I think the pro-ridicule argument has clearly won

[AdamWho]

There was once a debate on IIDB about the effectiveness of using ridicule in debating absurd positions.

* One side held the position that it is always wrong to use ridicule because that is not a valid debate strategy and is ultimately self-defeating because the opponents only dig-in if you ridicule them.

* The other side agreed that ridicule is not a valid strategy if your opponent is NOT engaged in an honest debate. If the opponent is not debating in good faith then ridicule can be used to dissuade other people from taking the opponent's position.

Over the last decade, this has become more clear in debating religion, politics, and science. You cannot debate with people who claim the Earth is flat, anti-vaxxers, election deniers, or fascists, because they will not argue in good faith, their goal isn't the discovery of truth but influence through propaganda.

Sartre understood this well.

SARTRE “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

There is also research on using ridicule as a political weapon

Also see: Rules for radicals rule #5 "Ridicule is man's most powerful weapon

 

[bilby]

Well that entire position is laughably absurd.








Therefore I win

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There was once a debate on IIDB about the effectiveness of using ridicule in debating absurd positions.

* One side held the position that it is always wrong to use ridicule because that is not a valid debate strategy and is ultimately self-defeating because the opponents only dig-in if you ridicule them.

* The other side agreed that ridicule is not a valid strategy if your opponent is NOT engaged in an honest debate. If the opponent is not debating in good faith then ridicule can be used to dissuade other people from taking the opponent's position.

Over the last decade, this has become more clear in debating religion, politics, and science. You cannot debate with people who claim the Earth is flat, anti-vaxxers, election deniers, or fascists, because they will not argue in good faith, their goal isn't the discovery of truth but influence through propaganda.

Sartre understood this well.

SARTRE “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

There is also research on using ridicule as a political weapon

Also see: Rules for radicals rule #5 "Ridicule is man's most powerful weapon

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it."

(Letter to Étienne Noël Damilaville, May 16, 1767)”
― Voltaire

 

[rousseau]

My preference is ignoring these people over ridiculing them. Acknowledging the argument at all lends it credibility.

If a pseudo-scientific quack showed up at a Neurophys conference, attendees wouldn't drop everything to consider his/her arguments. I don't get why we do that online beyond having time to kill and being a little masochistic.

 

[Politesse]

There was once a debate on IIDB about the effectiveness of using ridicule in debating absurd positions.

* One side held the position that it is always wrong to use ridicule because that is not a valid debate strategy and is ultimately self-defeating because the opponents only dig-in if you ridicule them.

* The other side agreed that ridicule is not a valid strategy if your opponent is NOT engaged in an honest debate. If the opponent is not debating in good faith then ridicule can be used to dissuade other people from taking the opponent's position.

Over the last decade, this has become more clear in debating religion, politics, and science. You cannot debate with people who claim the Earth is flat, anti-vaxxers, election deniers, or fascists, because they will not argue in good faith, their goal isn't the discovery of truth but influence through propaganda.

Sartre understood this well.

SARTRE “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

There is also research on using ridicule as a political weapon

Also see: Rules for radicals rule #5 "Ridicule is man's most powerful weapon

What dumb argument.

Can you really be so incomprehensibly stupid as to advance such a "position"?

 

[AdamWho]

What dumb argument.

Can you really be so incomprehensibly stupid as to advance such a "position"?

IF you are not being meta, could you be more specific about what you think is a dumb argument?

 

[AdamWho]

My preference is ignoring these people over ridiculing them. Acknowledging the argument at all lends it credibility.

If a pseudo-scientific quack showed up at a Neurophys conference, attendees wouldn't drop everything to consider his/her arguments. I don't get why we do that online beyond having time to kill and being a little masochistic.

When you are using ridicule you are actually addressing the lurkers. You are showing that there is a price to pay for am absurd belief.

 

[Politesse]

What dumb argument.

Can you really be so incomprehensibly stupid as to advance such a "position"?

IF you are not being meta, could you be more specific about what you think is a dumb argument?

It's just so incredibly stupid, can't you see the obvious?

I mean, aren't you ashamed by my ridicule? Doesn't it make you thoughtfully reconsider your position?

 

[bigfield]

What dumb argument.

Can you really be so incomprehensibly stupid as to advance such a "position"?

IF you are not being meta, could you be more specific about what you think is a dumb argument?

It's just so incredibly stupid, can't you see the obvious?

I mean, aren't you ashamed by my ridicule? Doesn't it make you thoughtfully reconsider your position?

That's a ridiculous attempt at ridicule.

