Denial: a strong defense mechanism used by people who are unwilling to face reality.
We've all witnessed it - the artful dodging of discussing actual topics on a blog which may cause personal distress as a function of holding one's opinion as truth, regardless of new information provided by others.
Witness such a dialogue.
Now, if you are not skilled in effectively veering away from the topic at hand because you hold the wacky belief that one must deal with what is dealt to you, you may find these tips on how to use faulty logic handy should you ever decide that you would rather avoid awareness and keep yourself comfortable in a faux cloak of security.
Remember, thou shalt not disturb the comfortable!
You don't need to be formally schooled in logical fallacies in order to use them. In fact, I'd guess that many people on blogs don't even know that they're quite adept at composing arguments based on twisting the rules of logic. For some, it just comes naturally! For others, however, using faulty arguments is an acquired skill. So, here are some worth learning.
1. Use ad hominems. If someone writes something you don't like (such as the blog entry cited above), just call them names ie. 'you're a doo doo head' or 'that guy's obviously anti-semitic' or say that what they wrote is 'stupid' or 'cowardly'. That's an easy one and you'll find that others will be willing to pile on as well, especially when said 'doo doo head' is unpopular or their position is not that of the majority. And, if that technique fails, just attack the person's country!
2. Note the slipperly slope. We're all capable of standing on the edge while pointing to the bottom of the hill when someone presents us with a dilemma that we can't really argue with without stating something like, 'If you criticize Israel's aggression, you are ensuring the destruction of all Jews everywhere for all time'. See how easy that was?
3. 'No True Scotsman'. This one is quite popular. It goes something like this: Doo doo head speaks out against Americans. No true American speaks out against Americans. Therefore, Doo doo head is anti-American, UnAmerican or is not an American. Simple!
4. Insert a red herring. The author of the topic isn't speaking out against actions in Iraq. Therefore, he has no right/authority to speak on any other conflict. Yes, that actually makes sense to some people.
5. Throw in a weak analogy. Like comparing a person's reaction to the Israel/Lebanon war to some crazed driver.
Yes, these methods along with so many others can help you too when you just can't handle the topic at hand. So the next time you're tired or angry or just plain fed up, throw all logical caution to the wind and jump right in with both feet. You see, there will always be at least one person out there who will back you up and cheer you on because, when it comes to denying reality, one is never alone.
Further reading: Why smart people defend bad ideas
17 comments:
And, let me be the first to say that I am not averse to actually falling into these illogical traps. Note how I call some people "wankers" at times.
Nobody's perfect, but we'd sure have better debates on issues if we'd try to be more logical and rational.
(I also crossposted this at my blog, which will most likely piss off the big guy at BT sonce he doesn't like anyone criticizing anything on his site. Oh well! Afaic, if it's posted anywhere on the internets, it's fair game for criticism - just as my writings are.)
I'm one of those rare unfortunate souls who loved law school--and especially loved those cursed professors who pushed and prodded until logic or something close to it came to light. Shouting contests in which contestants try to out-nasty each other just make me tired.
If these so-called debates were urine-tested to determine their testosterone-to-reason ratio, none of them would be allowed to ride in the Tour de France.
Ooops, am I guilty of throwing in a weak analogy?
Regarding the linked-to article, it caused me to reflect a little on the "competitive smarts" game. There's a whole lot of stupid in the world, and that's depressing enough. But to watch so much of the intelligence that does exist become weaponized and used to bolster empire-sized egos, well, that sends me scurrying away from the computer in search of comfort food.
Another random note: Mr. Berkun recommends leaving the cloister and seeking out diverse ideas, and in theory I agree. But the theory falls apart in practice when too many "ideas" are grounded in hate and wielded like a billy club. Ideas need a little safe ground for growing.
Thanks, DTF. I'll check out my newly-ordained powers. :)
I agree that it's uncomfortable for some to discuss Israel but, if they're going to jump in, I'd hope they'd at least try to address things rationally. I know. I'm an idealist. What can I say?
Note this comment as well on my blog where I crossposted this post. I hadn't realized that MWW was a member of BT. Her blog is dedicated to aboriginal issues - another one of those "uncomfortable" topics. The problem with ignoring these discussions is that, sooner or later, they come back to bite us in a big way and if we've not lent our voice to the topic before and have preconceived notions based on so-called conventional wisdom, some may be in for a rude awakening when their so-called truths are exposed to be bogus talking points (which is why many avoid the topic in the first place).
I don't hang out at DU. I'm sure that if I did I'd have lots more to rant about! :)
Oh, and if some BTers were disturbed by what Sirocco posted, their heads would definitely explode if they read this.
