A note from the author: This post was not written in response to any recent fights/arguments I've had, but more as a response to the general feeling that in today's political and "popular academic" (i.e. when people talk about academic things in a non-peer reviewed venue) discourse we tend to crap on the opposition more than actually try to dissect their argument. Although I refer to people who've condescended to me, I'm referring mostly to the condescending tone of some of the material I read both on the Internet and in books.
I can be super rude. You don't even know. I can also be a tad bit violent (in middle school, a kid flipped me off and I beat him with an umbrella). I recognize that I am both of these things, but when I'm having a real argument with someone I try really hard to tone both of them back.
That isn't to say that I always hold back. One time I didn't like this kid's face so I unleashed the fury on him for about five minutes for saying "Superman is the best hero because he can do everything." I didn't even necessarily disagree with him all the way: I love Superman, and I think if done right he's not as OP as everyone says he is. I also compared a person's condescending attitude about homosexuals to racist people talking down about "uppity" black people, causing them to flee the room in anger and slam the door behind them. I am not always blameless.
But at the same time, when I 1. Respect the person I'm arguing with and 2. Think that the subject matter is worth discussing (note that I did not say relevant, important, or life-changing) I try my hardest not to be condescending or mean spirited, though I will admit to taking a few pot-shots here and there if the person really leaves themselves open. That's why it makes me particularly mad when someone is condescending to me in an argument: I see it as them either not respecting me or something I feel is important.
Now, I know, pot calling the kettle black. That's why I try to have a thick skin and ignore people who do it. I even try to internalize their trivialization of my stance/argument and see why they do it. When I see from another person's standpoint why my argument is so childish as to deserve condescension it makes me a better and more well rounded person. But at the same time, some people are just being mean and not considering fully arguments for the other side.
Take Richard Dawkins as an example. I love the guy: he's a genius, and I agree with a lot of what he says. Reading The God Delusion made me go, "Yeah, I don't believe in that God either. Let's critically and prayerfully re-examine my faith," and, while I don't recommend this to anyone else, it actually strengthened my testimony because I excised aspects of my belief that were cultural holdovers from Platonic and Renaissance thought and not "Truth," as it were. At the same time, he's a bit of a dick. When he discusses the Muslim riots over those Danish cartoons (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/04/muhammadcartoons.pressandpublishing) he says "Fortunately, our political leaders were on hand to remind us that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy," in a tone that I've really only ever heard from racist rednecks. It baffled me to find this sort of rhetoric here, in a supposedly academic treatise on religion. It also seemed kind of ballsy coming from a biologist, because if we looked at every extreme of a group as indicative of the whole, eugenicists would be a pretty good target to shoot at.
I don't get those people, and they kind of piss me off. I'm not used to being crapped on in conversation, mostly because I'm a big kid and I never really put up with it in the past. With a few exceptions (it's not worth ending friendships over a stupid fight) the last time a peer tried to treat me like I was an imbecile for disagreeing with them, I slapped the taste out of their mouths. I just feel like if you want to have a civil conversation, let's have a civil conversation. I don't care if you get heated, I don't even care if you get mad. I don't care if you attack me personally (though don't be surprised when I strike back and strike back hard: I tend to have very different ideas about what is underhanded in a verbal sparring match). As I said before, I don't even mind a few condescending jabs here or there because, really, sometimes an opponent's argument really does seem dumb. But if more than a quarter of your comments are simply condescending parries of an argument with no real attempt at rebuttal, you're not having a civil conversation.
And that's cool sometimes. Some of my favorite conversations have been those where I've torn down a person alongside their argument. But more than a few of those conversations have ended in violence or threats of violence, and again I'm cool with that; if you're going to be uncivil towards someone, don't forget that they tend to uncivil right back. I find it hypocritical how many people are uncivil, and then use the uncivil nature of their opponent's rejoinder as proof against them.
So just stop, okay? Or else I'm going to beat you to death.
No comments:
Post a Comment