We've had a couple threads here and over at ThreeWayAction.com about disagreements on web forums. Several people say they don't read controversial threads because it only annoys them. Here's my question: How do you react to people with incompatible viewpoints? don't mean racists and other outcasts -- I mean, if you're liberal and work with someone who's very conservative, how do you co-exist? If you're pro-choice and your new crush is pro-life, is there any hope?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Answers

I don't know, Tom. I also don't know why the expression of ideas causes some people to become hysterical -- and I'm not using the word as hyperbole. There are people who seem to become physically ill because of words on a message board, which I really don't understand.

(As a sidenote, I personally don't think that pro-choice and pro-life folks ought to date one another, not without a really clear understanding up front of what's going to happen if they have an "accident." But they probably ought to be able to talk to one another on message boards.)

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I'll answer my own question. [Product warning: If you generally avoid the political threads, you'll probably find this one dull, too]

My job as a lawyer in the litigation department of a New York firm means that I spend all day, every day, disagreeing. I'm paid to develop the strongest arguments in favor of my client's position, and to convince a judge that they're right. On the other side, there's an equally intelligent person who's being paid to take opposite positions and support them as strongly as she/he can. It's therefore no surprise to me that I meet smart, good people with whom I can't agree on the time of day.

I have a co-worker who has never been able to adjust to that. He still gets angry whenever he reads briefs from the other side. He waves his arms and rants about how stupid the attorneys for our opponent must be to buy into such obviously fallacious theories, etc., etc. And no matter how many times I ask him what he thinks they get paid to do, the next brief that he reads will bring him straight to my office for another rant.

As for political views, I haven't expected universal agreement on anything since I left the halls of U. Va., where all the good little sons and daughters of the Ivy League had exactly the same opinions. I never imagined that the 250 million Americans not enrolled at elite Eastern schools were being steeped in chopped- and watered-down Marxism of the sort that allows you to be politically correct, yet still want a Lexus SUV.

And how could you imagine that? We live in a country that just split practically down the middle on a Presidential election. The Republican and the Democratic platforms both were the product of difficult compromises, with strong interest groups shaping them and in often conflicting ways. How, then, could it be a surprise to find posts on politics that disagree with our views?

So, for me, when I get into a strong disagreement with someone, I just shrug and make my point, and if they want to make an attack on my view into a personal thing, I complain that it's inappropriate and point to evidence in their previous posts that they aren't very smart or mature. But that's probably only because I've spent nearly seven years doing just that for a living, not because I've achieved some higher level of insight. I'm really interested to hear how people who don't do disputes for a living deal with differing viewpoints, what pushes their buttons and why.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

(Tom, your mail is bouncing, so I disabled the notifies on this topic.)

I just wanted to add that I have a couple of coworkers who react the same way -- they are personally offended when the AG files a responsive brief disagreeing with them. I don't know how people with that attitude survive in the legal world without killing themselves.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Beth, a typo in my e-mail is making the notifications bounce. The domain s/be "ogk", not "ofk" -- sorry.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Oops. Well, I fixed the typo, but there is apparently no way for me to reenable the notify. Sorry about that.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Off-topic, my co-worker is looking to get out of the law. Harder than it sounds, apparently.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I kind of agree with Tom. When I'm at work, I find myself constantly on the defensive and trying to reason with and explain things to hotheads. The internet is supposed to be my relax time - I don't want to have to fight when I'm online, especially with people I don't know, or about topics that I'm only mildly passionate about.

I've been suckered in, I admit - and it's because when discussions about race and ethnicity hop in, my temper flares up. I can't help it. But that's the reason I try to steer clear of "controversial" topics. The Politics forum at 3wa - I like to read, but I try to keep out of, if only to preserve my sanity.

But. If there was a forum somewhere in the land of ideal fora where people could post views and have civil discussions? Sure, I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat.

Of course, I say that now. I'm a big fat liar. Let me talk about pantylines and happy shiny things and I'll be just peachy.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I can't stand to see people arguing in person. It makes me really, extremely uncomfortable. But I like to see healthy disagreements on the boards, particularly when the thoughts are as well written as they are around here. I've actually learned a lot about the other side of issues I'd be too sensitive to discuss in real life.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

In a sense, as a scientist, I argue for a living, too, except I do it on my own behalf. A big part of getting funded (or in my case, passing exams) is being able to defend your hypotheses to other scientists.

However, I do feel very uncomfortable having non-work-related debates about controversial issues in the workplace.

A couple of years ago, when I was living in Boston, a bunch of my co- workers started talking about how they didn't think that gay people should be allowed to have kids. From what they were saying, it was obvious to me that their opposition was based on gut homophobia and not on logic. For a few minutes, I actually had to force myself not to open my mouth, because I was afraid I'd say something, um, unprofessional. After a few minutes, I finally did calm down enough to make a few points in defense of gay parenthood, but I was literally trembling from the stress of having to restrain myself.

I was angry not just at my co-workers' viewpoint, but also at the fact they'd brought the issue up in the workplace, where I was really pretty much forced to confront it.

