Should I Avoid Arguments?

[aviet]

I run a website that gets about 70,000 visits / day on average. There are fairly regular grievance emails usually consisting of qualms about a language classification, a country's borders, the existence of a country or text I have taken from a 3rd party (which is clearly sourced).
 

Some of the input has been valid and worthwhile, but the majority has been factually wrong or I just couldn't care. For example, I have had several complaints about the naming of the country, Macedonia, which is a contentious issue for some Greeks.

In some cases when there is a valid concern, I have responded in a completely neutral manner. All it takes is one word and a message can take on an aggressive tone. For whatever reason, these emails I get are often filled with very aggressive language in regard to piddling issues. The reason I take this completely neutral approach to making replies is I have found it seems to defuse the situation and they often appear to be embarrassed about the tone of their original email.

One philosophy that I have developed myself (though I am sure it is far from unique) is that people who are behaving in an unprovoked, abusive manner have to be called out. If they cannot develop basic decency, the best we can do is shame them into curtailing their behavior. I have found that group confrontation is very successful in doing so and often leads to their tail going so far between their legs you wouldn't believe. One confrontation on the other hand tends to hold little weight.

On other occasions, I have delivered smackdowns to needlessly rude emails, which were all factually wrong as well. My responses generally contain factual, logical and sourced rebuttals to their points and a focus on the manner of their often abusive language. Responses to this, considering they have been intellectually destroyed, tend to be surly. They are unable to make any counter-arguments and if they do they can be easily swatted aside. The main component of their replies is an inability to drop the argument. They always have to find some tiny thread to cling on to as an attempt to be the victor. For this reason, I often choose the completely neutral approach, as it ends the argument with no winner or looser.

So I just leave rude and aggressive comments alone. However, when it comes to facts and logic, I generally can't leave it. I have to give them the correct information, essentially making an argument. Obviously they don't want to hear when try reply back, though I typically get no reply.

Recently I have put several displays on my site advocating for Brexit and this has provoked a few emotionally manipulative, guilt inducing and forceful emails from the International Socialist. I've casually batted their erroneous arguments out of the park. But, I am wondering. To what extent should I just ignore these people? Rather than correcting them, which probably won't work unless reinforced multiple times. That question is to be considered in a general context of all arguments, not just these emails I get.

What do you advocate and why?

Should I shy away from needles arguments with people who are likely to prefer going to their grave holding a medley of falsehoods than learn the truth?

Or should they get the Donald John Trump treatment?
 

The other day I got an email from a man informing me I 'must remove it.' The it being my Brexit display, which consists of 7 or 8 quotes of EU dictator, Jean Claude-Juncker. Among other bogus assertions I was told that the quotes of Juncker are 'not objective'. I have surmised he must be from the Karl Marx school of thought, in which all hypotheses, when tested, turn out to be false.

One part of me can't be bothered to reply, the other wants to meticulously go through his email and remedy his inaccurate assertions.

For those who love social justice, this is the my favourite bit of justiceering I have received:

"I  just want to know who wrote the ignorant false shit about Ethiopia?!!!! Ethiopia is the cradle of civilization scientifically and religiously. I'm quite sure it came from an ignorant white person!"

It came from a Black Lives Matter lawyer.

[dsayers]

people who are behaving in an unprovoked, abusive manner have to be called out. If they cannot develop basic decency, the best we can do is shame them into curtailing their behavior.

I don't know about this. I assume you mean publicly called out. The problem with that is that so many people got in the habit in school of just yielding to bullies so as not to be next. If they're the scarier one, you might find people siding with them just because it's the path of least resistance.

 

If you haven't checked out the Bomb In The Brain series, I recommend it. If you do not understand WHY a person has the conclusion they do, you'll never be able to change it. And will in fact bolster it by challenging it and failing to convince them. As such, there is no blanket approach because not everybody has the same (lack of) conviction to honesty, empiricism, etc.

[Will Torbald]

If you give reason, and they reply with emotion - do they deserve reason again? I don't think so. They have shown they lack the ability to process information.

[aviet]

I don't know about this. I assume you mean publicly called out. The problem with that is that so many people got in the habit in school of just yielding to bullies so as not to be next. If they're the scarier one, you might find people siding with them just because it's the path of least resistance.

