You Know What Irritates Me…
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in DiscussWhat irritates me about leftwingers’ debating style: they perceive all opponents as either brainwashed sheep or evil manipulators. They always want to “educate� rather than actually debate.
What irritates me about rightwingers’ debating style: they categorically reject nuance, boiling down every issue into an either/or dichotomy where their side is righteous and their opponent’s side is a threat to our way of life.
What irritates me about centrists’ debating style: they reflexively avoid conflict, choosing tepid compromise over real solutions.
Sometimes it’s fun to way over-generalize. So, what bothers you about the ways we engage in modern discourse?
This entry was posted on Monday, May 15th, 2006 and is filed under Discuss. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 15th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
In the spirit of over-generalizing, it irritates me that:
1) We think “modern” somehow refers to somewhere between 5 minutes and (generously) 15 years ago, and
2) “Monologue” has somehow become a synonym for discourse.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
In the interest of over-generalizing …. ever since I turned centrist … I wake up in the morning no longer knowing my lest from my right.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Instead of left and right, why don’t we debate as “reft” and “light?”
What bugs me is so many highly educated and interested people who have not knowledge of history, or if they have it they keep it segregated in the “history” section of their brains, so they react to everything like it’s the first time it ever happened.
May 15th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
It irritates me that the utility of any statement or argument seems to be based almost wholly on the idenity of the arguer, rather than the contents.
I know that I’m massively guilty of this one at times…
May 16th, 2006 at 8:53 am
“Instead of left and right, why don’t we debate as “reftâ€Â? and “light?â€Â?
Awsome idea! You are correct that people tend to not consider the past. We are a “I can see it, I don’t like it, make it look like this” society. We also have a considerable lacking of time to expose ourselves to history unless we are in a vocation that feeds from it. Most people don’t have enough hours in the day. If there was a gift to be given to our culture that would have a lasting impact, I think it would be the ability to slow down … and consider …. everything.
May 16th, 2006 at 8:58 am
What irritates me about rightwingers debate style is the fact that they are always wrong. Well, almost always…I agree that Bush is a great president.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:03 am
what Irrates me is por speling. Sorry couldn’t resist.
What irritates me is politics by sound bite. The way every issue gets boiled down to an either or statement and every position has to be summed up in a neat little package. Are we that dumb as a nation that we need things simplified to that extent? I hope not. Also the lack of historical knowledge drives me crazy as well. Iraq and the Middle East are in the news every single day and yet few people know the full history of our involvement there.
May 16th, 2006 at 11:06 am
I think you’re evilly manipulating us into a false dichotomy which we will reject and be forced into a tepid compromise.
May 16th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Probably my greatest source of irritation is our American adversarial tradition. It looks for all the world to me as a warping of capitalist philosophy. Capitalism encourages competition in the marketplace. You’re supposed to make your product as desirable as possible. What people forget is that you’re supposed to do this in order to serve a bigger goal than just your product, namely, to get everyone the best product possible. Your product selling is not the victory; the -best- product selling is.
This mindset of “my brand is king” gets carried over into politics. Again, people forget that you’re not supposed to argue your view in order to win on its behalf; rather, each side makes the best case it can, and then “best view” is defined by the market.
At some point, as an arguer, I feel compelled to say that I am arguing not to win my side, but to find the best side. I will present everything great that I can about my view, and at the same concede – nay, adamantly insist – that I don’t know for sure which way to go is best, yet. I trust the other side to present its best face, since I don’t have the time necessary to pursue both. We each add value by splitting the task of finding the truth. We each assume that the other side argues in good faith, and we try as hard as possible to see how the other view makes sense for the other side.
And if, in the end, we find one view, or the other, or a mixture, to be the best action to take or view to adopt, then we both flock to it, shake hands, and go back to our homes knowing that we’ve both gained insight to a better path.
(This is idealistic, sure, but you believe in aspiring to an ideal you can never quite achieve, then this is the one I like.)
May 16th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Classic John Scalzi
May 18th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
I agree with the above characterization of right wing debaters, but I would also say their number one debate strategy is to attack the character of their opponent, to distract from the lack of valid justification for their positions.
Centrists have a tendency to demonize both the right and the left, and most (in my opinion) seem to hold the same beliefs to a lesser degree as many on the left that they denigrate.