Why am I so... toxic... to any argument?

[Snowy_One]

Why?

I don't mean to be. I just want to help. Yet I feel far too often that I would help the cause I like more by supporting the other side than I would by speaking my mind. Am I really so bad? So horrible? That I can't defend a cause I care about?

[eclipse]

Three things.

1. Throwing a pity party for yourself is not going to fix it.

2. Ask yourself WHY you need to make that point. Some points are not worth mentioning/defending.

3. Outline the points you want to make first. Then, type out your replies, do something else for an hour, then reread your reply as if someone was replying to YOU. Would you appreciate it if someone said those things to you?

[RJWalker]

Is this related to your recent post in the GamerGate thread?

If it is, then I don't know what to say. I never really felt what your posts were inflammatory or that they hurting the side you're arguing for.

I'll give you what I do. I go back and keep editing my posts removing things that are unnecessary and try (key word being try) to make them less antagonizing. I may not succeed but I do try most of the time.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

honestly if i had to guess, its because you don't rethink what your about to type sometimes, but that's me

[Wen Yang]

honestly if i had to guess, its because you don't rethink what your about to type sometimes, but that's me

Pretty much this, IMO. A lot of the things you write sometimes feel like you're putting your foot in your own mouth.

[Shin]

Think before you speak. You have a tendency to jump in with your own agenda without appreciating other people have a point of view. You'll then play the victim without even realising you did something wrong. It's not that you're the worst thing since daytime television, but you really need to moderate yourself and what you say.

[Rehab]

Being that we've had opposing thoughts on some things and argued directly once or twice, I might guess I'm probably not who you want to hear from in asking these. Sorry if this is untoward, and I don’t want to diminish that this is a nice gesture you’re trying to make regardless.

I personally don't think it's that you're not an earnest person putting forth some effort into trying to do what you think is right, but just from my point of view, sometimes when we ended up discussing something, it seemed like you might’ve been talking past the issue itself that was being discussed, that you were arguing against the sort of person you thought would say the sort of thing I said, and against all the opinions that you thought that sort of person would have/argue for (and against the ways in which they would argue for them). On the other hand, you seem to be somewhat sensitive to personal arguments yourself, which I think is understandable, especially because you may be wary after having it happen to you in the past, but, like. Not to beat the apologist too hard (I haven’t often seen somebody getting a “fuck you” response when they ask “how can I improve” do that much for anybody, don’t want to be like that), but for example, in that old meat-eating topic, I remember trying to be careful to just focus on the details of an issue in one reply to something you said, and on what I took away from them, but I have to admit just the first piece of the reply you made in turn made me want to completely disregard the rest of what you said, because you started off addressing an extreme version of somebody who had an opinion on the stuff that maybe sounded like it was in line with part of what I said? As in it felt like you were suddenly talking past me.

I definitely didn't help much on my end to make things more productive in that topic after that, but my thoughts at that point were like "did this guy, this guy, in particular, who I feel like I’ve seen say so much about people having things against him personally, seriously just post a South Park video at me, like it makes his argument for him? Does he seriously think he’s arguing against the caricature in that video right now?”

It made me wonder if you can make things personal while yourself taking things personally.

Even in this topic, I have a hard time telling, but it occurs to me that I’m not sure whether what you’re asking is more about trying to improve yourself or about trying not to damage a “side” you’re arguing for. I kinda wonder if one problem that might come up for you could be that you’re sometimes quick to pick a side in an argument, particularly when you feel like one of the parties arguing has attacked you personally at some point. And that you then sometimes argue against parts of the opposing one that are about more than just trying to hurt you or some people your care about, as if they are. When I felt like that happened to me while we were talking, although it’s not like I helped things there, it in turn made me just want to ignore you, to write you off as partisan noise.

[Snowy_One]

I am trying to improve and I am trying to not hurt my own side. In my eyes they are one in the same, least at the level I see myself functioning at.

Sounds like what you people are saying is that I need to slow down and think a bit before I post. That, while what I'm saying may be right or wrong, is that I'm acting too brashly in my responses. Would you think that's an accurate summary?

[eclipse]

I am trying to improve and I am trying to not hurt my own side. In my eyes they are one in the same, least at the level I see myself functioning at.