I'm more likely to discuss controversial issues with friends, but if there's something we really have a serious difference about, I try to stay away from it.

In contrast, I almost never get upset about discussions on message boards. The only time I ever get frustrated is if I feel like I'm failing to convey my point clearly. But if I get upset about a message board discussion, I can just walk away. I can't really do that with friends and especially not at work.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Jen expressed my thoughts almost exactly.

At work, I have no interest at all getting into a war of ideas that isn't based on professional concerns - it's just a no-win situation. I work in a nest of conservative government/military types, and I figure if they've managed to be *that close* to political issues without having a terribly broad mind about things, there's nothing I'm going to say that is going to convince them of anything, so I have everything to lose and nothing to gain by it.

So 'smile and nod' and grit my teeth and stay out of most of the water cooler discussions is my way to deal with it. And then come to forums where I can actually battle the ideas.

I don't generally get angry in hot debates online for that reason - the relationships with most of the people there are relationships based on the exchange of ideas. MOST people who don't value that are likely to not spend time there, so I don't feel like I have to be so cautious about sharing my views - unlike work, where simply stating an opinion necessarily means the person wanted or expected any response to that opinion. Unlike at work, if I don't care to be exposed to any person's ideas, I can just stop reading them.

I figure if you say something in a forum, you're inviting response, and I love response, including heated response - as long as it is on the level of ideas. Battle your views to the death, forums are the place for it.

The only time it stops being fun is when it's apparent that the person you're talking (arguing/debating/disagreeing) with isn't having fun and doesn't seem to have the coolheadedness to remember that they can walk away if they choose. I've gotten there a time or two myself, and I know how miserable it feels - I really don't want to contribute to anyone else feeling that way.

That said, I get totally annoyed with people who mistake a disagreement with their viewpoint with a 'flame' and who immediately short circuit a discussion by making it personal ("Your ideas are stupid, because I don't like YOU!" - some of the best points I've ever seen made were by people I personally can't stand, and my opinion of them doesn't lower the value of their points). People who annoy me may bring out the brat in me, or if I'm feeling better behaved about it, bring on the 'smile and nod' and just stop talking to them anymore, but either way I won't be drawn into any further exchange of ideas with them - just not worth it if it ain't fun.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Columbine wrote, a while ago, how she could disagree strongly over hot button issues and would still be able consider the other party a friend -- specifically, "not a bad person."

I know I have to improve myself but I'm just not that evolved. If you come to me and, in essence, praise a racist, religious fundamentalist as a good choice for attorney general, or if you can't talk about the Middle East conflict without being blatantly and blindly pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, yes, I'm afraid I'll think you're a bad person.

So to answer Tom's question, I don't co-exist very well, other than with people who construct their political views around a few basic human rights principles -- and drink lots of wine.

Pro-choice and pro-life? Bad idea unless you both want to have kids, agree on the number, and do the vasectomy thing afterwards (though Lynda can tell you that's not foolproof). Pro-choice people value life just as much, so on a philosophical level there's not that much of a difference, unless the pro-lifer in question happens to be the "shoot the mom, shoot the doctor, save the baby" variety.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Yeah, I understand the Palestinian-Israeli thing, Aziz, but what about star wars or something else that people don't actually kill each over (yet)? Can you handle disagreement or does the existence of opposing view points puzzle you and leave you questioning life's meaning?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Over things like star wars- if it's a well constructed and logical argument, then I can respect (and even like) that person. But if it's based on something like "we need to watch out for, ummm, those darn rogue states." Well, you're stupid and it doesn't really matter whether or not I like you.

There are right and wrong positions in this world. And when someone is wrong- not because of lack of information, or not having really thought out the reasoning behind their position- I have less respect.

Of course, identifying the right and wrong sides of things is far from easy. And in cases where it's not clear, I'm much more impressed by thoroughness of thought and genuine belief. That's why I have a not small amount of respect for real fundamentalists (not just convenient ones).

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Yeah I can disagree over Star Wars and still be friends. I have friends who are obnoxious drivers, others who contribute to urban sprawl, and these are things I care a lot about, but it doesn't spoil our friendship, and our discussions are civil (it's the wine, see, and they're not callous people, which gets my goat big time about other issues I mentioned above).

And I'll echo everything Curtis wrote above. Much easier than typing.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

"Well, you're stupid and it doesn't really matter whether or not I like you."

bingo. I have more respect for people with well-thought out ideas that I think are wrong-wrong-wrong, than those I like that jabber without thinking.

I get a lot more pissed off at the ones I like that present stupid arguments than the ones I don't that present their ideas well. Respect and affection aren't always the same thing.

My biggest challenge (at work) is with a guy I'm probably more fond of than anyone else up here - he's laid back, professional in most of his dealings with others, keeps a cool head when everyone else is freaking out... but he's a fundamentalist who every so often slips a gear and starts preaching. It's seriously like someone else invades his body - a little switch goes on and he starts preaching. I try to listen (and extricate myself as quickly as possible) without arguing, but it's hard because on any other subject, he's a great guy to talk with. You just can't talk WITH him on this particular subject because he's too busy talking AT you.