 

In my experience it works. When I was in school, I orchestrated a group to confront a bully, to tell him that his behavior (verbal abuse, physical violence, extreme targeting) was not acceptable and that no one liked him. It destroyed him; and it may not have been the most enlightened approach, but we were a bunch of 13 year olds feed up with his behavior. To this day I don't have an issue with how we dealt with him even though we highly suspect that his behavior was learned from his father who may have had problems with physical violence. From seeing how he turned out, I think we gave him his best gift as his worst nightmare. It seems clear that he has specifically learned form the experience rather than just modifying his behavior to be socially acceptable. There was an issue with people siding with him in person (not all), but it was paper thin as not to hurt his feelings. He was destroyed after it for about 2-3 years, reduced to the lowest social order in the year.

 

After that, I did the same with another bully, who was much worse with physical violence. From having spent time at his house, I suspect he also came from a family where there was physical violence and extreme mind games. After he was confronted, he was able to use his massive intellect to construct what I will provisionally call constructs of fear and guilt to stop himself from sliding too far down the social ladder. After it I ended becoming friends with him, initially out of guilt and he did modify his behavior because of it. I saw him a few years ago and he appologiesd for his behavior.

 

A few years ago I confronted a manipulative person who had a tendency to like to mentally subjugate people. I did that on my own and he's changed his behavior. That he has few friends to fall back on may have contributed to him caving to one person.

 

 

 

If you haven't checked out the Bomb In The Brain series, I recommend it. If you do not understand WHY a person has the conclusion they do, you'll never be able to change it. And will in fact bolster it by challenging it and failing to convince them. As such, there is no blanket approach because not everybody has the same (lack of) conviction to honesty, empiricism, etc.

 

I did start with that, so I should go back to it. But my main query was not how can I change minds, but is it worth even bothering dealing with people who are constructing arguments that don't hold up to a mild prod?

If you give reason, and they reply with emotion - do they deserve reason again? I don't think so. They have shown they lack the ability to process information.

A good argument. I think, yes, because, when people can prove me wrong or suggest I am wrong, I would describe an initial period of jarring. Its a blow, but if the evidence comes forward, I won't push it away.

 

But I am more interested in opinions on whether I should bother engaging people who throw falsehoods at me in the first place.

[Will Torbald]

A good argument. I think, yes, because, when people can prove me wrong or suggest I am wrong, I would describe an initial period of jarring. Its a blow, but if the evidence comes forward, I won't push it away.

 

But I am more interested in opinions on whether I should bother engaging people who throw falsehoods at me in the first place.

 

I think it depends on the level of stupidity of the falsehood. Some people are very smart and would listen to arguments, but they have the wrong data. Some people are cretins who repeat wrong data and falsehoods and are unable to infer for themselves what is wrong with them. So it's a process of selecting the deserving and the undeserving. One of the ways I do it is to instead of giving out a counter argument, I just say that they're wrong, or that it is not true in some way, but not explain how or why. If they are honest people just trying to know the truth or have any degree of curiosity they will ask back where the mistake is. If they are not, they will ignore it or make an emotional response. Then I know if they are worth arguing with.

[aviet]

I just say that they're wrong, or that it is not true in some way, but not explain how or why. If they are honest people just trying to know the truth or have any degree of curiosity they will ask back where the mistake is. If they are not, they will ignore it or make an emotional response. Then I know if they are worth arguing with.

This seems to me an enlightened answer. I will give it a try.

[Eh Steve]

It can depend on circumstance and personal preference.

 

You've listed a few examples where confrontation was useful in your life.  It is worth noting they were all in person.  So sometimes you have enjoyed and gotten benefits from confrontation.

 

For people online motivated enough to send a website an angry email.. there may be benefits from responding to them. It might feel fun to do and it might help you solidify your base of knowledge and debate skills.  So those might be benefits.  There also may be consequences and a question of futility in changing someones mind by doing so.  There may be many more for you and you can weigh the pros and cons of your actions internally.  I can't say whether it is worth it or not.