No doubt you all know what response this comment spawned. How pathetically predictable. But then, I keep forgetting that soldiers died to only ensure that some people ie. the right people had free speech. Silly me.
It all came down to someone criticizing the military and being called anti-American.
o/t: someone's been busy deleting comments at the scotchtape blog.
Catnip,
I deleted my comments there three weeks ago. I don't know about anyone else. The whole premise of the site is offensive and some of my comments were offensive. I didn't want to be associated with it anymore.
Aha! Mystery solved. Thanks, super. :)
That site sure had a short shelf-life. I wonder who their next target will be: Sirocco?
Well, it looks like I might be getting into it soon with a couple of people in my diary at BT about the non existant coverage of the anniversarry of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Can't critisize the front pagers apparently, though the two that I kinda singled out, Boo and Steven, both recommended the diary. But Chris and Diane are disagreeing with me, which is a little unexpected, and CG is disagreeing through a recommend of Chris's comments to me.
Otherwise, plenty of people recommended and commented favorably. Plus, anytime I can give Janet some props for her passion is a good thing.
As old folks are wont to do, I suppose that aside from sheer whimsy, I had some hare-brained notion that perhaps if I would allow people to become acquainted with me, that it might make them think, and maybe they would wish to become acquainted with Others offline, maybe they would - I don't know what I thought, but whatever it was, it was inexcusably naive for someone who has lived so long, and knows better.
Well, it wasn't exactly a hare-brained notion afaic because my friendship with you has proved to be invaluable and you've definitely made me think and broaden my horizons for which I am extremely grateful. Thank you for your patience and time. It hasn't been wasted.
Add to that the fact that a group of like-minded people have now all "found" each other as we try to wade through the daily insanity and I think you'll agree that nothing really happens by accident.
super,
I must say that this comment by Chris disturbs me, but I also have to give him points for being honest about where he's at with the issue.
Chris wrote: "I'm not at a point in my life where I can get my head around 200,000 dead people."
Understandable. Many people simply can't or won't, so I'd rather read about Hiroshima, Nagasaki and nuclear obliteration by those who are able to get their heads around it, like you.
And I really wish people would stop referring to Lamont as being "antiwar". He's not. He's anti-the Iraq war. He's quite willing to stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the current war and makes absolutely no reference to how Israel is conducting itself with the war crimes it is committing in the name of that so-called defence.
That irks me to no end - that so many people believe he is what he's not: antiwar.
Guilty as charged, calling Lamont anti-war. I was thinking about just that a little while ago and should post a comment clarifying that.
Thanks for pointing it out. I fell victim to the media label.
Sirocco was the first person I sort of got to know online, though our paths haven't crossed much for a while now. Which is by the by: I think you're right that he is read differently, Nanette (in ways not unrelated from how I think I was read differently there, though Sirocco and I ended up standing in quite different places on some topics, in particular, the cartoons) and that a goodly amount of that has to do with race. Though I don't think it impossible that his foreigness will eventually be used to discount his blunter words especially as November gets closer: that theme has no shortage of variations, I fear.
Ductape,
Speaking of placing your words for others to see ;) Hint. Prod. The same hints and prods might also be more broadly directed . . .
And no, I do not think you should condemn, regret, or feel shame for your experiment. Obviously I am glad you made it.
I've read bits of the scotchtape blog: I'll confess, having been reminded of its existence I even clicked on it tonight. Repulsive, yes and I can see why you had the reaction you did in terms of the way others were being targeted.
It may be a failure of imagination or observation on my part, but to me the whole thing -- right down to the accusations of 'cultism' and the attempts to use sexism as a wedge -- had an inescapable air of deja vu. I think the use of these tactics in tandom is quite common, though I'm still not sure whether it demonstrates a rich sense of irony or a lamentable lack of it.
Oops! I hadn't even paid attention to who had called Lamont antiwar at BT. I'd just written about that misnomer on my blog earlier today. Nothing personal super!
(You probably have the feeling I've been picking on you the last couple of days. It wasn't deliberate. It was pure coincidence. Sorry!)
Picking on me?
Nope. The thought never crossed my mind. I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were accusing me of a crime against liberals or something. But if the shoe fits.....
Besides, I expect to be made aware of differing opinions or mistakes made. It's all good.
A crime against liberals? lol
Neocon philosophy is a crime against liberals. All else pales in comparison.
I finally crawled out of my cave and found that scotchtape blog y'all mention - damn! Was sort of like driving past a car wreck - it's just too hard to drive by without slowing down and taking a look. Didn't take much to figure out who some of the playas was under different nom de plums.
I did find the Manson family references aimed at a number of us to be quite amusing. What occupies the minds of some in blogtopia is truly amazing.
Post a Comment