I've only gotten thoroughly pissed at him once. A mutual acquaintence (one I'd say is an old friend of his) was diagnosed with an advanced case of cancer. He was heading out on a trip to where this man lives and planned to see him while there. All good, right? Except his stated reason for wanting to see him was to deliver a deathbed attempt at 'saving' him. The man is Jewish. Devoutly so.

At that point, it's not about ideas, and I don't care HOW strongly you hold your opinions. That just displays a level of rudeness and lack of concern for anyone else's views that I've had a very hard time getting past. I've been pretty much avoiding him every since.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Tom, for my part it's not the disagreements per se that I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is people who cannot seemingly disagree on a topic without descending into personal attacks and unsubstantiated rants.

I will happily disagree with you and will enjoy debating an issue if you can say more than "because that's how it is" or "because everybody with a brain knows that...". One of the most important things I learned in college was that if you can't defend *either* side of an issue in a debate, regardless of your personal beliefs, you don't know enough about the issue to defend either side at all.

Online, I will read and occasionally participate in debates if the participants are arguing on the merits of the issues and not on personal beliefs. Yes, you will argue in favor of what you believe, but you should have reasons for your belief.

I don't believe that political/religious/social debate really belongs in the workplace. Personally, I think that discussions of that sort too easily become personal, and there can be unfortunate backlash from what tend to be heated discussions. People simply don't tend to be rational on issues like abortion or the death penalty, and the risk of someone's current or future boss thinking of them as 'that liberal baby-killer' or whatever isn't worth it. That said, I work for a small company (7 people) where we're all pretty well in synch politically, and we do sometimes have discussions of quasi-political subjects. If I didn't already know that we're largely sympatico on the issues, though, I don't think I'd say much.

Can a pro-life and a pro-choice personal co-exist? Probably, but only with their clothes on. More seriously, I would have strong reservations about the chances for the success of that relationship. Not because intelligent people can't coexist with differing opinions - they can - but because an issue like that is usually an indicator of some fundamentally different worldviews, and there are likely to be other serious issues on which they also take opposite views.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I think when it comes to forums, it isn't so much people not holding my exact viewpoints on everything that drive me nuts (I just feel sorry for them, for being so wrong about everything!), but more the general tone and overuse of rhetoric, and lack of hard evidence that drives me nuts.

It isn't a problem, dealing with incompatible viewpoints, but of how people choose to back up those viewpoints. There is a great debate (still) on a forum I frequent, about the China/spy plane debacle, and for every person willing to look at both sides, and choose one, there are 20 people screaming bumper sticker slogans and getting their 'facts' from the National Enquirer. I cringe when I read stuff online, sometimes - it seems a lot of people mistake editorializing for news content, and in heated debate, the phrase, "I read somewhere, that..." just doesn't cut it.

Or there is inconsistency - like the people who, when you back up your assertion of something by providing a link to Scientific American, go in to a little diatribe about the general untrustworthyness of popular media, and then in the next thread, there they are, quoting from the New York Times to make their point.

I think a lot of people do not understand the difference between debating an issue, and being right, and in online forums, it is all about being right, which is why you see people pull stuff they wouldn't do face to face, like make up their facts, pull info from dubious sources, and turn beligerent to make their point.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

You all are doing a lot of heavy, intellectual thinking, I figured it was about time to break the monotony. This thought was inspired by another thread but, I'm thinking a cool line to say to yourself mentally when arguing with someone who is a bit older than you is "You're gonna die before me and when you do die, I'll do things my way. How much influence will you be able to wield over me from the grave bucko? Huh? HOW MUCH!?!"

*This approach may not work well with parental figures as, sometimes unfortunately, their wills are often stamped onto our personalities in permanent ink and passed on like through the generations like grandma's christmas fruitcake recipe.

Deep thoughts by rudeboy's hand -- if it turns out that homosexuality is genetic, upon becoming pregnant, will the offspring of two male partners be more or less likely to carry the gay dna?

ok, that wasn't a SNL (get it - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey - ?). rudeboy's hand will now return to rudeboy's pants.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

It depends. There's really only a few people out there I've read and/or dealt with IRL that truly frighten me, and those are the dogmatic ones. The completely unreasonable ones, that absolutely freak out if anything that doesn't agree with them comes up and they will castigate you and hate you as a human being if you don't believe as they want you to. Especially people who blindly support someone or something even after that's been proven to be crooked or wrong. I can't deal with these people, so I avoid them. Those who are reasonable or at least aren't totally insane with a huge blind spot about the issue I'm fine with talking to.

And no, there is no hope if you are pro-choice and your crush is pro- life. That is a dealbreaker for me right there and NO WAY would I ever sleep with them. Even though I've been on Depo for so long my uterus is probably numb, I wouldn't take the chance of accidentally ending up pregnant and having my partner insist that I have the baby if I decide I don't want to.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Too many people in online forums tend to operate on one principle:

Don't bother me with the facts; my mind is made up.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Too many people in online forums tend to operate on one principle: Don't bother me with the facts; my mind is made up.

Or they come in operating on the principle of: I've got all the facts; now change your mind and bow dumbass.