Sounds like what you people are saying is that I need to slow down and think a bit before I post. That, while what I'm saying may be right or wrong, is that I'm acting too brashly in my responses. Would you think that's an accurate summary?

That's a cure to one of the symptoms. . .but after reading the indenting thingy you left in GamerGate, here's a bit more.

You seem to cling pretty hard to what you think identifies you. This seems to work against you the moment you feel that someone is taking potshots at those things - it looks like you're reacting to a personal insult, as opposed to a generalized statement. In reality, the vast, VAST majority of people on Earth don't really care about who you are or what you stand for, because they're too busy caring about things that are important to them. Therefore, there's no reason to blow up every time someone mentions something negative about something you stand for (in the latest example, gamers) - that's something the writer needs to sort out, not you. And just because someone wrote it doesn't mean that everyone else will go "oh hey that writer is correct, let's be influenced by that!".

I don't know how accurate this is (and my apologies if that offended you), but that's what it looks like from here!

[Shin]

I would agree with eclipse that you take everything personally. There have been times where you hard defend a point like someone was insulting you personally, when it clearly wasn't the case. I'm not going to apologize for saying this but you really need to gain a sense of how important things really are.

[Rapier]

Why?

I don't mean to be. I just want to help. Yet I feel far too often that I would help the cause I like more by supporting the other side than I would by speaking my mind. Am I really so bad? So horrible? That I can't defend a cause I care about?

I don't know you and I haven't read much of your content, but your situation won't improve if you merely switch from being active to being passive/supportive. It has to do with your arguments' structure and not with your positioning.

With regards to your arguments, you can try to improve by learning about critical thinking, which will allow you to make better and more solid arguments while at the same time give you the ability to judge whether you should let yourself be persuaded by an argument or not. I can send you some texts if you'd like. Maybe you'll make a better use of it than me, who knows.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Rapier

[Superbus]

From what little I've seen of you - very little, in one topic - you seem very concerned about perception and identity. It's why you started this thread in the first place. It makes you defensive.

You will never please everyone. Sometimes, you won't please anyone. Just plow through that shit. If you need counsel, find a couple of people you trust and are amenable to it, and request it.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Superbus

[Loki Laufeyson]

Its also because you are really young and kind of naive to whats really out there in the world. You arent alone in that, by any means. I think its because you are among the most vocal on here. Also, what the others said. You are overly concerned about grouping yourself into a label. Like you want to belong to some sort of group or demographic so hard, you are willing to sacrifice integrity (lel) to do so. Its likely a result of low self-esteem and naivety.

[roymbrog]

So after arguing with you on various topics over the past 7 or so years...

I've told you this before, but you need to stop straw manning.

Please, please stop using logical fallacies.

You can't argue against what you think someone believes or said, it has to be what they actually said. Too many times I've seen you try to tell other people what it is they think instead of actually reading their arguments. It's especially bad in IRC, and even happens when you post in RPs. I would suggest not only rereading what you have written in response, but rereading the original post/argument several times before even attempting to respond.

EDIT:

Its also because you are really young and kind of naive to whats really out there in the world. You arent alone in that, by any means. I think its because you are among the most vocal on here. Also, what the others said. You are overly concerned about grouping yourself into a label. Like you want to belong to some sort of group or demographic so hard, you are willing to sacrifice integrity (lel) to do so. Its likely a result of low self-esteem and naivety.

You do know Snowy's 25, right? Not that this doesn't apply regardless, but...

Edited November 17, 2014 by roymbrog

[Phoenix Wright]

people are forgetting some things, i feel.

1) inform yourself fully and completely on issues you care about. if it's a political issue--read from an array of sources in order to get a more clear picture. politifact is cool; however, politifact, bbc, aljazeera, and a few from international sources if it's an international issue are nice. if it's a domestic issue (united states), reading from our major news outlets in addition to those listed and others is great. this goes without saying, but if it's a political or social issue, a critical way to attain a better understanding of how things are in the present is knowing the history of how those things came to be. know your history.

if it's a science issue, read publications. usually people aren't going to debate about subjects like physics, math, or chemistry, so the papers should be easy to comprehend fully. publications show real data and are subject to both little (or at least least fewer) biases and intense scientific scrutiny. they're the best things to read to inform yourself of science questions. however, and i think this goes without saying, just because it's a published paper doesn't make it correct--it's the volume of papers saying the same thing on some issue that allow you to relieve your skepticism on some subject. to make it less abstract, the issue of climate change being anthropogenic is pretty well understood at this point, with there being lots of papers showing evidence of it, and far fewer papers showing evidence to the contrary.

