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

[Snowy_One]

It's hard to not lose your cool when dealing with mad hippies who believe industries = bad because they polute and weed = good because it's natural, mon!, or stupid neo-atheists who believe that religion = belief of alienated stupid people, that christians are nazis who hate gay people and wish to create a Theocracy where everyone has to kneel toward Rome once per day (though watching Dawkins get humiliated by Craig is fun sometimes).

I prefer to give them a much shorter answer than Snowy did, though. It's more practical and time-saving, and there will be more time for me to go play Crusader Kings or something.

YOU SHALL KNEEL BEFORE THE REFORMED NORSE FAITH!

But yea, that's a lot of why that happened. Growing up Republican in a state where Republicans are so rare that Republican caucus rooms get re-purposed as storage areas in city hall has lead to a lot of struggle, and going online only accentuates that more and more.

[Rapier]

I'm sick of having my own opinions and thoughts that differ from the norm.

This quote pretty much sums up the issue. It's just hard to not be politically correct in these days, because it created a norm that all people need to follow in order to not be persecuted politically, or labeled as a monster. This doesn't mean we should follow the norm, though: If anything, it means we need to be more prepared to face politically correct people and left-wing activists (since they're the group who are most associated with it. At least I haven't seen any right-wing person who is also politically correct).

[Axie]

Um, being right-wing and being politically correct are not mutually exclusive, nor are those qualities inherently positive or negative.

Many times people are "persecuted" not for deviating from any norm (lol at the concept of left-wing activits being "the norm" anywhere btw), but just for having no regard for other people's feelings and thoughts, or just for being... well, toxic to any argument, heh. You are allowed to have any attitude you want, people will just call you on it if your attitude is shitty. It's called freedom of expression.

[Lord Raven]

It's hard to not lose your cool when dealing with mad hippies who believe industries = bad because they polute and weed = good because it's natural, mon!, or stupid neo-atheists who believe that religion = belief of alienated stupid people, that christians are nazis who hate gay people and wish to create a Theocracy where everyone has to kneel toward Rome once per day (though watching Dawkins get humiliated by Craig is fun sometimes).

I prefer to give them a much shorter answer than Snowy did, though. It's more practical and time-saving, and there will be more time for me to go play Crusader Kings or something.

The first sentence is basically "I don't like people who share these opinions so I'm going to get fucking mad and pollute an argument."

After that is a ton of this:

[Rapier]

Yeah, because people like this only exist in my mind.

right

The first sentence is basically "I don't like people who share these opinions so I'm going to get fucking mad and pollute an argument."

That's what you're saying, not me. Don't call someone for using strawman when you're doing the same thing, or let yourself fall into the classification of an hypocrite.

Um, being right-wing and being politically correct are not mutually exclusive, nor are those qualities inherently positive or negative.

Many times people are "persecuted" not for deviating from any norm (lol at the concept of left-wing activits being "the norm" anywhere btw), but just for having no regard for other people's feelings and thoughts, or just for being... well, toxic to any argument, heh. You are allowed to have any attitude you want, people will just call you on it if your attitude is shitty. It's called freedom of expression.

(1) "I'm overly sensible and you offended me, you meanie!" When being offended gives you right or points (victimism is a thing), it is easy to claim offense.

(2) Freedom of expression weighs little when there is a politically correct norm which tells how people should act, think and behave, and persecutes them for not following this norm. That is my point. It's funny how you handwaved my mention about politically correctedness as if it were nothing.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Rapier

[Axie]

It's because it is nothing. There is no point to be made. You are saying people get persecuted for being offensive and that people are expected to not be offensive: congratulations, you just described every group of people ever.

With that said: what can be construed as offensive is subjective and no, there is no universally followed norm for that, and specially not one created by left-wing activists, or else this wouldn't be the big issue that it is. Now, if you go on a place with people that think alike (like, say, a place where left-wing activists meet), and purposefully say something they find offensive (possibly with little regard as to whether you are offending them or not)... well, you are asking to be jumped on, to be completely honest.

EDIT: It's not in your place to say someone is overly sensitive or challenge their right to be offended by anything. You are perfectly entitled to think it wasn't offensive but this goes both ways. If your first reaction to someone being offended is to discard it as victimism or some other emotional reason, you are the one that is unreasonable.

