Some of the arguments by new faces on the WotC DarkSun boards would make for great entries on NotAlwaysRight, specifically the ones where the service rep keeps repeating an answer to a customer, who just doesn't grasp, at all, in any way, what the actual problem is, and resorts to repeating their argument as though it is somehow a valid response.

I could call it the "But my boss is Jewish!" fallacy or the "But I have a ticket!" fallacy.

Amusing as hell reading about it happening to someone else, but damn is it freaking annoying when you're the one on the receiving end.

Me: "I find it ridiculous that six-thousand years of history is basically 'Rajaat did this, Rajaat did that' and no one else ever burned their toast or ate a bad piece of meat in all that time. History doesn't work like that."

Fanboi: "Rajaat was immortal, so he had time to do all those things, make long-term plans, and so was more effective in the destruction he caused, and its effects were more widespread than with a mortal."

Me: "Good points, I agree with you, and I am not disputing that. I'm actually criticizing the idea that for six-thousand years no one else did anything important that he wasn't involved in."

Fanboi: "But Rajaat was immortal so he could have done all those things!"

Me: "Yes, I know. But beings not involved with Rajaat didn't do anything at all during that entire span of time. Don't you think that is kind of odd?"

Fanboi: "Rajaat. Was. Immortal!"

Me: *headdesk*

Someone bitched about my calling certain philosophical arguments "goofy", claiming I was "biting the hand that feeds me" (because they believe their philosophy--anarcho-capitalism--is what made our country great) and inferring it was anti-American and ignorant of me to say what I said. Typical right-wing rah-rah flag-waving revisionist claptrap.

But you always think of the best response way later:

Actually, the hand that feeds me is emergent Democratic Socialism. That's the reason my family isn't living in abject poverty. Not some mythical golden age of Protestant work-ethic and individualism...that enslaved men for not being white (and many of them too) and let its senior citizens die sick and homeless on the streets.

-----

In other news, after Rainman shot his sister with one of his friend's BB guns (she's OK)--and after a loud, long lecture--we decided it would be a good idea to enroll him in a gun safety course. We're not pro-gun, but he needs to know how to be safe around guns (especially in this area), and how to handle them if it is ever necessary. Also, given that his grandpa has taken him out grouse hunting already...

He is getting a dose of NRA logik in the class, though ("Guns are tools like any other tool!", "Killing animals is OK if you're respectful!", etc), so I'm trying to talk to him about those things afterwards, contrasting what we believe and why with what they believe and why. He tells me, "I haven't made up my mind what I believe yet." I told him, "Good."

I DO wish there was a straight gun safety course that was not also a hunting-prep/gun-fan course around here, ie: "guns are probably the most fucking dangerous thing you will ever touch in your life and here's how to be safe with them and around them." Something without all the NRA apologist politics.

It's like listening to folks who glorify the sword as some noble extended phallus and try to pretend the damn thing isn't a fucking weapon designed and meant to kill, period.

Anyways, I could tell that the two-hours they have class for in the evenings is a serious strain on his attention span. Hopefully it won't be an issue.

Never get into a discussion with a right-winger. They like to play the blame game with you. What's the blame game? Well, you know what it is if you're poor, non-white, gay, or non-Christian.

( ...it goes like this... )

"I don't have time to argue with a man who already knows everything."

This phrase was recently stated to me as a put-down. While it might be true, it was ironic because it was a response to my having said the very same thing, though using different words, about the groups the individual was defending, specifically about those group's noted behaviors towards and perceptions of disagreement and dissenters from the party line.

In which case it isn't true, it's a cop-out. Hypocrisy. Irony strong enough to kill the faeries.

It's an excellent example of why (and how) all good causes become cults and how affective death spirals are kept spiraling. When you decide you can shut down a dissenter because they disagree with your little monkey tribe's perfect and well-argued good-feeling beliefs that most certainly can't be wrong, by claiming your opponent only thinks you're wrong because they're incapable of seeing the real truth, you've found the best way to avoid challenging the validity of (or gods-forbid, changing!) your own beliefs (and especially when those beliefs are tied up in your personal identity, or you've convinced yourself they are universal law instead of mere social theory).

