Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (Lou FCD @ June 27 2008,03:40) | | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 26 2008,22:34) | When I was a boy, we walked 20 miles to school up hill both ways barefoot in the snow for SEX, DRUGS and ROCK 'N' ROLL. And we LIKED it.
None of this newfangled tardaholism. |
As did we, but in the frozen tundra of Pennsyltucky, we also had ravenous, starving, snarling wolves chasing us for our lunch money. |
Well of course WE had it tough. I used to have to....
{sound of Four Yorkshiremen rip off}
...and you tell that to the kids of today and they wouldn't believe you.
Anyway, I think Puck has raised a valid and important issue. One I'd like to expand on too, especially in relation to something Assassinator said.
Some (possibly tongue in cheek) definitions:
Messdebating: The act of debating/discussing an issue on a message board with someone DEMONSTRABLY a) incorrect and b) ineducable, see "Kook" and "Fuckwit".
Tardaholism: The continual urge to not only see what the Kook or Fuckwit says next but to in some way encourage them to ever greater heights of tard.
Kook: An individual passionately expressing a demonstrably erroneous or false claim. Possibly, even probably, correctable on the basis of evidence. All people are at some point in their lives guilty of kookery (the act of behaving like a kook) to some extent. Many however learn from this experience and therefore do not progress to...
Fuckwit: Apologies for the profanity but I can think of no better word. A kook who has extended his or her defense of a demonstrably erroneous or false claim with behaviour of a very characteristic, and unpleasantly counterproductive, nature. There is no hope of correcting a fuckwit, they aren't playing the same game as everyone else. Classic hallmarks of fuckwittery (the act of behaving like a fuckwit) include repeated use of the same logical fallacy despite having that fallacy etched onto their forehead it's so clearly demonstrable, rampant intellectual dishonesty, profound love of the argumentum ad hominem (not merely abuse, but the logical fallacy), red herring addiction, persecution complexes, bad faith argumentation etc.
Tard: 1) A demonstrably erroneous or false claim repeated with ever increasing stridency. 2) Fuckwittery by a very slightly more polute name.
So definitions over with (and please feel free to add/modify accordingly), what are the problems of messdebation?
I would argue that the major potential problems of messdebation are as follows:
1) It takes time. However small, however insignificant that time might be, or however excellent one;s time management skills are, messdebation occupyies a finite quantity of very valuable time. In the case of evolutionary biology arguments on the web, some very erudite, educated and professional people spend their time doing this, and perhaps their efforts could be better channelled. Perhaps excessive messdebation, as mentioned by Puck above, can have adverse consequences.
2) When one wrestles with a pig all one acheives is a happy pig and muddy clothing. Some of the kooks and fuckwits encountered are quite deliberately trying to distract and annoy. We are playing their game by even engaging them.
3) Not all publicity is good publicity. Deborah Lipstadt has, very correctly in my view, laid out the case for not debating Holocaust deniers. This for me is the hardest issue to resolve because people are damned if they do, damned if they don't. I think there is room for a plurality of tactics across the group. I think that thinking as a group is better here than as a collection of individuals. Debating creationists is almost always a futile act, however, it does have several positives. There are the occasional epic public takes downs of creationists, it shows that scientists are willing to engage public concerns (a very good thing) and it exposes the creationist claims for what they are. However it also provides the creationists with a public platform, grants them a credibility they do not deserve and have not earned, and often backfires due to venue choices etc.
Of course not debating leads to cries of arrogance, fear etc etc etc. So whatever happens bad publicity arises. If one does enter into debate then at least one can "do it for the lurkers".
4) Personal consequences. As much as people might like to pretend that the online world is somehow hermetically sealed from real life, this simply isn't the case. At the other end of the internet is another real person really typing on a real keyboard just like I really am. Whilst abuse and generalised nastiness can upset people, I'm less worried about that (surprise surprise, can't take heat, don't enter kitchen) than I am the harm such debates can do the rational debater. The axe is dulled by the tree it cuts down after all.
I think there can be enormous positive benefits however. I for one have investigated topics I never would have unless I got involved in online debates, and I've learned a huge amount from various having my arse handed to me when I've been wrong and handing other people's theirs when they have. All in all it's been a positive learning experience.
However, have I remained unaffected by this? Has my attitude to other people harshened because of my online interactions? I would have to confess that it has. Never one to suffer fools gladly, I have become both on and offline far less tolerant of abject kookery and fuckwittery than I was. Maybe that's a natural part of the aging process, but I'd be hard pushed to demonstrate that messdebating has had no effect at all, and would find it quite easy to demonstrate its effects in at least a prima facie manner. Is this a good or a bad thing I wonder?
Anyway that's far from a complete rendition of my views on the subject, but it's a slightly comedy opener for anyone who might be vaguely interested.
Louis
--------------
Bye.
|