When someone thinks something is offensive and I disagree (which happens a lot, actually), I just leave it at that instead of, you know, being a jerk about it to their face. You can't simply act like a jerk and get away with it, left-wing activists involved or not.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Axie

[dondon151]

It's hard to not lose your cool when dealing with mad hippies who believe industries = bad because they polute and weed = good because it's natural, mon!, or stupid neo-atheists who believe that religion = belief of alienated stupid people, that christians are nazis who hate gay people and wish to create a Theocracy where everyone has to kneel toward Rome once per day (though watching Dawkins get humiliated by Craig is fun sometimes).

aaand this is why you're toxic to an argument. between playing the victim, misrepresenting your opponents, and misunderstanding arguments, this is easy to observe. i noticed that you also have a tendency to project; that is, you interpret your opponent's intentions in the most negative manner possible, yet you also clearly exhibit those same intentions yourself. for example, you think that we like to claim offense in order to stifle a debate over a sensitive topic (not true; taking offense does not constitute an argument), but that's what you're doing when you claim that we want you to shut up.

like, there is not one single person who regularly posts in the SD forum and sincerely believes any of this. if you're prepared to wield this attitude, then you should also expect to be called out on it - don't act like you're being censored when your opinion is so vile that it deserves all of the censure that it can get. i hope you're aware that opinions can be factually wrong.

i try hard not to group right-wingers into the "nutjob" category, because the majority of them are not deficient in reasoning ability - they are either misinformed or are properly justified in what they believe. but you and snowy exemplify the stereotype because both of you chronically commit the three mistakes mentioned above.

Edited November 20, 2014 by dondon151

[Snowy_One]

What really makes it irritating is that, often, they don't even listen to what I am saying.

I.E. 'I think we need to be careful how we handle climate change and make sure we know what's going on instead of reflexively condemning things.'

'So you don't care about the environment at all? YOU MONSTER!'

'What? I didn't say that! I said we should look at history and the current world to figure out what we should-'

'YOU OIL-LOVING REPUBLICAN MONSTER!'

'... And maybe we should see if we can improve our tech so it doesn't-'

'YOU JUST WANT MORE CASH FOR YOUR FILTHY, GREEDY, OIL-STAINED HANDS!'

And so-forth.

Edit: Though I've noticed I've become a lot happier and agreeable after putting dondon on ignore.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Snowy_One

[Makaze]

What really makes it irritating is that, often, they don't even listen to what I am saying.

I.E. 'I think we need to be careful how we handle climate change and make sure we know what's going on instead of reflexively condemning things.'

'So you don't care about the environment at all? YOU MONSTER!'

'What? I didn't say that! I said we should look at history and the current world to figure out what we should-'

'YOU OIL-LOVING REPUBLICAN MONSTER!'

'... And maybe we should see if we can improve our tech so it doesn't-'

'YOU JUST WANT MORE CASH FOR YOUR FILTHY, GREEDY, OIL-STAINED HANDS!'

And so-forth.

Edit: Though I've noticed I've become a lot happier and agreeable after putting dondon on ignore.

That is called straw manning. Lord Raven pointed it out in one of the earlier posts.

Many (if not most) people have a tendency to simplify their opponents' points into a more ridiculous likenesses of their arguments instead of making an attempt to see it for the point it is. They want to believe the world is black and white and reject anything in the gray.

e.g. "The Middle East had good reason to be angry." -> "You supported 9/11?!" OR "9/11 was completely uncalled for." -> "You supported the invasion of Iraq?!"

That street goes both ways. If you want to foster intellectual integrity and reading comprehension as a standard, start with yourself.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Makaze

[Rapier]

What I am saying is that the politically correct is nocive to a debate because it establishes a norm to be followed, and you are automatically discredited for not following that norm. For example, if someone who advocates for the legalization of guns is automatically labelled as a trigger-happy and anti-human rights, there is no way that a debate can happen (the same can be said about debates regarding abortion, whenever one side claims that anti-abortists are mysoginists). It has nothing to do with respecting the other side, it has to do with following ethics during a debate.

you think that we like to claim offense in order to stifle a debate over a sensitive topic (not true; taking offense does not constitute an argument), but that's what you're doing when you claim that we want you to shut up.

Wrong. I'm pointing how unethical it is to paint the other side as a monster and shaming them because you are opposed to their opinion. And don't even try to tell me this doesn't happen - I've seen this occur enough.

And no, I am not being victimist. If you disagree with me, fine. If you believe my opinion is bad, fine. Indeed, most of my statements are wrong and you are completely right about my weaknesses. But this shaming technique which is used in political debates is despicable, and I am right to point toward it because it intoxicates any serious discussion more than merely being stupid or wrong.

But then again, I am expecting ethics when politics is about hiding daggers under cloaks. And I mean debates in general, not my interactions with you.

there is not one single person who regularly posts in the SD forum and sincerely believes any of this.

Not what I said. What I said was that it is bothersome to deal with radicals which use this kind of argument, because they are essentially toxic. That guy over there with the Simpsons avatar misrepped me completely and claimed that I was using a strawman, when it was he who was doing it. How ironic.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Rapier

[Axie]

What I am saying is that the politically correct is nocive to a debate because it establishes a norm to be followed, and you are automatically discredited for not following that norm.

I repeat: you are saying people are discredited when they act offensively. SHOCKER. It is not nocive to debate, it's effing common sense.

For example, if someone who advocates for the legalization of guns is automatically labelled as a trigger-happy and anti-human rights, there is no way that a debate can happen (the same can be said about debates regarding abortion, whenever one side claims that anti-abortists are mysoginists).

This has nothing to do with political correctness, this is you strawmanning, self-victimising and generalising everyone who doesn't agree with you as "politically correct left-wing activists". Snowy is doing the same thing. Political correctness is about respecting people and groups of people. Someone who offends you for being pro-guns or pro-life is not being politically correct.

I'm pointing how unethical it is to paint the other side as a monster and shaming them because you are opposed to their opinion. And don't even try to tell me this doesn't happen - I've seen this occur enough.

Oh, me too. For example, right here in this thread I am reading two posters painting people who disagree with them as unreasonable monsters who call them names all while being "politically correct" in the process...

But this shaming technique which is used in political debates is despicable, and I am right to point toward it because it intoxicates any serious discussion more than merely being stupid or wrong.

Then stop doing the same damn thing. You generalise all left-wing people and then think it's unethical that they offend you back? What.

You and Snowy are being contradictory about this and it just comes off as you two being radical and unable to deal with disagreements even when they don't come from someone as radical as you. If this is not how you want to come off, then you probably should work on your attitude.

[Dagon]

I know some people might see this as bad but it is irritating when people beat around the bush then respond to what you said with "I never said that" even though they heavily implied it in their argument. In some cases I think people use that to their advantage to get a point across so no one can refute it.

[Loki Laufeyson]

YOU SHALL KNEEL BEFORE THE REFORMED NORSE FAITH!

Probably the only really awesome thing ive seen you post.

Ask yourself the question why being Republican is stigmatized. You might find the answer quite interesting.

[Lord Raven]

That's what you're saying, not me. Don't call someone for using strawman when you're doing the same thing, or let yourself fall into the classification of an hypocrite.

Nope that's what you're saying.

The "polluting an argument" part isn't what you're saying. It's what you do.

Not what I said. What I said was that it is bothersome to deal with radicals which use this kind of argument, because they are essentially toxic. That guy over there with the Simpsons avatar misrepped me completely and claimed that I was using a strawman, when it was he who was doing it. How ironic.

It's either you said that or you misrepresented the group you were arguing with. You calling them a bunch of hippies with left-wing beliefs really doesn't strike me as someone respecting the other side in the slightest, ie strawmanning. Edited November 21, 2014 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

Here at Serenes Forest we pride ourselves in delivering toxic arguments out to you as quickly as possible!

Edited November 21, 2014 by Tryhard

[eclipse]

I see a LOT of unhappy issues being aired, and not in a way that I appreciate.

Cut it out. All of you. I don't think this is supposed to be a thread on how to be toxic to an argument.

[Snowy_One]

lol. I honestly didn't see that. 'How should I not be toxic?' 'Don't do what happened here.'

JK. I am more surprised that this happened at all and lasted past page one than anything else. I do appreciate the advise and I will try to take it to heart.

[Life]

Easy. Because you don't know how to properly argue.

[dondon151]

I see a LOT of unhappy issues being aired, and not in a way that I appreciate.

Cut it out. All of you. I don't think this is supposed to be a thread on how to be toxic to an argument.

eclipse, this is a thread created precisely to address issues with how people can or can't argue. of course people are going to feel unhappy. it's like complaining that a jet airplane makes noise.

[Chiki]

Easy. Because you don't know how to properly argue.

I don't think you're the right person to tell anyone that.

[Snowy_One]

I lost my head in that Mia debate. *sigh* Looking back now I realize just how much I've let those years with Smash affect me.

[Rapier]

There's no point in beating a dead horse, and we've seen a conclusion to the topic already. If it weren't for Life we wouldn't even remember this thread. Then again, it is up for Snowy to decide what to do with this topic, not me.

[eclipse]

eclipse, this is a thread created precisely to address issues with how people can or can't argue. of course people are going to feel unhappy. it's like complaining that a jet airplane makes noise.

The topic is about Snowy's issues, not everyone else's issues.

[Team Alucard]

Just try to be polite and respectful and don't abuse logical fallacies. If the person on the other side is doing that then just walk away from the argument because you're not going to be able to convince them at all. Their mind is already made up and they're not interested in having a rational discussion.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Team Alucard

[momogeek2141]

It's just a game. People sometimes take things a bit too far when it comes to arguing about games. If you start sensing that everyone seems to be trashing your viewpoint, back off, no one said you have to stop believing in that viewpoint. If you don't back off, and everyone disagrees with you, that's when people start thinking you're "toxic." Take my advice or don't, I really am not good at giving it.