(no offense Liss - was just illustrating how, no matter how difficult, some people will go great lengths to search out the other side of an argument just to be contrary.)

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

...and, as the originator of this thread mentioned, some people actually get paid to be experts at it.

Strikes me odd that a lawyer would not construct all the valid arguments of his opponent before the battle. Truly understanding the other side's position is an asset in any debate. Knowing what the other side wants is paramount to constructing the possible avenues they will use to get there. How can you set any raod blocks if you don't have the full map? I would think of it as a game. Like the one where you help lead a group of thirsty horses to water, then jump out from behind the bushes and shoot them in the head when they get there.

Whuuuuut? Don't get mad at me -- we are talking about lawyers for goodness sake.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Like lawyers, and as Jen W. said, as a scientist I argue for a living. I argue to committees that I should be funded, I argue in journal articles that my research proves this or that hypothesis, I argue at conferences with colleagues over this or that theory, I argue on a daily basis with my co-workers in the lab over the best approach to a problem, or the best wording for a sentence. The latter kinds of arguing, usually done in the context of a good working, if not friend, relationship is routine and a good exercise for the former, and more formal, kinds. You have to learn to argue well and respectfully, and to admit when you are wrong.

What bothers me, both in this context and also in the context of political or other heated discussions in real life and on the web, is when the arguments get personal. The first time I seriously re-thought my decision to be in academia came at a conference when a bunch of people from my lab were hanging out after the talks and they started saying things like "I can't believe how bad talk X was, person Y is just so DUMB for thinking Z". However much I might think that my approach/theory is right, I don't want my ego to be so wrapped up in my work that I attack others in that way, or take someone else's argument against my position personally (when it isn't meant that way). It just isn't professional, and it isn't good science.

I'm comfortable having debates about controversial topics in non- professional contexts, as long as the interactions are respectful. Most often this can occur with a reasonably good friend, where I can make my point forcefully and the other person won't misconstrue it as a personal attack. For the most part, I won't engage with someone on something controversial if I know there is no hope of getting anything out of the conversation and I'm interested in keeping the relationship pleasant (e.g., I won't try to argue with my pro-life sister about abortion). I will only say something in public to a stranger or acquaintance if I'm really offended, and even then the offensiveness has to outweigh other social considerations. For example, I was on a date at a public tv station holiday party, and the young men at my dinner table started making dumb Tinky-Winky gay jokes about the teletubby dolls on the table (party favors - ugh). I ignored it for awhile, and then started fuming, but the guys were drunk and I was on the second date with this guy, and I didn't want to potentially make a scene with a comment since I didn't know these guys or my date's working relationship to them. If it had been a party for my own workplace, I probably would have said something.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

But Joy, you have to have something to make fun of - have to. Tinky- Winky gay jokes about party favors - if you remember any could you post them? Only so I could join you belatedly in the outrage.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

But see, people who make stupid arguments tend to be stupid (or are simply being paid to be stupid for someone else- then it's okay). And stupid is an attribute that generally falls in the minus column when I'm evaluating someone.

In other (less stupid) words- I think less of some people *because* of the arguments they make. It's fairly difficult (for me, at least) to understand how some people can say "Well, it's just politics- not personal. Don't get upset about it." For zoning and import duty discussions, perhaps. But if the separation of church and state, social spending priorities, and civil rights ain't personal, I don't know what is.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I think it's OK to think that other people's beliefs or opinions are stupid...as long as you keep it to yourself. What drives me up the wall is when people actually call each other stupid in the course of a discussion.

I think that a requirement for any sort of meaningful discussion is that the parties involved at least pretend to respect each others' opinions.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Personally, I don't have too much trouble with incompatible viewpoints, but I just got tired of arguing most of my actual viewpoints a long time ago. Simply, if I only talked to people who agreed with me I wouldn't have anyone to talk to.

What I've noticed a lot of disagreements is that whatever the surface topic is, whether it be Star Wars (Boondoggle or Benefit) , or Homosexuality (Genetic disposition or Evil Plot) , or Children (Hope for the future or Locusts set to destroy the earth's resources that we old fogies need), what ends up being at issue is really some more basic, and unproveable, philosophical tenant or ideal. People who believe that all human life is sacred are never going to agree with abortion. Arguments would simply beside the point. People who think that peace can only be imposed by strength are always going to go for Star Wars, or whatever the newest defense or weapon is.

The more basic and abstract supposition (like nationalism good, killing people bad, ect...) seems to govern the more sophisticated and concrete ones. Political arguments tend to focus on the more sophisticated and concrete ideas. Sure, the term "character" gets battered around, but it remains vague and undefined. What's easy to talk about, what we've developed good language for, are the size of tax cuts, if the Federal interest rate should be lowered, if China should return the spyplane.

I don't actually think that's bad. While were the smartest species on the planet, as individuals we just can't comprehend the complexity of the real world. The basic and abstract ideas, taken to their logical extremes almost always lead to really bad results. After all, if the U.S.'s government really is the best out there, aren't we being nasty by not attacking Canada and giving them better government? The real world is simply more complicated and less predictable than our ideas.

