One might argue that all political/substantive debates on the SDMB are pointless, by their very nature. But some of them, at least, involve people who honestly disagree about important issues explaining their differing worldviews.
On the other hand, some are just meaningless and idiotic, and everyone involved in them should be aware that they are just wasting time. Case in point is the argument over whether Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary or not. The thing is, the people on both sides of the issue agree that F911:
-Shows real footage of real people saying real things (ie, no one is claiming that the distraught mother of a dead son was an actress reading lines)
-But has a definite political agenda.
So we agree! And yet, the incessant argument goes on over whether a very specific word (“documentary”) is or is not the right word to describe something. They’re not actually arguing over whether F911 is objective. They’re not arguing over how many factual errors it has (well, they are, but in a different argument). They’re just arguing over whether a given word is the right one to use or not.
What is possibly going to come of this argument? Even if someone comes up with a 100% perfect logically flawless argument that absolutely positively demonstrates that “documentary” is, or is not, the right word to use, that’s not going to change anyone’s opinion. No one is going to say “well, you’re right, I suppose, documentary IS the right word. Wow. Knowing what word is associated with this movie gives me new respect for the points it makes! Moore for president!” or “Well, you’re right, documentary isn’t the right word. Huh. Maybe, since this movie was NOT a documentary, I should reach into my brain and undo the influence it had on my beliefs and opinions! And then I’ll go fellate Paul Wolfowitz!”
The only conceivable point to this argument is the question of whether or not F911 should be eligible for a “Best Documentary” oscar, but even that is pointless because there academy is under no obligation to use the “best” definition of “documentary”.
Well, sure, but what if someone did in fact respond to that thread in the manner you suggested:
If they filmed the fellating of Paul Wolfowitz, would that be a documentary? I mean, I think we could all agree that:
-It would show real, factual events.
-It would be fucking gross.
Well, exactly. That’s why I dropped out. One could say the same of many other hot-button issues that come up here with some frequency. However, I don’t believe I’ve ever told anyone that their choice of Pit material was weak, or a waste of time. To each their own, eh?
There’s a distinction there… in a debate about, say, the Iraq war, we’re (usually) arguing over an Actual Issue, ie, was the war a good idea, what will happen next year. That (to me, at least) is fundamentally different, and far more meaningful, than an argument over whether a given word is or is not the right one to describe something controversial, when everyone pretty much agrees about the characteristics of that controversial thing.
Arguing over whether the Iraq war is a good idea is meaningful. Arguing for pages about whether it should be referred to as a “war” or a “police action” is not.
This is why I find it amusing that certain elements arount here disdain MPSIMS, yet nothing could be more mundane and pointless than yet another abortion or gun control debate in which nobody ever convinces another.
At least we MPSIMSers have fun. I probably haven’t been to GD for a year or two.
What’s really needed here is a legal finding by Alberto Gonzalez. After reading his masterful definition of ‘torture’ I feel certain that he could set us all straight on this lesser issue of what constitutes a ‘documentary’.
I got into an argument about whether or not logic was required. Given that you can’t effectively engage in a dialectic without logic (and I knew it the entire time), the effort damn near made my head explode.
THAT, dear friends, is one fucking pointless exercise. I should have Pitted myself a thousand times and rubbed cheese-graters on my nipples for being so stupid, but what the hell. It’s my time to waste. Rah rah.
But, unless I’m misunderstanding you, half your argument here is that no amount of argument will change anyone’s mind. I believe that applies just as well to the Iraq war.
I dunno; some people like the “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” discussions. I do myself in small doses. And when you come right down to it, I don’t see any difference between “Are Paul Verhoeven’s movies satire?” and “Should the U.S. nuke Damascus?”
We all have things that make us hot under the collar, and they’re all different for everyone. Trying to get people to agree with only my, or your, sense of perspective of what is important is a mission that has failed before it’s started.
At least with the Iraq war there is some meat on the bones to chew on: strategy of the war, the build up, the WMDs and lack of, etc.
The 9/11 documentary debate is worse because it’s nothing but circling around a picked nit. It’s basically just nuh-uh versus uh-huh over and over and over and over and over and over…
It does, however, entertain the participants. Just try to imagine what sort of trouble they might be getting into if they didn’t have this sort of dispute about the number of angels who can dance on the point of a pin or something equally inane to keep them occupied. For the rest of us, we can afford the whole thing the disregard it deserves or pitch in as the fancy strikes us. In short, it does no harm and it keeps them out of our hair. That is a good thing.
True, but the next time I get into an argument about the necessity of logic (you see the built-in paradox, right? of course you do), please, throw me down, and cheese-grate the holy fuck out of my nipples, because I need some serious negative reinforcement.
Wait, wait, wait. You mean to tell me that there’s a conversation on the SDMB that devolved into a pedantic one-upmanship argument over the definition of a word?!? The board’s going downhill, I tell you! How long has this kind of thing been going on?
The word is one-upsmanship, you infinitesimally-hung tool, and therefore I feel no compunctions about disregarding everything you have ever said or ever will say on any subject whatsoever, neener neener, see if I don’t.