you see the parallels in the situation here.

For myself I have to admit I still don't see the logic. If the issue is that the gravity of an offense is such that no apology is sufficient however sincere, then there is no relevance to holding insincerity against someone for that offense; if the issue is that the actual apology was not sufficiently sincere, then by definition one admits that there could in principle be such a thing as a sufficiently sincere apology, and there is no merit in acting as if the offense is unforgiveable.

Either the offense is forgiveable or it is not; either sincerity makes a difference or it does not; but you cannot simultaneously assert that the offense is unforgiveable and that sufficient sincerity would have made a difference in obtaining forgiveness. That's the contradiction.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 22, 2013 1:46 PM  

I have not, no; I'd be interested in hearing how you see the parallels in the situation here.

Patents make things called (legal term) claims. As in what the inventor claims to have invented. Usually there are several claims and they typically go like this (exaggerated to make the point):

1) the Inventor claims to have invented everything since the start of time.
2) the inventor claims to have invented everything since 1903.
3) the inventor claims to have invented everything using electricity.
4) the inventor claims to have invented everything that uses electricity for entertainment devices
5) the inventory claims....

If the patent holder ever sues someone for infringement, each claim is evaluated on it's own, and one claim being found invalid does not impact the others. So the typical practice is to make several claims, started as broadly as you could possible go, and then scoping it back with what are essentially backup claims. If your broadest claim stands up, great, you win. If it doesn't, you might still prevail on a more narrow claim.

There's nothing inherently illogical in making multiple concentric claims, such as "there's no apology that could be sufficient for such a horrible thing, and even if there was, his apology wasn't sincere." The claims themselves might well be idiotic, but they are not contradictory or inconsistent with themselves.

The key thing is, you have to make them all up front. You can't add claims to your patent after the lawsuit begins. There's no "well, we lost on that argument, so let's come up with another..."

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts