Calling the Opponent Crazy is a Dishonest Way to Invalidate Their Point

I reblog this in honor of Carla Emery.

Emma the Emo's Emo Musings

I noticed feminists and manosphere writers are calling each other crazy, emotionally damaged, complete with fake pity and condescension. Sometimes it’s pretty obvious the writer is just being a jerk on purpose and wants to damage that person’s reputation. Other times, it seems the writer either truly believes their own words, or they lie very well and never drop their mask.

Well, I’m not gonna tell people to stop it “to be nice”. I just want to inform everyone that whether the opponent has mental problems or not, is completely irrelevant to whether their argument is correct or not. It’s usually just a quick way to make it look like the opponent’s argument has been invalidated. It’s dishonest and illogical. There are also disadvantages to using it knowingly.

  1. If you say “He has no authority on censorship, because he’s crazy”, what will you say if a totally rational, emotionally healthy…

View original post 183 more words

One thought on “Calling the Opponent Crazy is a Dishonest Way to Invalidate Their Point

  1. The meme, “amygdala hijack” comes to mind when reading this piece. Human beings are a lot more fragile than most believe. Even knowing how one can be broken doesn’t necessarily make one more resistant and even surviving maleficent hypnosis still leaves “triggers”. Although SERE (and variations thereof) does offer some resistance to some people to some forms of psychological warfare/propaganda, different populations are provided different “inoculations.”

    I suspect that more and more anti-feminists are becoming resistant whereas shaming has a long tradition among diverse populations.

    Sophistry in language is only illogical if one believes that there is such a thing as a perfect language and that perfection in that language is achievable without being “born” to it at the precise coordinates of its aristocratic peak. Without being able to observe eye movements, the puppet’s strings, voice inflection, and even smell, language is very deceptive even when the speaker doesn’t necessarily mean for it to be. To be on the same “wavelength” is the key to understanding; however, just because someone is not on your “wavelength” doesn’t mean that the person is “less sane”; although it might mean that the person is suffering an amygdala hijack. It is hard not to laugh, shame, and jeer a sufferer but rationality doesn’t necessarily work either. Finding that person’s “wavelength” on the internet is a job for a linguistic demographic specialist. Such persons exist. Perhaps you, dear reader, are on my wavelength. Perhaps such a thing is unidirectional. Not all clues are relevant. Perhaps the internet evokes the Tower of Babel metaphor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s