I'm also unconvinced that people actually choose these more basic and abstract ideas. In the same way that you might not like a food, without having really chosen to like that food, I think that many of us simply 'end up' believing things. The reasons for believing these things, which I enjoy hearing as much as the next guy, seem to come second.

Since I view most political ideology on the same level as whether someone likes cream in their coffee or just loves eating fish, I don't have problems disagreeing with them or eating at the same table. Even if I don't want to share their dinner.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

"I think that a requirement for any sort of meaningful discussion is that the parties involved at least pretend to respect each others' opinions."

I dunno, Jen... not every opinion is worthy of respect, and some are - might as well stick to the word being discussed - stupid enough that to pretend to respect them would be a lie enough to short circuit any actual communication.

It helps to pay attention to the difference between calling a person stupid, and calling an idea stupid. Some ideas ARE stupid... some people holding those ideas may also be stupid, but it usually isn't necessary to say so.

At the point where you think the person (as opposed to their opinion) is flat out stupid, the next logical question becomes "Then why are you bothering to argue with them?"

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I'm still waiting for a day when one can call an argument stupid or ill-informed, and not have one's opponent believe that they have just been called stupid. It's not the same - lots of great people have a lousy grasp on logic.

I think that's where a solid percentage of debates go awry - people, consciously or not - are looking to be offended. Also, there's a great deal of poor reading comprehension happening - too much skimming, and not enough actual reading and processing.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

See, the guys weren't even doing anything that was good fodder, because it was so stupid (yeah, at some point I get to just say that they were stupid). There was some kind of homophobic juvenile play with Tinky- Winky and the whipped cream from the desserts. Not that juvenile whipped cream play and teletubbies can't be something beautiful. But this was just uncreative, negative gay jokes with visual aids. I don't remember exactly what they were saying because it was years ago. I do remember wishing I could find a witty way to get them to shut up, but I wasn't brave enough while on this date to say "Oh, really, that's weird because I think whipped-cream gay sex is pretty cool".

Stupid arguments make me think less of someone too - although I will call people more on bad logic than on very different underlying assumptions. What I object to is calling someone stupid because their argument has a different conclusion than your own, because you have so much ego invested in being right. Maybe this is because my research is supposed to be about finding out the truth about certain things (leaving aside whether or not that is possible), which means that in theory you need to be open to new evidence and being wrong, and arguments back and forth between positions is hopefully supposed to get you somewhere other than thinking the other guy is an idiot. I'm probably just feeling disillusioned after years of overhearing lots of nasty comments, and saying some myself, and wondering whether you can argue for a living and not be so attached to the arguments you believe that you can't be objective at all.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Linda, I guess what I was trying to get at is that if you think someone's ideas are stupid, I think it's better to show them that their ideas are stupid (by pointing out holes in their arguments), rather than telling them that their ideas are stupid. People are much more likely to come around to your point of view if you do the former rather than the latter.

To my mind, telling someone that their ideas are stupid does not constitute "discussion," no matter how reprehensible or idiotic the opinion being put forth by the other person is.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I had a law professor who used to occasionally respond to a student's analysis of a legal issue with these words: "But isn't that dumb?"

We all hated him, but once in a while it did seem to be the right response. Instead of picking the argument apart piece by piece, he just made you step back and look at it and realize, yes, if I stop looking at the trees and get a good look at the forest for a minute, I can see that I've gone somewhere very, very dumb.

It's probably not an approach you should take at the dinner table or in the office, but it was a pretty effective response to a bunch of over-analytical first year law students who were awfully good at talking themselves into a corner.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Stupid arguments don't make think less of someone unless they only, consistently, have stupid arguments.

I think most of us would not be hard pressed to find a stupid argument they believed at some point or another.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I think we can all take solice in that fact that we probably think the other guy is just as stupid as he thinks we are.

There is a difference between a "you're stupid and have stupid arguments you big stupid face" projection and believing someone to be blatantly illogical. When, after being confronted with unmitigated, blinding facts, a person still insists that things be interpreted solely in their way, then you have an illogical person and the beginning of a flame war.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Also, I think saying an argument is "stupid" is kind of meaningless. It's a value judgement rather than a logical assessment.

I mean, if someone calls your ideas stupid, how do you defend yourself? Stupidity is really a rather nebulous concept.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

O. My. Gawd. I think J-Dub and I just posted the same ideas, about the same concept at the same time. O. My. Gawd. We've already started thinking alike - one of us should be afraid - very afraid.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Well, given that Rudeboy's post used the phrase "blatantly illogical" and mine didn't use the word "luv," I think we can all see who's had the bigger influence on whom...

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I am one of those people who usually avoid threads on religion, politics, etc. It isn't because it annoys me, it is mostly because it seems a wasted exercise. I have a friend who is constantly talking about things like politics, gun control, abortion, etc. He will talk it to DEATH if you don't stop him. And that just seems dumb to me....he has his views, I have mine, and yeah, I guess I don't have much faith that him arguing with me is going to change my mind, (or me change his) necessarily. I am pretty lackadaisical about a lot of things (abortion/birth control things being one thing I get really fired up about) and really, I think it is fine that we have different opinions and I really don't feel the need to argue and see no end gain really.

