I hold the opinion that your statement here is incorrect.
In general, “I” posts will tend to be less contentious than “you” posts. If we reduce things to our beliefs, our opinions, our values, it’s a lot harder for others to say, “You’re wrong.” (Or even “That’s wrong.”)
One of the biggest problems here is that “you” posts all too often entail someone re-casting someone else’s beliefs. “So, in other words, you believe…” “So you’re perfectly OK with…” “What you’re really saying is…” And that’s straw-man guff at its ugliest. Don’t argue with me on the basis of what you think I think; argue on the basis of what you think, and how it differs from what I’ve actually said.
Straw-manners are no manners at all.
So basically you’re saying that characterizing another’s position is bad form. If so, I disagree: there are all manner of euphemisms and dodges people use to draw attention away from the implications or practical effects of their beliefs. (That said, I agree that it is best practice to be a little wary of the 2nd person singular. Also and yeah, there’s a lot of highly dubious mind reading on this message board: I’ve seen examples of what I think you are referring to. I haven’t figured out whether what are essentially implicit speculations about motivated reasoning have a region of validity or not. )
Strawmanning involves attacking an argument that nobody makes. That’s not necessarily what is going on here.
I don’t think there is any validity to it. If there is a question about meaning, one should ask. Seeking clarity is always superior to making accusations. The difference is, “so you mean X?” vs. “do you mean X?”
Because both serve the same purpose. They force the other party to clarify what they are saying. The latter of course allows the other person to ignore the question whereas ignoring the former implies acceptance if ignored so I could see how someone would prefer the former. I think it has no place in discourse personally and think the small cost of flipping the framework is worth the increase in civility. And those that ignore repeated requests for clarity reveal the shortcomings in their positions easily enough.
His opinion appears to lack an understanding of the issues presented in this discussion.
Grin! If you did that on purpose, good work. “I see what you did there!”
I think that mischaracterizing another’s position is bad form. That’s what makes it a straw-man. It’s addressing something no one said.
“I hate chocolate.”
“People who don’t like any kind of sweets may have a digestive ailment.”
Re-characterizing something someone said may or may not be fallacious, but there is jeopardy in it, and thus should be phrased in the form of a question.
“I hate chocolate.”
“Do you hate many other forms of sweets?”
I agree. But in your previous post you said “‘you’ posts all too often entail someone re-casting someone else’s beliefs … And that’s straw-man guff at its ugliest”. I disagree. Here you say that “mischaracterizing another’s position is bad form”. That I agree with. They are not the same thing.
Re-casting is among other things a way of clarifying an argument and potentially exposing its flaws by reducing it to its basic essentials, and is embodied in many well-known tools of debate – for example the old reductio ad absurdum, the syllogism that infers a specific conclusion from a general statement, or the drawing of parallels (if you believe “x” then you must believe “y”).
In my view re-casting an argument isn’t wrong or bad form, re-casting an argument badly – perhaps even dishonestly – is the sin. But that’s not a reason to say that we should never use these valuable argumentative techniques. Isn’t it simply saying that we should always argue in good faith? Isn’t that the real cardinal rule?
Think about the typical politician who, when challenged by the media, makes vague flowery statements that always try to put a self-serving spin on whatever iniquity the politician happens to be mired in. Don’t we all love the pundit who cuts through the BS with an insightful observation like “what he/she is really saying is …”?
Okay: if you re-cast what someone says accurately, then you neither add to it nor detract from it. It can be done purely for clarification.
But “all too often” – my words – it has an argumentative content, and the re-casting alters the intent of what was said, changing it, making it something the originator would not agree with. And that’s straw-mannery.
“All too often” it’s done wrong.
Does the originator actually agree with it? Cool.
Let me know when you see a good example of that, because it’s goddamn rare.
Trinopus: These positions beg for skeptical re-characterization, notwithstanding their internal machinery.
“I love this country, but I’ve always had a problem with the 13th amendment’s prohibition on involuntary servitude because it infringes upon states rights and the 10th amendment. It’s in the bill of rights.”
“On gay marriage I take a philosophical position: I believe marriage is something that is between a man and a woman.” (That was John Kerry, 2004, before he evolved. I had a philosophical position back then as well, best summarized as, “I like winning elections.” )
“Advocates for the death penalty such as myself aren’t motivated by revenge: their concern is justice [which we leave undefined].”
Then again, there’s this:
“Trinopus, I’m not sure why we’re having this discussion given that you opposed evaluating the arguments of other posters back in post 6.” That’s an example of an aggravatingly bad faith distortion. It has a molecule of accuracy, all the better to give the reader a wholly inaccurate impression. I suspect that’s the sort of thing you had in mind. (Usually it’s less egregious, if also vaguer with the citation. Typically it involves an allusion to an unquoted post on a previous page. Unfortunately this sort of bad practice really isn’t modable. )
Bone: It’s interesting to see us advocate standards that are most amenable to our debate styles: I have certainly done that here.
IME, your use of that technique on this board has clarified and aided the fight against ignorance. I should add it to my tool kit.
Others have different argument styles though. Unfortunately I can’t push this line of reasoning any further as quite frankly implicit speculations about motivated reasoning make me uncomfortable. I couldn’t even locate a good example of it, though I tried. (I once made an explicit characterization of an argument as one based upon motivated reasoning, but that’s different.)
Asking for clarification of an unclear or ambiguous post is something that was not in your toolkit until a few minutes ago? No, wait, you didn’t say that, you said it was something that you should add to your toolkit, not that you have or are going to.
