I think the problem is with them. It’s not like everyone I engage with strawmans me.
But ultimately, it doesn’t really matter. If my posts are so incoherent that I cannot communicate my views to a particular person, then it’s kind of pointless to engage anyway.
So your proposition is that it’s pointless to engage with you.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I can’t really agree with this idea. A number of times I’ve seen accidental misunderstanding and it’s not because of bad communication or because someone is being lazy, it can be because of any number of things. The speaker may well understand the point he’s trying to make and, so, may simply miss an ambiguity in his statement because he already know exactly how to interpret it. That is, how the speaker of certain words and how an impartial observer might interpret them aren’t necessarily going to be the same. Similarly, the receiver has some expectations about what message he’s getting and it will be interpretted in that context.
I think assigning blame for a miscommunication does not appreciate the fact that communication is a two person process. Failure to admit that one might present a message with multiple reasonable interpretations seems disingenuous to me. This is why I think repeating someone’s argument in their own words helps, because if the other person restates it, and you also receive it as being the same as your point, then you know they received your message as intended. But that they might restate it incorrectly could simply be a mistake and can easily be corrected.
Now, of course, if one is corrected on a point, one ought to accept it, but then there’s the ambiguity of whether that correction is also a reasonable interpretation. If it is, it ought to be accepted. However, if it’s not, then it comes across as weaseling. If one simply accepts any reinterpretation, even unreasonable ones, then one is constantly arguing against potentially mobile goal posts and can never make headway. But if one accepts no corrections, a good discussion can get derailed from something that is minor.
In short, it requires reasonableness, good faith, and balance on the part of all involved. Frankly, I think this statement illustrates a lack of reasonableness on that point. Misinterpretting your posts is not the same as saying your posts are incoherent. Of course, you should only engage with people you want to engage with, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to assign the blame for misinterpretting your posts squarely on those who misinterpret you.
I would say asking them to requote me does make a difference. It gives them the opportunity to take a second, more careful look at my words to see if their interpretation is justified.
This is why I usually give people a chance to take a second look. Which I did in this case. And yes, it’s possible that it was just a misunderstanding and by pointing out his misunderstanding in the form of a challenge, I put him on the defensive so he was unwilling to lose face by admitting his mistake. It’s possible that he has lots of intelligent things to say which I will now miss out on. But based on my experience, I doubt it.
There isn’t enough time to read everything everyone says about stuff. You have to pick and choose. Probably by banning various posters, this message board loses a lot of intelligent comments.
For people who do not understand me, yes of course.
But who could, truly, understand the unique genius that is anonymous internet asshole brazil84?
I agree, and I have been on both sides of these kinds of misunderstandings. Of course, when somebody conveniently exaggerates one’s position, I become skeptical of their good faith. However, I usually give people a chance to support or retract their claim about my position, which I did in this case.
So what if they take a second look and decide that, yes, their interpretation is indeed justified? You probably could save some time by writing a clarification right off the bat, addressing the specific misinterprations you’ve perceived.
Why is it necessary (or desirable) to put somebody on the defensive? There’s no “debate scoreboard” here, nor are any of us campaigning in an election of any kind.
I would understand if you wanted to mock him, for your own amusement. That’s most of what I do around here, after all.
Besides, you don’t have to “give people a chance to take a second look”, as though this represents some sort of generous effort on your part - your earlier statements are in the record, to be casually reviewed by anyone who wants to, with no participation on your part required.
Well, for the sake of rapidly “banning” the losers, your approach strikes me as one guaranteed to alienate the intelligent, as well. If your goal happens to be to communicate only with people who always agree with you and thus never feel any pressure to modify your views, I can’t think of a better approach.
I understand you totally. You’re an ignorant jerk who is so pathetic he has to resort to a delusional set of rules so you can maintain the fiction that you’re always right.
I’d say you’re an open book, but you’re more of a limerick scrawled on a gas station men’s room wall.
Being the only one to respond to your own blog is odd. This guy lives a sad little life.
One day he may slip up, break a rule, and ban himself.
Then I will consider their justification. If it is reasonable, I will let go of the issue. Otherwise, goodbye.
I enjoy it. There are two reasons I debate with people: First, to learn, and second because I enjoy the competitive aspect of it.
I’m not sure what your point is here. I prefer to debate fairly, which usually means giving people a chance. But I am also competitive so I do it in an aggressive way.
What difference does it make if I alienate people? This is not a social club. On the internet, there are always intelligent people willing to argue with me in an honest way. Besides, there are many places where I post and debate and enforce my “rules” and there isn’t this sort of negative reaction. (I’m not going to name them but I’m sure you could find them.)
But you’re not really asking for the justification, as I read it.
My suggestion is that step 3 be:
That doesn’t really answer my question of why to try putting them on the defensive. Personally, I find it more challenging and interesting when they’re trying to put me on the defensive, but of course we all have our own tastes.
But you said specifically (and I trust quoting you exactly is in keeping with the nature of this discussion) that “This is why I usually give people a chance to take a second look.” You’re giving them a chance to review (i.e. to take a second look at) your earlier statements? Your statements are on public display. Chances to review them are not yours to give or take. I suppose you could say something along the lines of “I won’t respond to your objection at this time to give you a chance to reconsider it” which strikes me as a slightly less presumptuous to go about it.
I won’t be looking, but thanks and good luck. I did my best.
I would argue with…someone…(I haven’t really read enough of the thread to figure out who I disagree with) but I just checked my ATP budget for the day, and found out I don’t have enough energy to finish this sente
You’re in fact misrepresenting (by omission) the offer you presented me.
Your offer was to support (by way of “quote me.”) or retract and apologize. But apologizing entails a tacit admission of bad faith and intention to straw-man you.
So, let’s assume for the sake of argument, brazil84, that my intention was in fact not to misrepresent your argument but to summarize it as I understood it. What is a reasonable way for me to proceed here, faced with your challenge?
I’ll cheerfully admit that Sherwood has more succinctly asked the question I had in mind but did not articulate well.
I think the request is implicit when I ask the person to show me where I supposedly made the claim in question and to quote me.
I’m not sure I see your point here. I gave Sherwood Anderson a chance to support or retract his statement before banning him, agreed?
You too.
Liar. You don’t ever consider anything that might have to do with you being unclear or ambiguous. Never once have I seen you ever say “I was unclear, let me clarify.” All you ever do is post bullshit and then blame other people for your own shortcomings and inabilities.
Butting in here, sorry.
No. The offer was support or retract and apologize.
The real conceit here is not that he is being generous, but that his posts are worth reading twice.
(ETA: Actually, this doesn’t even need to be an insult —how many posts by anybody really are worth reading twice?)