"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

[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.