Are you tired of the communication problems endemic to political or religious dialogue? Frustrated about talking past each other in political debates? Have no fear… Our wizards of innovation and science have a solution for you! This product promises to revolutionize the way that we pedantically micro-analyze eachothers linguistic choices for the rest of all time! It will save the world!
Tag Archives | Argument
While data mining the internet I came across this goodie and thought I’d share.
… Read the rest
1) Avoidance ~ They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
(2) Selectivity ~ They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
(3) Coincidental ~ They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved.
Disinfonauts! I offer up to you my latest short addressing the one of the most grating words in common use. From bottom of the barrel arguments about religion and politics, to discussions about war and drug use, it’s a catch-all term just about anybody can use to bolster their argument! Sheeple!!!
Next time you want to call someone on the Internet an idiot or child, remember that you’re strengthening their opinion. Chris Mooney writes at Mother Jones:
… Read the rest
In a recent study, a team of researchers from the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication and several other institutions employed a survey of 1,183 Americans to get at the negative consequences of vituperative online comments for the public understanding of science. Participants were asked to read a blog post containing a balanced discussion of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology (which is already all around us and supports a $91 billion US industry). The text of the post was the same for all participants, but the tone of the comments varied. Sometimes, they were “civil”—e.g., no name calling or flaming. But sometimes they were more like this: “If you don’t see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these products, you’re an idiot.”
The researchers were trying to find out what effect exposure to such rudeness had on public perceptions of nanotech risks.