"Queensberry Rules?" "Of course."

[dreamer_easy]

At some stage I should perhaps codify the "rules" of the Gentle Art of Disputation. Perhaps ten rules, of which nine would be "check the facts". In the meantime, here are a couple more thoughts on the topic. These are, of course, not absolute rules of morality or logic, but conveniences that save time and effort.

Snark is funny. I have a buttload of snarky macros and icons saved on my hard drive. However, snark conveys no information whatsoever. In a serious discussion, avoid using it.

If someone says something so outrageous you find yourself thinking "I can't believe they just said that!!!", listen to that instinct, because maybe they didn't. Is it possible you've misunderstood? That they've expressed themselves badly? That the online game of Whispers has distorted some reasonable statement into craziness? Check the facts; ask for clarification. (Never assume that "quotation marks" indicate an actual quote!)

Comments

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that snark conveys no information whatsoever, but I think the thing about snark is it is primarily for communicating with those who already agree with you -- it is of no value in disputing with your opponent, but that isn't what it is for. Which is, I think, why snark is often removed to a separate channel of communication (ie many communities have a snark shadow community).

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Yah, the information it conveys to one's opponents is "Fuck you" and/or "I'm an arsehole", neither of which really addresses the subject under discussion. :) But we all have to blow off steam sometimes, so snark does have its place, ie, behind a flock.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Well, I think in a wide-ranging discussion with more than two participants, snark sometimes has its place (in that in those sort of discussions, sometimes commentary aimed primarily at those who agree with you can have it's place). But generally, yes, it is only going to alienate your opponent, not enlighten them.

[maevele.livejournal.com]

your second point makes me think of Suzette Haden Elgin, with the language as mail metaphor, where someone sends you roses and then it's a fish. And first you try to figure out why they sent you a fish, but then you have to stop and think whether it was something else when they mailed it.

I have completely borked this description, though.

[megthelegend.livejournal.com]

I don't always manage this at all, mind you, but this is something I try to adhere to with arguments:

Don't get all superior and smug at the other person just because you know you're right. YOU COULD BE WRONG. If you ARE wrong, you don't want it to be a big deal. And on the other hand, if you're right THIS time but wrong the NEXT time, you don't want them doing to you what you just did to them.

I don't know if that makes any sense. ::g:: But it's a cover your ass kind of philosophy; don't be a smug bastard because if it turns out you're wrong, it's a lot easier to deal with it emotionally if you were polite and reasonable to the other person in the first place.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

I hadda learn that lesson and PDQ on Usenet! :D

[megthelegend.livejournal.com]

Hee! I must admit I kind of delight in people being snotty at me and me saying quite reasonably, well, I never actually said I thought you were stupid or anything, I know you make good points sometimes.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

"If someone says something so outrageous you find yourself thinking "I can't believe they just said that!!!", listen to that instinct [...] Check the facts; ask for clarification."

Yes! Yes!! YES!!!!

Ahem. [BLUSH] =:o}

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

*hands you a cigarette*

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Thankyou.
[SWALLOWS IT WHOLE]
[IS CONFUSED BY SUDDEN ATTACK OF HEARTBURN]