Rules of Engagement
Rob Long ·
December 19, 2012 at 4:35am
I can't count the number of dinner parties I've been to -- and, probably, ruined -- by getting tangled up in a political conversation with a tableful of liberals. It's frustrating and exhausting, responding to a barrage of (mostly) non-sequitor non-arguments.
It's like whack-a-mole, but I'm the mole.
So I think I'm going to get the following chart printed up and laminated, and pass it out before any more of those exchanges erupt:
Should make for a more peaceful social life, don't you think?
- Comment (52)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (29)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Rules of Engagement
Sorry Rob, rules are for wimps...
Jun '11
Re: Rules of Engagement
This is fantastic. It would work wonderfully (which is to say, not at all) in theological conversations too.
May '10
Re: Rules of Engagement
Good idea, but sometimes your guests deserve rhetorical battery.
Dec '10
Re: Rules of Engagement
"Do not introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved".
Best. Point. Ever.
Edited on December 19, 2012 at 5:18amAug '10
Re: Rules of Engagement
I dunno, when these "discussions" with liberals go south, and they launch their ad hominem insults, they generally appear to be having a rotten time. If you can manage to find it all amusing, while they feel miserable, then you've done your good deed for the day.
Mar '11
Re: Rules of Engagement
Apropos of nothing; the chart was created by one Mr. Gorrell, Director of Editorial for the Thought Catalog, no pretension there, who wrote a bizzare analysis of What Your Favorite Breaking Bad Character Says About You which I found highly amusing, despite having never once seen the show.
Edit: Corrected after further meandering curiosity, original source: Atheism Resource, Your Source for Everything ATHEISM...From People Just Like You
Always find it amusing when atheists insist they have a monopoly on logic.
Edited on December 19, 2012 at 5:29amSep '11
Re: Rules of Engagement
It's "sequitur" not "sequitor".
Apr '11
Re: Rules of Engagement
Fantastic, Rob!
My only quibble is with "Do you envision anything that will change your mind?"
Just because I can't envision changing my mind on something it doesn't preclude a civil exercise in clarity between sincere people with differing world views.
Jul '10
Re: Rules of Engagement
No doubt. I'm printing out copies to give my kids, my folks, and my wife.
Aside from holding them (the prints, not the people) in front of mirrors, what could go wrong?
Mar '11
Re: Rules of Engagement
Cutlass:
My only quibble is with "Do you envision anything that will change your mind?"
Just because I can't envision changing my mind on something it doesn't preclude a civil exercise in clarity between sincere people with differing world views. · 5 minutes ago
Agree. If we were to enforce this rule on Ricochet, about 80% of our discussions would be preemptively excluded.
Dec '10
Re: Rules of Engagement
Mendel
Cutlass:
My only quibble is with "Do you envision anything that will change your mind?"
Just because I can't envision changing my mind on something it doesn't preclude a civil exercise in clarity between sincere people with differing world views. · 5 minutes ago
Agree. If we were to enforce this rule on Ricochet, about 80% of our discussions would be preemptively excluded. · 0 minutes ago
There is such a thing as being right.
Nov '11
Re: Rules of Engagement
Timely and tasteful, thanks, Rob...Now Christmas dinner won't give me heartburn. I very much appreciate it.
Jul '10
Re: Rules of Engagement
Lovely, Rob, an excellent guide. Definitely something that will preclude many less than comfortable dinner conversations with those on the other side of the spectrum.
Let me add a Ricochet Corollary to this that one's response to the comments of others should not, in civil discussion, include: 1) a written form of a sound effect, such as "bzzt!" or "blagh!" as this is just another form of a non-sequitur intended to impeach credibility without offering a counter argument; 2) a rhetorical question that impugns the intelligence of a commenter; or, 3) anything that tears down another's argument without offering something positive as an alternative. I haven't seen it often here, but there are times when we're tempted to point out the weaknesses in others' reasoning without taking the risk of offering our own. By all means challenge, but give, in return, something which others may examine.
On that note, I should mention I'm just back from the pub.
Mar '11
Re: Rules of Engagement
Mendel
Cutlass:
My only quibble is with "Do you envision anything that will change your mind?"
Just because I can't envision changing my mind on something it doesn't preclude a civil exercise in clarity between sincere people with differing world views. · 5 minutes ago
Agree. If we were to enforce this rule on Ricochet, about 80% of our discussions would be preemptively excluded. · 13 minutes ago
80%? That seems a rather harsh critique on the caliber of Ricochet discussion.
Sep '12
Re: Rules of Engagement
If you print these out and put a logo on them, you can use them to raise funds for Ricochet.
Mar '11
Re: Rules of Engagement
Of course, in reality even these rules would never be able to stop a discussion. As soon as you complain that your interlocutor has broken one of the rules, they will vehemently claim they did not, and thus starts the next "civil discussion."
For example:
You: "Anecdotal stories about how your friends in Berkeley live isn't real evidence of anything!"
Lefty: "Of course it is! These people are representative of Americans across the country!"
And on it goes.
Mar '11
Re: Rules of Engagement
Roberto
Mendel
Cutlass:
My only quibble is with "Do you envision anything that will change your mind?"
Agree. If we were to enforce this rule on Ricochet, about 80% of our discussions would be preemptively excluded.
80%? That seems a rather harsh critique on the caliber of Ricochet discussion.
A while back there was a post asking Ricochet members if being on the website had changed their opinions on any issues. Most people were hard pressed to find even a single major point where our civil discourse had changed their views.
I don't find that a damning critique. As long as everyone is willing to hear out other voices, there's nothing wrong with a group of people who are very secure in their own opinions.
Or am I wrong? Can most people here envision an argument that would convince them that spending another trillion dollars of taxpayer money is the way to restore America's greatness?
Edited on December 19, 2012 at 6:15amDec '11
Re: Rules of Engagement
Peaceful? Is that the end? The art is in asking the right questions. Start from their assertion and work back to their premises and assumptions. Or, consider what logically follows from their assertion. Does it lead to absurd conclusions? Follow their own reasoning. Sometimes you can lead them to wonder at their own opinions.
A difficult art but it also helps clarify ones own understanding.
Nov '12
Re: Rules of Engagement
Nice try, Rob. Good luck with that.
I have for some time adopted a policy of doggedly steering such dinner party discussions away from politics to any of the numerous things that conservatives understand life is really for (family, friends, music, art, travel, books, etc), thereby introducing conservative perspectives in disguise.
Of course, if my dining interlocutors are not hard core "progressives", and really are open to a dialogue on Politics with a capital P, I let it rip.
Edited on December 19, 2012 at 6:44amAug '10
Re: Rules of Engagement
Ooh, not a a fan of the rule that "the position that is more reasonable and has more supporting evidence" has to be accepted as true. What counts as "more reasonable" is often in the eye of the beholder, and decision-making too focused on the weight of the evidence tends to overlook deductive logic.
I can pile up mountains and mountains of concrete evidence for the assertion that most real numbers are rational (basically, any number that has ever been measured, anywhere). Heck, it seems like a pretty reasonable assertion.
But that don't make it true. In fact, it's not true. Moreover, the way you show it isn't true isn't by piling up evidence, but by constructing a proof, a crazy-looking creation which in some sense doesn't use evidence at all, only axioms and deductions.