What happened to a good argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter harshcshah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

harshcshah

Guest
In my recent interactions I have discussed the morality of gay sex and the recent unfortunate events surrounding the death of Mr. Floyd. Now, it has been so that it is almost impossible to have a good argument - I make a reasoned point and the other side comes back with a strawmen and pathetic slurs like “racist”, “homophobe”, “probably a sexist too”. Then, it is as if they have “won” the argument when my intention wa only to have a civil discussion. I understand that this is happening all over the culture. So, I ask, what ever happened to a good argument? Surely, even 50 years ago, despite all the troubles of that time, one could at least have engaged in a meaningful and civil argument. What happened?
 
No one’s interested in rational discussion anymore. Far easier to just vilify those you disagree with.
 
What happened to a good argument?

The internet.

Before the internet, the soap box in a public park was where people barked, but to a limited audience.

Now, anyone can say anything, and reach everyone.
 
People focus on the wrong things, assume the reasoning, and then overreact.

Look at the quarantining decrees. They are meant to be a nonpartisan safety measure. Now people are being shamed for wearing masks or for not wearing masks.

The ultimate irony is that the leftists that were kicking and screaming two weeks ago against the right-wingers protesting against quarantine decrees are now protesting themselves and initiating curfews across the country…the lack of insight, on either side, is absolutely astounding…
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
No one’s interested in rational discussion anymore. Far easier to just vilify those you disagree with.
Click to expand...
And it’s been this way for years. I can’t even respond to a friend on social media who I know will take it in good grace because friends of friends, some of whom I already had to block in the past, come barging in trying to start an argument.

Discussion/ argument only works when it’s one on one and both people are capable of having a rational and friendly argument.
 
People haven’t been taught that a good argument is “good”. Sure, they laud a person who holds their particular opinion when they “try to be reasonable” with a caricature of “the bad guys”, but it’s more that they see their particular hero as being “good” than that they believe it’s “good” to be civil.
 
harshcshah said:
Surely, even 50 years ago, despite all the troubles of that time, one could at least have engaged in a meaningful and civil argument. What happened?
Click to expand...
I think it’s silly to assume that people didn’t engage in bad faith arguments fifty years ago. It’s as old as the hills.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Discussion/ argument only works when it’s one on one and both people are capable of having a rational and friendly argument.
Click to expand...
YEAH WELL YOU WOULD SAY THAT.

My general rule is to choose the people you engage with on hot button issues carefully. Not everyone is able to disagree without becoming angry. If someone tries to draw me into an argument and I know they’re the type to get unreasonably heated, I just say something vague and change the subject.
 
I exchanged a couple of civil remarks online with a friend I care about who I was pretty sure would take it in good grace. Unfortunately one of those “third parties” who I can’t easily just block without setting off some fireworks (they’re always somebody’s relatives) decided to try to start something with me so now I just have to turn my “ignore” button up to 12. Which I’m pretty good at, but I would rather just skip the whole thing.
 
What happened is that arguments went online and more or less anonymous. No one feels obligated to protect their reputation by being civilized. Keep your arguments with “real people” and you don’t see this problem. Most people online are just wanting to dump on someone.
 
I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, there are always some “real people” who want to argue. Some of them were majors in some kind of social studies or poli sci in college and they pretty much see everybody who isn’t constantly railing against their version of “the system” as being a big -ist. Others are just weird and obnoxious.

I can usually get rid of these folks, but in certain cases (such as where they’re a relative, or the partner of a friend, etc) you’re just stuck with them sticking their two cents in and you have to pretty much ignore it. And avoid them in social settings, or confine conversation to the weather.

I don’t rejoice to see people break up (especially if they’re married or have kids) but I’ve noticed that often the relationships involving these people ultimately don’t last, so I can only imagine that the person was probably obnoxious to everyone they met, not just me.
 
Last edited:
I’m too young to remember a time when people weren’t throwing around “-ist” and “-phobe” to the point it has no real definition or meaning.
 
dscath said:
What happened to a good argument?

The internet.

Before the internet, the soap box in a public park was where people barked, but to a limited audience.

Now, anyone can say anything, and reach everyone.
Click to expand...
You are SO right about this! The internet makes it worse, in my view, because you can say whatever you want and no one knows who you are. At least with the soap box in the park you can’t hide.
 
Of course they did (at 63 I’m old enough to know this) but societal expectations for the majority of the demographic which most of us are now, i.e. middle class, upwardly mobile, “Western”, were that one was respectful to others. One usually did not engage in ‘discussions’ over religion or politics; sex was just starting as a discussion more among the intelligentsia post Friedan and Greer, etc.

The idea that one would use bad language routinely, ‘shock’, call people not ‘mistaken’ but outright wrong, and evil to boot, would ‘scattershot’ instead of addressing one idea at a time, etc. was not unknown, but the people who tried to argue that way were usually ignored after they had been informed that such things were not considered appropriate or mannerly. The polarization that exists today was also not seen anywhere near as much, partly because society was more homogenized and less diverse, and people were also a la Emily Post expected, if they wanted to be perceived as worthy by the standards of the time, to be much less antagonistic. One was not judged by how loudly one yelled, or how much one tried to engage in, ‘but what about this, what about this,’, but about the actual argument itself; was it convincing? Was it substantiated? Was it couched well? Etc.
 
Last edited:
Looks good, but my reading of it was cut short by a paywall… Oh, pardon me, I just have to register for free access.
 
Last edited:
I meant that arguments in bad faith seem to have vastly increased as time has passed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top