I don't know, maybe that makes me a bad, apathetic person. I tend to read/post on boards more often when it isn't a matter of general opinion (Is Bush an idiot? Are you pro-life?) but more a matter of what I think of as practical opinion (have you used X and did you like it? Has anyone ever had Y happen? What did you do?), if that makes sense.

In a social situation, like Jen, I guess I usually grin and bear it unless I just cannot stand it. People are all different, and yeah, I guess opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

I guess I have an opinion enough on not posting opinions to post one. Argh!

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I think not everyone approaches conversation as a diplomat - personally, if someone is going too far in that direction ("I hope you don't mind me saying this, and it's just my opinion, but... please don't hurt me or get mad for saying that and of course I could be wrong"), I start wanting to yank the eyeballs out of my head.

While I don't disagree that leading off with a judgement of a particularly stupid idea by calling it one, I think it IS appropriate and to the point on some occasions. If it's a habit, maybe they should reach for, erm... a less 'stupid' approach to their debate. If that judgement is coming without a follow up of some good reasons WHY you think it is (whatever), then no discussion is happening, no.

(And in case I wasn't clear, 'stupid' in my comment was just one convenient judgement word that might be relevent - insert reprensible, offensive, illogical or whatever it is that triggering you to react in disbelief that someone just actually seriously stated whatever it was you just read.)

And again, if I really thought YOU were stupid, it would make me doubly so for talking to you as if you were capable of holding up the other half of the discussion - so I'd be reacting to how out of character this particular idea is. If stupid ideas are your forte, I'm probably too bored to respond - and if I do, it's for my own amusement so diplomacy isn't apt to enter into it. Yes, I acknowledge that as a fault of mine!

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

You are, of course, correct - I would make a lousy diplomat.

I spent so much of my life couching my words in the least offensive manner possible (I wanted so very much to be liked, you see) that I began to disappear. I am a woman of strong (if often changing) opinion, and I see no need to pretend that my audience is filled with overly-sensitive idiots who must be pampered and cushioned before I let fly with my thoughts. I'd much rather assume that my audience is intelligent and capable of discerning opinion from fact as well as grasping the finer, if more fiery, points I tend toward.

I enjoy the written jousting - the having to use language both quickly and creatively to ensure that one's point is not only being made but achieving higher audience approval ratings.

I am, however, a great deal more talented than Joy Rothke. Where she is only blunt, I am witty.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

"I am a woman of strong (if often changing) opinions..." Me too! My problem is that while I am not in general stupid, I get intimidated by the level of discussion on most of these topics. I read the above long posts as: anyone who doesn't have well thought out, well written, well researched logical points of view shouldn't be posting in discussions, and that's what keeps me out. I read, I learn, I occasionally venture a timid idea or two. I'd like to think that these discussions are open to those who want to practice and learn and improve, but with so many extremely smart and talented writers outlining the debates, I usually write my answer, and erase it all without posting.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Susan, in my opinion that's another reason that one person being annoyed by another's ideas isn't good for discussion. It polarizes the debate so that only those with firm opinions and reams of supporting data can play without getting burned. They tend, IMO, to be the people with the most extreme positions and the middle gets left out.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Awww hell, Sus. Just do what I do on any given topic - from "GM foods" to "bras that keep your breast from bouncing while you're sweating to the oldies" - punch up Google, search on the subject and then pick a side to argue on (if you have no personal preference or interest, I find that the popularly opposed view (as far as the msg board participants go) works best).

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Hmm... you know, it could be a fun challenge to create a thread that involves some sort of debating team scheme... pick a topic, and then everone with even numbered birthdays do pro, and those with odd do con - just for the pure exercise of debating? Maybe the folks that tend to be more intimidated might get used to it that way, since it would (at least sometimes) take the emotional element out of things.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Great idea. What's the topic?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I think that whoever beth selects as the Person We All Hate For the Day should pick the topic! ;)

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I nominate Lynda.

Wench.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

How about we leave the easy topics (abortion, death penalty, truth of the Bible...)for later, and start out with one of The Biggies: who's sexier, Heath Ledger or Spike?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Or an even tougher one: Who the hell are those guys? I've never heard of Heath Ledger before and you say "Spike" as a one-namer like "Fabio," so I assume we aren't talking baout Spike Lee.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Sorry, Curtis - I just toss out ideas. If you leave me to implement, it'll be something like "Michael Jackson - misunderstood victim of childhood fame or totally gross weirdo".... and you know you don't want that!

Now who ARE these Heath and Spike guys anyway?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

So, my birthday's on an odd day, do I like Spike or Heath?

Come on, say Spike. "I like Spike!"

Or Heath, "Horray for Heath!"

I need me some battle lines.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I really like that idea. Let's pick one we're already discussing, but we'll make a special debate topic. Lynda has to pick the next one because it's her idea (and I'm sure we all hate her, or at least we could all argue in favor of hating her -- HAH).

