HOME | DD

Cola82 — Not My Job

Published: 2010-08-28 01:43:32 +0000 UTC; Views: 739; Favourites: 41; Downloads: 15
Redirect to original
Description This is the followup to this stamp .

The flip side of the "It's just my opinion!" card is "But you still haven't explained anything!"

In both cases the person throwing these out is not arguing in good faith. They don't care about your position and they're punishing you for expressing it. I was inspired to create this particular stamp based on a recent example of this behavior at Pandagon . Amanda Marcotte had written about the subtext of an article and someone in comments was insisting she explain how she'd come to her conclusions about the author's intentions.

She explained herself multiple times, in excruciating detail, but the other commenter simply kept insisting that she still hadn't explained anything. Refusing to admit that someone has tried to explain something with which you simply don't agree is not a winning strategy. That you remain unconvinced does not mean the other person needs to spend the rest of his or her life trying change your mind.

I've been in these conversations, too, and at some point you simply need to put your foot down and say that it isn't your job to explain everything to someone who is never going to agree with you. No. Matter. What.

A conversation in which people, with mutual respect, exchange ideas while staying on topic is worth carrying on for hours, days, or weeks. A conversation in which someone simply impugns your character and rejects all of your arguments out of hand is not worth having for a second.

If someone keeps insisting you haven't done enough to persuade them, it's very possible that they are being deliberately obtuse. Don't waste your time.

Stamps in this series:

Related content
Comments: 9

loqutor [2011-07-07 22:51:52 +0000 UTC]

Links to the actual dispute (or maybe excerpts from it) would be a lot more helpful in emphasizing your point.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cola82 In reply to loqutor [2011-07-08 04:30:09 +0000 UTC]

This wasn't the result of any one conflict. Or are you just being ironic?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

loqutor In reply to Cola82 [2011-07-08 04:36:08 +0000 UTC]

I'm talking about the exchange that you mention in the ACs from Pandagon.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cola82 In reply to loqutor [2011-07-08 04:44:43 +0000 UTC]

Ah, I see. Yeah, I thought that link went back to that article. I don't know what happened. But it really doesn't matter (I'm not going to go back and look for it, because I don't even remember what the article was about, and it would take a lot of time). It isn't necessary to know what the specific disagreement is to know that the phenomenon of arguing in bad faith exists. It's independent of political ideology; anyone can fall prey to it, and anyone can get caught up in arguing with someone who has. It's more of a function of self-centeredness and immaturity than anything. I may have been inspired to create the stamp after the specific exchange I describe, but I had a dozen or more of my own battles in the back of my mind while I made it.

Anyway, I see that you're a "Men's Rights Activist" who doesn't care much for third-wave feminism, which I imagine is probably the real source of your curiosity (given the nature of the blog). Trust me, it doesn't matter what the conflict was. If you want to watch Amanda Marcotte argue with trolls on her blog, you can do that any day of the week.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

loqutor In reply to Cola82 [2011-07-08 04:59:32 +0000 UTC]

I haven't seen much of that lately, actually. In fact, I have yet to see a single comment that so much as contradicts a thing she says. Most likely she blocks any and all dissenters.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cola82 In reply to loqutor [2011-07-08 05:24:19 +0000 UTC]

Considering I was reading a series of disagreements in the comments of a recent post last night, I doubt that, but that's neither here nor there. You can host any kind of conversation you like on your own blog. I'm not interested in having a semantic argument about trolls.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

loqutor In reply to Cola82 [2011-07-08 05:29:43 +0000 UTC]

Okay, fair enough. I was getting off-topic, anyway; my original intent was to offer constructive criticism, nothing more.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

two-smokes [2010-08-28 04:08:35 +0000 UTC]

Bravo!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Cola82 In reply to two-smokes [2010-08-28 04:24:47 +0000 UTC]

: D

👍: 0 ⏩: 0