So I just said, all cheeky, "See? We can agree on something!" and left it at that. Because, really, what else can you do when someone ignores what they are doing is exactly what you've just accused them of doing?

Kind of like arguing with fundamentalist atheists who run about shouting "Religion is for unthinking, wild-eyed sheep!" and you reply "Oh, so you're finally giving up atheism?" The joke, it is lost on them. (The corollary is fundamentalist monotheists who run about shouting "Atheism is for brainwashed, immoral elitists!" and you reply "Oh, so you're finally giving up religion?")

Ba-dum-dum.

Sadly, not about zombies in Las Vegas.

I had three hours of sleep the other night. Went to bed at 2am, woke up sometime around 5am and couldn't fall back asleep, brain kept going over-and-over the shit going on with my card group and wouldn't let go. Woke up exhausted. Not needing that on top of everything else.

( ...crap about cards... )

( ...adhd deniers... )

This is a post about logic and behavior. It is not about respecting your feelings but challenging them.

Still, I'd like to start this without pushing anyone's buttons, because affective heuristics happen, but I'm afraid the rest may not make as much sense as it might without starting by pushing some buttons.

For some of you, the history actually won't push any buttons or incite bias...still, I'll hide it behind a cut for those of you for whom it may, and you can jump down to the discussion and forego the history if you want to try it that way. Or you might try to short-circuit the probable reaction bias and give On Expressing Your Concerns a read to help consciously note the particular subconscious primate social instincts expected:

...history abounds with lessons on the price of being the first, or even the second, to say that the Emperor has no clothes. Nor are people hardwired to distinguish "expressing a concern" from "disagreement even with common knowledge"...If you perform the group service of being the one who gives voice to the obvious problems, don't expect the group to thank you for it...

( ...it creates bias... )

Disengagement is about protecting your personal and emotional space, and there is truth in the need to do this from haters and trolls and spreaders of nonsense, but there are also problems to be found with the logic of "disengagement" as it is defended by some individuals and groups. Some of those ideas might not be expressed openly, but are clear in a view of the pattern of argument and behavior of the group, others are expressed openly as obvious truths:

• Everyone who disagrees with you has clearly never read your material or they would agree with you, and if they say they have they are lying.


• Should anyone provably have read your material and still disagree, they clearly didn't understand it, are irrational, or don't want to accept its truth.


• Everyone who disagrees with you is attempting to shut you down. Especially if they continue disagreeing.


• Everyone who questions or attacks your truths also never attacks the side you are against, because if they are not with you they must be against you.


• Everyone who questions or attacks your truths is helping support the side you are against, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Therefore, they are the enemy.


• If someone makes you deeply, personally angry, they are a Nazi, and the issue is not with you.


• Everyone who disagrees with the group truth is an ignorant fuckface who should be beaten up.


• If someone questions or argues against group truth, ignore them because they are ranting asshats.


• The only sane, rational, good discussion is that which reaffirms the righteousness of the accepted group truths and do not challenge it.

I think we've all seen this pattern before, unfortunately.

Any of you oppose the war lately? How did your war-supporting friends or acquaintances treat you or speak to you? Are you a traitor? Are you not a real patriot? Are you anti-American? Have any of them simply stopped speaking with you? Do they argue you are ignorant (or worse) because you refuse to agree with them? Do they think you should be beaten or physically assaulted to teach you a lesson?

( ...seen it before... )

( ...what's wrong with that..? )

( ...escaping the ego's needs... )

In no particular order, other posts discussing this topic more in depth at Overcoming Bias are Supercritical Uncriticality, The Halo Effect, One Argument Against an Army, Avoiding Your Beliefs' Real Weak Points, Burdensome Details, The Affect Heuristic and Affective Death Spirals.

They're all worth the read.

( ...closing thoughts and closing fallacies... ).

Dear Friend,

There comes a time when you have to realize arguing with the raving homeless man at the corner carrying the sign is doing neither you nor the raving homeless man any good. You must also remember that sometimes the crazy homeless man wears a suit and tie, and he often posts on the internet, but he is still very easy to spot because of his sign. Regardless, this does not change the advice.

Yours,

Rev. Raven