 

[Politesse]

What dumb argument.

Can you really be so incomprehensibly stupid as to advance such a "position"?

IF you are not being meta, could you be more specific about what you think is a dumb argument?

It's just so incredibly stupid, can't you see the obvious?

I mean, aren't you ashamed by my ridicule? Doesn't it make you thoughtfully reconsider your position?

That's a ridiculous attempt at ridicule.

Only a simpleton like yourself would think so. Flunked out of philosophy school, I assume? Satire is the highest form of rhetoric, as you would know had you not fallen asleep in class. Why make your point with reasoned argument, when simply insulting people will just as quickly convince them of the righteousness of your cause? Or even if it doesn't seem to convince the people your are arguing with as such, you still have the comfort of knowing that there are imaginary people "lurking" or "in the audience", who were surely convinced of your point due to your clever wit. A fool proof path to ultimate contentment.

 

[bigfield]

What dumb argument.

Can you really be so incomprehensibly stupid as to advance such a "position"?

IF you are not being meta, could you be more specific about what you think is a dumb argument?

It's just so incredibly stupid, can't you see the obvious?

I mean, aren't you ashamed by my ridicule? Doesn't it make you thoughtfully reconsider your position?

That's a ridiculous attempt at ridicule.

Only a simpleton like yourself would think so. Flunked out of philosophy school, I assume? Satire is the highest form of rhetoric, as you would know had you not fallen asleep in class. Why make your point with reasoned argument, when simply insulting people will just as quickly convince them of the righteousness of your cause? Or even if it doesn't seem to convince the people your are arguing with as such, you still have the comfort of knowing that there are imaginary people "lurking" or "in the audience", who were surely convinced of your point due to your clever wit. A fool proof path to ultimate contentment.

You're really bad at this. Stick to the lecturing.

 

[Worldtraveller]

What dumb argument.

Can you really be so incomprehensibly stupid as to advance such a "position"?

IF you are not being meta, could you be more specific about what you think is a dumb argument?

It's just so incredibly stupid, can't you see the obvious?

I mean, aren't you ashamed by my ridicule? Doesn't it make you thoughtfully reconsider your position?

That's a ridiculous attempt at ridicule.

Only a simpleton like yourself would think so. Flunked out of philosophy school, I assume? Satire is the highest form of rhetoric, as you would know had you not fallen asleep in class. Why make your point with reasoned argument, when simply insulting people will just as quickly convince them of the righteousness of your cause? Or even if it doesn't seem to convince the people your are arguing with as such, you still have the comfort of knowing that there are imaginary people "lurking" or "in the audience", who were surely convinced of your point due to your clever wit. A fool proof path to ultimate contentment.

You're really bad at this. Stick to the lecturing.

Agreed. Poli, it's in the premise of the OP. The post notes that the point is not to convince the interlocutor that they are wrong. It doesn't matter when they are not arguing in good faith. There is no "convincing them of the righteousness (or correctness even)". That you completely missed that point is baffling.

There are a lot of people I have on ignore here (and so many of you insist on quoting and addressing their points as if they are even arguments that should be considered. I put them on ignore here, as opposed to other boards I frequent, specifically because of the rules about insulting and ridiculing. I agree that for most of them, that's all they deserve, but silence would be better, IMO. If they didn't have an audience, they would likely just go away.

Unless of course, you are not arguing in good faith. In which case, we're just going to make fun of you.

 

[Jarhyn]

My preference is ignoring these people over ridiculing them. Acknowledging the argument at all lends it credibility.

If a pseudo-scientific quack showed up at a Neurophys conference, attendees wouldn't drop everything to consider his/her arguments. I don't get why we do that online beyond having time to kill and being a little masochistic.

The problem is when someone farms up a crop of cultist idiots up out of the population at large, and then storms in with a backup choir.

One person being ridiculous just gets themselves ignored as inconsequential.

Three people being ridiculous, even among 40, can manage between them, taking turns and all taking the same tack, to make even the dumbest things seem sane, if their position gets no response and no ridicule.

It can otherwise take some time to see that the backup choir is just a tight clique.

At that point, the options are to ridicule or eject.

Sometimes such clustering of the ridiculous is natural, sometimes they seek out such a 'thruple'

As soon as you have three people, you have enough people to accomplish a circus of distraction that can make even the most inane positions seem reasonable for the persistence of the vocal minority of idiots and/or trolls, and I think this is where ridicule shines.

It allows folks to expose the childish errors in logic as childish and hamfisted, and those that make them as such a circus of clowns.