Which brings me to another question. What are you saying? I keep parsing it and parsing it, and in the end I am left with not much at all. Could you also differentiate “implicit speculations about motivated reasoning” from “explicit characterization of an argument as one based upon motivated reasoning?” I beg of you to bear in mind that you are communicating with someone whose forebears not terribly long ago were regarded as savages.
In the meantime I’ll be in the corner quietly pulling out my hair.
In those cases…ask! Don’t play the game of re-phrasing.
“So, what you mean is…” No! Don’t tell people what they mean.
“What do you mean, here? [XYZ] is ambiguous to me.”
Grin! Yeah, that’s pretty much what I was lambasting. I don’t admire even the valid form of this rhetorical tool, but I detest to the furnace pits of hell – or the BBQ Pit, anyway – the really bad-faith variety.
It could be modable if repeated as a pattern and reported. If someone did that as a regular debate tactic, and if people complained enough of it to the mods, it could start to fall into the category of “being a jerk.”
Bone has a certain style of direct questioning that I am considering adopting, not necessarily regularly. Assuming I can pull it off: not clear.
Here’s my example of the latter: the key word was explicit:
As for an example of the speculative kind, you are just saying that because [fill in the blank]. (Admittedly others do that with greater finesse. It occurred to me today that this may happen more in the IMHO forum than in GD. Which I frequent less.)
Trinopus: Perhaps the best approach is to ask during round 1. Perhaps. But I caution that motivated reasoning is a real thing. As is the related concept special pleading. Judiciously identifying such rhetorical patterns aids the fight against ignorance.
Cool. Your phrase “motivated reasoning” and the implicit/explicit dichotomy made me think you were speaking about intent, but I wasn’t sure.
I grok special pleading (No True Scotsman is a variant.) What is “motivated reasoning?” I don’t know the term.
(Engaging in re-characterizing what was said…but in the form of a question…is that reasoning that is swayed, biased, or prejudiced by the desired result or outcome? i.e., concluding what one wants to conclude…but at least under the cover of logic and reason?)
Of course it’s rare – the originator agreeing with it would mean that the originator has recanted his argument. It’s probably safe to say that a statement like “Your brilliant argument has not only convinced me that I was wrong, but that my whole world-view has been misguided” is in the category of “things that have never been said on the Internet, ever!” 
Do you not agree with my earlier point? Which was this:
Re-casting is among other things a way of clarifying an argument and potentially exposing its flaws by reducing it to its basic essentials, and is embodied in many well-known tools of debate – for example the old reductio ad absurdum, the syllogism that infers a specific conclusion from a general statement, or the drawing of parallels (if you believe “x” then you must believe “y”).
In my view re-casting an argument isn’t wrong or bad form, re-casting an argument badly – perhaps even dishonestly – is the sin. But that’s not a reason to say that we should never use these valuable argumentative techniques.
In particular, do you not agree, as I asked before, that the real point is that we should always argue in good faith? ISTM that if we use these argumentative tools honestly and in good faith, then we are staying true to the fundamental purpose of debate. If such an argumentative technique shows the opponent’s argument in a bad light, or exposes its failings, it may not go over well with said opponent, but as long as I’m not being overtly rude or insulting, is that my problem for using an effective argument, or is it the opponent’s problem for having a weak one?
What a great quote! 
In fact I like the entire quote you gave in #112. It reminds me that although sometimes debate is a contest of values and subjective opinions, there are also times when the purpose of debate is to ferret out truth from a quagmire of bullshit. Sometimes facts are just facts, and they deserve to be known.
It’s like honest government or open-minded religion: in theory, yeah, sure. In practice, geddaddahere. It very, very often is a distortion of the “Well, taking that to its logical extreme…” form. “If you believe ‘x’ then you must believe ‘y.’” is, 98% of the time, addressed to someone who believes ‘x’ and does not believe ‘y.’
Then just argue against the point, and say why you think it’s wrong. Don’t sail as close as you can to the winds of a straw-man distortion. Don’t play brinkmanship games with ad hominem.
Instead of “If you believe ‘x’ then you must believe ‘y,’” just say, “I don’t agree with ‘x’.” I continue to hold that it’s bad form to argue “You” at all. Argue against the idea, not the guy who holds it.
Much of this, I do confess, is a matter of stylistic preference. Note the form of the opening sentence of the post I quoted and am responding to, and the form of every sentence in my response.
Since I’m sure not everybody reading here reads the longest running global warming thread in the history of the dope, you may have missed the link to this highly entertaining and educational Dilbert strip that most people will get a laugh from.
Also note that none of Dick’s commentary would be against the rules here. Yet he is the very definition of a jerk.
Before you pat yourself on the back too hard, consider that you may not have a correct understanding of how that thread is viewed here. I’m betting 90 to 95% ignore it, seeing it as nothing more than good example of an exercise in spamming one’s own thread to build a post count.
I don’t understand why anyone is arguing this stuff. This is the type of thing I argued for when I first got here, and had to learn that this board doesn’t work that way. The whole reason why GD even exists is because certain topics can get get acrimonious. If people could be civil, there would be no reason for that forum. We’d just have happy fun time in IMHO.
And, you have to remember, the point of arguing in public is not to convince the other person. That happens rarely it at all. The point is to convince an audience. And, yes, using harsh, accusatory language is a method in the toolkit. You might wish for a forum where that is not allowed, but that’s not here.
And, frankly, if others are allowed to use that tool but you aren’t, you’re putting yourself at an extreme disadvantage. Making your opponent seem out of touch or dishonest or ignorant is a great rhetorical, and expecting people on this board to give it up without a rule forcing the issue is impossible.
Hell, those tactics were used against me when I got here and made those suggestions.