I'll start a new thread.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Here you go. Our first topic is drug legalization. I'm thinking we won't do more than one or two of these a week?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Sigh. Philistines. Spike is SPIKE, the former big bad vampire on Buffy, who has lately and rather depressingly turned into a softie. He's very sexy. Mmm, Spike.

Heath is just some random young actor. But we love him very much, and so do you.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Susan, I don't think that people venturing their opinions - supported and researched or not - is the problem. What I have a problem with is people who want to argue long and loud for (or against) something and they never actually MAKE an argument. Don't just say "no, you're wrong, it's this way" five times without telling me WHY you think I'm wrong.

But if you read a thread and post your thoughts on the topic, that's not the same thing.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Yeah, my SO long tried to change my views on the death penalty with an argument based primarily on "It's just wrong" or, somewhat more convincingly, when he had a few beers, "It's just WRONG!!" Beth's entry with her sensible point by point argument was what finally did it. I sent it over to him as an example of a somewhat stronger way of changing someone's mind.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

So some random pretty boy is loved by everyone and I'm hated... I always suspected as much! *sniffle*

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Tom wrote:
Why can't we just disagree?

Because one of us is right and one of us is wrong. If your opinion is the more correct opinion I want to know it so that I can change my opinion. I naturally assume you would feel the same way.

Additionally, people who hold wrong opinions can be dangerous. History has shown us that that is particularly true when those wrong opinions are based on religion.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I'm not going to say anything on the drug legalization topic, mainly because my birthday (Dec. 12) puts me on the side closer to my real views, and because I can't post until the workday is over and by the time I was able to really read it, everything I would say had already been said.

I'll jump in on the next topic though. Could somebody just make sure to let me know what day to hate Lynda on? I need to put it on the calendar.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Dave Van said: Because one of us is right and one of us is wrong. If your opinion is the more correct opinion I want to know it so that I can change my opinion. I naturally assume you would feel the same way.

But you're wrong (g). Issues where there is an actual right or wrong answer are issues of fact, not opinion.

Fact: The cougar is a land animal. No matter how strongly you believe there are packs of aquatic cougars that prey on tuna, you're wrong.

But want to argue the death penalty or abortion or which baseball team deserves New York's loyalty? All opinion. Have at it.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I have to admit, my life is a little grayer now, imagining I could live in a world where aquatic cougars prey on the mighty tuna. I don't often laugh out loud at posts, prob'ly because I am a son of a bitch, but that one got me.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

May 32, nutball!

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

To clarify, I'm not saying there aren't good reasons for holding certain positions on matters of opinion, and there is often room and good reason to change your mind on a subject once you've heard good arguments against your position. It's just that there are few subjects that truly are purely opinion where there's really only one right answer. I may believe mine is right and argue it fiercely (and often do), but it's not because I imagine there is some objective, obvious-to-all-but-the-insane fact that backs me up.

And Lynda, you must have made a typo ... I can't find a May 32 on my calendar. ;)

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Kristin said: I think when it comes to forums, it isn't so much people not holding my exact viewpoints on everything that drive me nuts (I just feel sorry for them, for being so wrong about everything!), but more the general tone and overuse of rhetoric, and lack of hard evidence that drives me nuts.

I kind of agree. I tend to be kind of unkind sometimes in debates (like, leading off my response to someone by asking "are you mental?"), but it's because I personally can enjoy a good, spirited debate without thinking less of the people who disagree with me, OR because I do think less of them (much less) and don't mind being insulting. The problem is, it's sometimes hard to tell which is the case with me. I recognize this as a deficit in my approach.

But in general, I don't really mind a little name-calling as long as it's in fun and attached to an argument with some meat to it. I recognize there are some people who mind name-calling a lot, though.

I do agree with the lack of evidence thing. I really don't see much point in wasting time with people who are almost certainly wrong about something and can back it up only with "it just is!?" or "I read it somewhere, can't remember where," and yet continue to ignore however many URLs and quotes and references you supply to back up your position while insisting they're right. That's a waste of time and energy and bandwidth.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

duh ... the conclusion of that was supposed to be: ... or "I read it somewhere, can't remember where," while ignoring any number of URLs, quotes and references you provide to back up your position. Arguments like that are a waste of time, effort and bandwidth.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

turning off the bold.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Well, I'm married to somebody with whom I constantly disagree. Seriously, we have almost polar views on virtually every red letter topic ... religion, education, animal rights ... and we've got one of the happiest marriages of anybody I know (and it's not just me saying that, everybody who knows us says it too!).

You can easily be with somebody who holds different opinions to you if you can resist ending discussions with 'well, you must be a moron to think that'. We discuss shit all the time, but we don't get personal and we never call names.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Jackie Collins has posted. The xeney forum is officially re-inaugurated.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

"But in general, I don't really mind a little name-calling as long as it's in fun and attached to an argument with some meat to it. I recognize there are some people who mind name-calling a lot, though."

