![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutI often spend a lot of time thinking about something that people are discussing or agonizing over or arguing about. I start by engaging point by point. Think: early internet flame war type activity. I try hard to destroy all evidence that I engage with people point by point in writing. It is just never a good look. Also, it convinces no one, tends to encourage retrenchment, polarization and destroy good relationships. Really, all relationships. I think this may be why I have so little respect for Fierce Intellectual Debate, and Fostering It. It does not need to be fostered. It needs to be genocided.
After I have stepped back from point by point engagement, I often do bounds checking, reality checking etc. Basic critical thinking stuff: pick a key component of the argument, take it for a spin, kick the tires. Demonstrate unequivocally that this thing is a lemon. I permit some evidence of this activity to survive, mostly because I persist in finding the results humorous, even tho this activity, like point by point engagement, is also relationship destroying. It does not actually polarize, surprisingly. It tends to shame people, so that they pretend they never said what they said, or they did not really mean it, or it was just a trial balloon, or an honest error or WTF. Often, when I am engaging in this, I will say things like, “That Person You Are Quoting Is A Fucking Idiot, If They Even Said That At All.”
It is not funny. It is a terrible idea. I really need to knock it the fuck off.
I love reading Matt Levine over at Bloomberg. And one of the things I love reading that he does, is imagine a conversation or a thought process, to illuminate the what probably caused someone to say or do something that, after the fact, looks astonishingly stupid. So, here goes.
Us: “Well, we have managed to reduce density in prisons, and we have stopped the olds from leaving their rooms in the nursing homes, and all the people in the meat packing plants have infected each other and either recovered or died. Virus, I think we have got your number!”
Virus: “Yeah, you sure have! Why don’t you open some bars and let people go to the beach and hang out together?”
Us: “Nah, we know that is stupid. And it is not important. If we can just keep you under control, we can send the kids back to school.”
Virus: “Toddler superspreaders FTW!”
Us: “No, no, no, no! Just the older kids, who know how to practice social distancing and wear masks and wash their hands. We will start with colleges.”
Virus: *thinks about it* “You are going to create a bunch of congregate housing settings? And have the people who live in them intermingle with alcohol and recreational disinhibiting substances?”
Us: “Yep!”
Virus: “Game on!”
This is pretty low quality compared to what Matt Levine produces. I will keep practicing.
After I have stepped back from point by point engagement, I often do bounds checking, reality checking etc. Basic critical thinking stuff: pick a key component of the argument, take it for a spin, kick the tires. Demonstrate unequivocally that this thing is a lemon. I permit some evidence of this activity to survive, mostly because I persist in finding the results humorous, even tho this activity, like point by point engagement, is also relationship destroying. It does not actually polarize, surprisingly. It tends to shame people, so that they pretend they never said what they said, or they did not really mean it, or it was just a trial balloon, or an honest error or WTF. Often, when I am engaging in this, I will say things like, “That Person You Are Quoting Is A Fucking Idiot, If They Even Said That At All.”
It is not funny. It is a terrible idea. I really need to knock it the fuck off.
I love reading Matt Levine over at Bloomberg. And one of the things I love reading that he does, is imagine a conversation or a thought process, to illuminate the what probably caused someone to say or do something that, after the fact, looks astonishingly stupid. So, here goes.
Us: “Well, we have managed to reduce density in prisons, and we have stopped the olds from leaving their rooms in the nursing homes, and all the people in the meat packing plants have infected each other and either recovered or died. Virus, I think we have got your number!”
Virus: “Yeah, you sure have! Why don’t you open some bars and let people go to the beach and hang out together?”
Us: “Nah, we know that is stupid. And it is not important. If we can just keep you under control, we can send the kids back to school.”
Virus: “Toddler superspreaders FTW!”
Us: “No, no, no, no! Just the older kids, who know how to practice social distancing and wear masks and wash their hands. We will start with colleges.”
Virus: *thinks about it* “You are going to create a bunch of congregate housing settings? And have the people who live in them intermingle with alcohol and recreational disinhibiting substances?”
Us: “Yep!”
Virus: “Game on!”
This is pretty low quality compared to what Matt Levine produces. I will keep practicing.