 

My hope would be that you feel free to choose your response.  That when someone is using facts and logic you feel at least an option in how you respond.  That you don't have to give them correct information.  You are still entirely free to choose to do so, but I think being free to choose your decisions and actions would feel nice.

 

If you feel that you must do something, or have to do something, it might be useful to explore why you feel so compelled.

[dsayers]

my main query was not how can I change minds, but is it worth even bothering dealing with people who are constructing arguments that don't hold up to a mild prod?

In a vacuum, I would say that it depends on factors such as do they accept their own capacity for error, welcome push back, understand the value of defining terms, and mindful of their biases? If so, then they've earned my time if I have it to give.

 

Which brings me to my second point. I said in a vacuum because it sounds like you're dealing with this on a much larger scale. As such, you shouldn't have as much time overall to give to every last one. As a result, let them show you that they are worth the extra effort. If I'm approaching staff, I am empathetic of the ways in which their resources and attention gets stretched and I present myself accordingly. People of reason and virtue will demonstrate as much. What do you think?

[aviet]

In a vacuum, I would say that it depends on factors such as do they accept their own capacity for error, welcome push back, understand the value of defining terms, and mindful of their biases? If so, then they've earned my time if I have it to give.

 

Which brings me to my second point. I said in a vacuum because it sounds like you're dealing with this on a much larger scale. As such, you shouldn't have as much time overall to give to every last one. As a result, let them show you that they are worth the extra effort. If I'm approaching staff, I am empathetic of the ways in which their resources and attention gets stretched and I present myself accordingly. People of reason and virtue will demonstrate as much. What do you think?

Based on the circumstances you give for your work, the your approach sounds good and I agree with the sentiment in your first line, i.e. it's not worth the time debating with people who are immovable and volatile.

 

In the specific case of the emails I get, I am just going to script an auto-responder saying I don't respond to complaints about identity issues, which is what most of the emails are about. If they have a genuine objective point, I will take appropriate action. But the pithy identitarians will be ignored.

[Somewhere]

If the mails are being sent via a "Contact Us" page, can you set expectations on that page, for example you can tell people in advance what kind of e-mails will get a response and what will not, and set standards for tone there too if that is important to you?

[aviet]

If the mails are being sent via a "Contact Us" page, can you set expectations on that page, for example you can tell people in advance what kind of e-mails will get a response and what will not, and set standards for tone there too if that is important to you?

Yes. I could do something like that, but don't have the time. I've penned an auto-responded for people who send these pithy messages. Not worth the time.

[dsayers]

Yes. I could do something like that, but don't have the time.

Wait, what? This sounds like it would be something of a huge time SAVER. Have I misunderstood something here?

[aviet]

Wait, what? This sounds like it would be something of a huge time SAVER. Have I misunderstood something here?

I have been working huge hours on a project that will probably take the rest of the year to finish. To make a good facility to do what I want for and contact form would take about a day and shake my momentum. I'd also have to falp about for 1-2 weeks getting translations for seven other languages.

[dsayers]

I have been working huge hours on a project that will probably take the rest of the year to finish. To make a good facility to do what I want for and contact form would take about a day and shake my momentum. I'd also have to falp about for 1-2 weeks getting translations for seven other languages.

Yes and if I drop $250 today on a suspension trainer, that sets me back $250 from all of my future financial goals. However, it will help me build my core and up my metabolism. Which will save me from injury, sparing me from untold amounts of lost productivity due to injury. It will also improve my health, sparing me from untold amounts of unnecessary health related costs in the future. It will also improve my mind-body connection, upping the amount of value I can provide myself and others with that mind. Finally, times spent working towards these goals is way more fulfilling than say playing World of Warcraft, which was how I once used my time. This alone will have untold positive ripple effects in my life from the endorphins in the moment to the increased human capital which will ripple all the way into my future child's life.

 

It's called an investment. Pointing out something's cost does nothing to indicate the opportunity cost. Which seems to me that if you were to weigh not only the costs, but also the benefits, you would find that if you truly wanted to address the issue for which you took the time to make the thread, such a cost would provide exponential yield. Perhaps even up your human capital in your capacity as a leader as you reap the rewards of your effort, learn from it, and effectively have a new/improved tool in your toolbox What do you think?