Say what you think without implying what other posters’ thoughts are. They can speak for themselves without you telling us what they really mean.
When another poster asks what you mean, answer them directly without referring to your other posts. They didn’t understand what you meant then, which is why they’re asking now.
A reply to a post is not always a disagreement with it. Sometimes it’s an agreement from a different perspective, or sometimes it’s neither agreeing or disagreeing, but a tangent.
Being correct is not an excuse to be confrontational. Our discussions don’t need to be win-lose. No one cares about your dominance displays.
Please add more tips, but note the forum is About This Message Board and do not make things personal.
The problem with this is different people may interpret something said differently. They will not ask what was meant because they think they know what was meant.
And, sometimes confrontation is inevitable. As we have seen in recent posts on the Israel/Gaza conflict some people are sympathetic to Israel and some are sympathetic to Palestine.
These are good tips. They depend on everyone operating in good faith–but sometimes that presumption is necessary. A few more:
If you think someone’s not operating in good faith, it’s totally reasonable to stop responding to them. Telling them they’re not operating in good faith never ends well.
Be extremely careful about paraphrasing someone’s argument. If your paraphrase of their argument makes them sound like an idiot, you probably got the paraphrase wrong.
Good-faith clarification of confusing points is crucial, and requires both people to participate. (“If I understand you, you’re saying X. Is that right?” “Sort of, but it’s more like I’m saying XY. Does that make more sense?”) A lot of disagreements here could come to a reasonable resolution if both parties worked to clarify what was being said.
If the denotation of your terms is correct, but the connotation of your terms is problematic, then what you’re saying is problematic. Falling back on “But it’s technically correct!” never ends well.
The art of crafting the best possible version of an opponent’s argument, the so-called steel man argument. The steel man argument is the opposite of strawmanning, the (wilful) misrepresentation of a position to make it easier to attack.
Way back in high school, I read The Case for Animal Rights. I don’t find the overall case persuasive, but I do remember one approach the author emphasized: when critiquing the arguments of someone you disagree with, try to find the strongest possible arguments. If you can find flaws in the strongest possible arguments, you save yourself a lot of time, because then the weaker arguments are also going to fall apart. (Definitionally: if they didn’t, they would be the strongest arguments).
It’s a really hard bit of advice to follow, because tearing apart shitty arguments is a delightful blood sport. But it’s really worthwhile, if the goal is to increase understanding.
We certainly can–but that’s not exactly what I’m talking about. I’m suggesting that critiquing the strong arguments, not the shitty arguments, is likelier to lead to understanding.
Exactly, I go out of my way to lay down my strongest argument the best I can. I look forward to posters who will take the time to critique it and allow me to argue back without getting insulted. If someone thinks something is preposterous take the time to be specific about why.
Well, that’s also not exactly what I’m saying. If you post something, I’m assuming you’re posting the best you can. If Baba_Yaga posts something on the same side as you, and if I find her argument really strong and yours ridiculous, I’ll be tempted to respond to yours, because it’s so much easier and more fun to tear into a ridiculous argument; but the better course of action is for me to grapple with Baba_Yaga’s much stronger argument.
So it’s not about posting the best you can; it’s about responding to the best posts.
Agreed. Strong arguments show thoughtful intelligence, and it is those kind of people who are willing to accept a different point of view if it is a worthy one. Shitty arguments are often the tool of the desperate who want to be right no matter what.
Tip- this is the SDMB, and a certain amount of being Pedantic is not only accepted, but normal. However, in some cases, less is more. When someone says 'The Queen of England", referring to the late, great QEII, correcting them as that was not one of her titles is too much. Likewise, if someone posts about how things are in America- yes, we all know there are two continents full of nations in the americas.
The issue with that is that their bullshit continues un-opposed.