As it is, I have seen now ridicule having some rather positive effects when sustained and provided good support.

It is especially effective when the idiots being ridiculous otherwise present themselves as serious academics, pseudo-intellectuals (like how Eric Big Money Salvia ridicules pseudo-intellectual Sargon of Akkad effortlessly, to great effect).

 

[rousseau]

My preference is ignoring these people over ridiculing them. Acknowledging the argument at all lends it credibility.

If a pseudo-scientific quack showed up at a Neurophys conference, attendees wouldn't drop everything to consider his/her arguments. I don't get why we do that online beyond having time to kill and being a little masochistic.

When you are using ridicule you are actually addressing the lurkers. You are showing that there is a price to pay for am absurd belief.

Ignoring someone is the ultimate ridicule. It completely discredits their ideas but still leaves their dignity in tact. In my view that's a lot more effective than months of actual engagement. 'From a distance people can't tell who is who..'

 

[Jarhyn]

My preference is ignoring these people over ridiculing them. Acknowledging the argument at all lends it credibility.

If a pseudo-scientific quack showed up at a Neurophys conference, attendees wouldn't drop everything to consider his/her arguments. I don't get why we do that online beyond having time to kill and being a little masochistic.

When you are using ridicule you are actually addressing the lurkers. You are showing that there is a price to pay for am absurd belief.

Ignoring someone is the ultimate ridicule. It completely discredits their ideas but still leaves their dignity in tact. In my view that's a lot more effective than months of actual engagement. 'From a distance people can't tell who is who..'

It only works when there isn't a backup choir to agree with them vacuously and make them seem right.

 

[steve_bank]

Ridicule got Trump elected.

Now it is working against him.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

There was once a debate on IIDB about the effectiveness of using ridicule in debating absurd positions.

* One side held the position that it is always wrong to use ridicule because that is not a valid debate strategy and is ultimately self-defeating because the opponents only dig-in if you ridicule them.

* The other side agreed that ridicule is not a valid strategy if your opponent is NOT engaged in an honest debate. If the opponent is not debating in good faith then ridicule can be used to dissuade other people from taking the opponent's position.

Over the last decade, this has become more clear in debating religion, politics, and science. You cannot debate with people who claim the Earth is flat, anti-vaxxers, election deniers, or fascists, because they will not argue in good faith, their goal isn't the discovery of truth but influence through propaganda.

Sartre understood this well.

SARTRE “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

There is also research on using ridicule as a political weapon

Also see: Rules for radicals rule #5 "Ridicule is man's most powerful weapon

It is ironic to suggest using ridicule "if the opponent is not debating in good faith", because ridicule is also not debating in good faith. One should be able to point out the absurdity of the argument without suggesting the absurdity of the person. That is the only way to debate in good faith.

 

[rousseau]

My preference is ignoring these people over ridiculing them. Acknowledging the argument at all lends it credibility.

If a pseudo-scientific quack showed up at a Neurophys conference, attendees wouldn't drop everything to consider his/her arguments. I don't get why we do that online beyond having time to kill and being a little masochistic.

When you are using ridicule you are actually addressing the lurkers. You are showing that there is a price to pay for am absurd belief.

Ignoring someone is the ultimate ridicule. It completely discredits their ideas but still leaves their dignity in tact. In my view that's a lot more effective than months of actual engagement. 'From a distance people can't tell who is who..'

It only works when there isn't a backup choir to agree with them vacuously and make them seem right.

After a certain point it likely becomes a mess of uncontrollable variables. We're typically not great at collective action that's strictly rational.

 

[Politesse]

doesn't matter when they are not arguing in good faith.

Just like.... oh, say, anyone who thinks ridicule is a form of valid argumentation? You obviously cannot trust such a person to then engage in a real discussion about anything. They're just waiting for the next opportunity for a "gotcha", and their barbs are only convincing (or even amusing) to those who already agree with them.

I am merely following the advice presented, in short. Not very satisfying or convincing, is it? If you think I should address the content of the OP, thoughtfully and rationally, because that is both more convincing and more honest than engaging in ridicule... I agree. Which means accepting that the OP is in fact wrong. You cannot demand that others treat your attempts to ridicule them seriously, it's a mental contradiction.

 

[Elixir]

My first impulse when someone states some kind of new principle, is to extrapolate it to an extreme to see if it holds.
That's not ridicule, it's using the ridiculous to illustrate the limits of something.

That's a ridiculous attempt at ridicule.

Yeah? Well that^ is even lamer!