I don't read posts that have name-calling in them. As soon as I see it, my eyes drift south to the next one. It doesn't matter how brilliant your argument is if people don't bother to read you, does it? . If you can't make your point without resorting to calling your opponent an idiot, then you have no point to make. Debate is based on reason, not emotion, and especially not the childish emotion of name calling. I know you have lost the argument when you start insulting other people on a personal level.

This is my tremendous pet peeve in online discussion - that someone can lay down a very smart and well written argument for (or against) a hot button issue, and the next poster to the thread will consider, "Are you Fucked in the Head?" to be an appropriate response, or think that attacking the person posting is the same as debating the merits of what they have written.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Whether I read controversial threads mainly depends on the level of discourse. If people are just posting "you're stupid!" "well you suck!" I won't bother, just because it's boring. If they're posting real arguments, even if things get heated, I'll keep reading because I'm honestly curious how people can hold some opinions. Even if they don't convince me, I'm glad if I feel I understand them.

I tend not to get into arguments in forums just because I've seen it all before. I know most of the time we're not going to convince each other - let's face it, on issues like abortion my mind it made up and no amount of facts are going to change it.

When I encounter people with incompatible viewpoints I usually don't argue, especially at work or in some social situation. But I might ask them a lot of questions about why they feel that way, or bring up opposing ideas in a calm way.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

MichaelH: Well, let me rephrase then. Although there are often no absolutes it is likely that one of our opinions is more right and one of them is more wrong. I definitely want to hold the view that is more correct. If an issue is purely a matter of opinion, I call that a matter of taste, and I'm not interested in talking about it.

But legalized abortion and the death penalty are clearly not just matters of opinion. A person's position on either issue must be backed up with valid reasoning or risk being dismissed as invalid.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Dave ... yes, I agree with that. Let me try to be more clear in what I'm saying.

Some things can be objectively shown to be true or false. I can say that I'm holding a pebble in my right hand. If a hundred people look at my right hand and see nothing in it, my claim is objectively not true, and only people who have some serious mental disorder would argue otherwise. And in those cases, if there is a debate, someone is right and someone is wrong, which was the statement you made that I was responding to.

But in other cases, there is not an objective fact in question, but an opinion of what to do about that fact. To use abortion as an example, it is objectively true that a fetus is alive, and is human. But does merely being alive and being human qualify the fetus for the same protections of life that a post-birth human has? Arguments about whether the fetus is a "person," and whether all persons should be legally protected from being killed are matters of opinion that can't be linked to an objective fact.

I have passionate convictions about many such issues, and of course I believe my opinions are right, or I wouldn't hold them. But I am aware when debating one of those topics with someone of the opposing view that I can't simply point to some incontrovertible objective fact to prove my case, and neither can the other person.

In those cases, right and wrong are pretty much a matter of majority opinion, and that changes over time. In Louisiana in 1850, it was right to buy and sell Africans to use as labor on the plantations. In Louisiana in 1920 it was right to require Americans of African descent to ride in the back of the bus and use separate water fountains. In Louisiana of 2000, neither of those is right. And from my perspective, I can say those things were never right, but that's from a viewpoint that people living in that time and place didn't have.

Right now, whether abortion should be legal is still contentious because a large number of people believe it should not be and are actively working to make it not be. Perhaps in another century, that question will be settled and people living in 2101 will wonder why it was ever even a debate. But right now it is.

You are right that in some cases one person may be "more right" than the other, and an open-minded debater may find his mind changed somewhat by other arguments (this happened to me in a big way about five years ago). But as long as the debates are about things that are not tied to objective fact, the rightness or wrongness comes only in the logic and persuasiveness of the arguments.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

Kristin: This is my tremendous pet peeve in online discussion - that someone can lay down a very smart and well written argument for (or against) a hot button issue, and the next poster to the thread will consider, "Are you Fucked in the Head?" to be an appropriate response, or think that attacking the person posting is the same as debating the merits of what they have written.

But if you re-read my original response, you'll see that I said I find something like that acceptable only if it comes with a solid arguement as well. If someone just says "Are you fucked in the head?" then that person isn't worth the time or trouble of engaging. But if they say that and then go on to say "I disagree with you for reasons A,B,C and D," and make a sensible case for each point, then I can ignore the opening insult and engage the points.

And since I'm occasionally prone to starting a dissenting argument with such an insult (again, just a matter of my personal style, and I need to remember in these sort of settings that I'm being read by a lot of people who don't know me or understand that I'm usually saying that with a good-humored smile), I don't tend to take them seriously coming from others unless that's all they have to offer.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

Yeah, Michael once opened one of his 3WA rebuttals with "Are you mental?" and since I know him I smiled and went on to read the rest of his post. The target, though, wasn't terribly amused. Not that she didn't deserve it.

I still think it's really better in the end to just try a little bit harder to avoid leaving such an easy opening for one to be labeled a "below-the-belt debater." Restraint does crimp one's style, though, I'll admit.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

And really, when I say "Are you mental?" I'm quoting Wayne's World. Seriously, I hear it in my head in Mike Myers's voice. But I'm sure that's clear to no one but me.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

MichaelH: Slavery was never right, and I don't care how many poeple thought it was. That's exactly my point; just because an issue is contentious does not mean there is no right answer.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001