OrpheusAgonistes
Posts: 253
Joined: 3/29/2010 Status: offline
|
This doesn't necessarily reflect well on me, but when I get into political arguments, especially on the internet, I'm really only in it to boost my own ego. I try to get in a few good quips. Drop a few names. Crack a few jokes. A little erudition. A little mockery and irony. Then, after I've struck a few poses, I'm basically done. Now I do believe in the positions that I argue, and I would like for other people to agree. But I'm far too jaded to believe that in most online donnybrooks there is any chance in hell of persuasion. Occasionally, I'll find myself arguing with someone who knows more than I do about the topic. This may or may not be apparent to a third party, because I'm a crafty little son of a bitch. But in these cases, at a certain point, I usually start getting way more interested in sucking all the knowledge and perspective that I can out of my interlocutor. There's no better way to learn than to debate with somebody who is smarter than you (even if you don't admit it). Is everybody as cynical as I am? Threads on message boards invariably turn into scenes that remind me of that old Archers of Loaf lyric "It's always the same people/Pissing the same people off." So when you argue, are you trying to persuade the people you're arguing against? Or are you trying to argue some hypothetical audience of "undecideds" who may or may not be out there/reading at all? Or is everybody like me, all too often just in it to fly the flag of their tribe and get a few shits and giggles?
_____________________________
What I cannot create, I do not understand.--Feynman Every sentence I have written here is the product of some disease.-- Wittgenstein
|