2) practice writing. learn how to use rhetoric well and study the logical fallacies that are so-often found in arguments so that you can learn to ditch them completely.

if you're informed and can write well, no matter your opinion, i feel you can't be "toxic" to any argument.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

Please, please stop using logical fallacies.

What's hilarious about that website is that none of those fallacies listed on the front page are actually logical fallacies. :P Logical fallacies concern reasoning from the premises to a conclusion. What that website lists are just bad ways to argue.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Chiki

[Dagon]

What's hilarious about that website is that none of those fallacies listed on the front page are actually logical fallacies. :P

I think the definition varies by person. I always see people saying that another person's definition of logical fallacies is wrong. I think we get what it means in this context though.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Dagon

[roymbrog]

But... that what most things listed there are xD. It's all faulty reasoning, not necessarily on purpose. Screwing up between the premises and conclusion, to use your description. They're bad ways to argue yeah, but it's because arguments based on them are built off of faulty logic.

Anyway, regardless if they're actually fallacies or not, please don't use them, Snowy. My reasoning behind the link was a handy guide of what not to do when discussing topics.

[Phoenix Wright]

they're informal logical fallacies. or, simply informal fallacies. but yeah, in the end it doesn't matter because everyone understands each other--olwen is just being pedantic.

[Chiki]

I think the definition varies by person. I always see people saying that another person's definition of logical fallacies is wrong. I think we get what it means in this context though.

But I can prove to you that logic and informal fallacies have nothing to do with each other, See below:

But... that what most things listed there are xD. It's all faulty reasoning, not necessarily on purpose. Screwing up between the premises and conclusion, to use your description. They're bad ways to argue yeah, but it's because arguments based on them are built off of faulty logic.

Anyway, regardless if they're actually fallacies or not, please don't use them, Snowy. My reasoning behind the link was a handy guide of what not to do when discussing topics.

Straw man arguments can actually be perfectly logically valid. By definition, a straw man argument is just a misplaced argument. Inappropriate for the context, in other words. Suppose we were arguing about suffering in Africa, and I misrepresented your argument by claiming that you argued for female slavery, and then gave you a perfectly logical argument for why female slavery was wrong. That would be a straw man, but not a flaw in logic.

They're fallacies, yeah. Just not logical fallacies.

they're informal logical fallacies. or, simply informal fallacies. but yeah, in the end it doesn't matter because everyone understands each other--olwen is just being pedantic.

No they're not. There's no such thing as an informal logical fallacy, that's like saying there's a such thing as logical fallacy that is not logical, and that's a contradiction. You'd think one should be more careful and not name their entire website after something that's false... I don't think I'm just being pedantic here, lol.

If any philosopher/logician went to that website they'd shit their pants and be confused to hell, I assure you, just like I was. Or maybe I'll show the website to some people I know and see their reaction.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

"any philosopher/logician would shit their pants"

right, and literally no one else. my usage of "literally" will probably be cried foul as well.

these are all examples of one being pedantic.

[Dagon]

Well i wasn't wrong someone would come in and disagree with the usage of logical fallacies. It's kind of like the word irony, you want to use it sparingly.

[dondon151]

ugh i will fight over improper usage of the word "irony"

[Snowy_One]

In hindsight I'm not surprised that there is a bit of debate. After all, if someone said 'you employ logical fallicy X which means you're doing Y' and someone else felt X meant something else, considering this is the net, there will be a debate. I'm sorry for that.

Anyways, I am trying to slow down and think things through a bit more, but it isn't easy to be sure. As for the personal stuff, maybe when an argument comes around that isn't GG related I can give it a spin. Hopefully it will work.

[Chiki]

"any philosopher/logician would shit their pants"

right, and literally no one else. my usage of "literally" will probably be cried foul as well.

these are all examples of one being pedantic.

I'm not being pedantic here at all. The difference is that I'm not trying to educate a crowd when I say I shit my pants. That website is made to educate people. But the problem is that they're educating people incorrectly. Don't you see how ironic that is? If you want to educate someone, do it right. Just call them fallacies instead of logical fallacies.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Chiki