"White Noise": The Guide To The Insulting Deflector.
July 28, 2012 at 11:25 pm
(This post was last modified: July 29, 2012 at 12:26 am by Reforged.)
"White Noise": The Guide To The Insulting Deflector.
Introduction.
I should start by saying this is a guide for everyone as this problem is inevitably encountered by everyone. It is a guide that does not take a theistic or atheistic stance but adopts an ideal that the art of debate should not be left to be tarnished without significant difficulty. I think thats an ideal we can all appreciate.
I make it a point to try and pick up a lesson from every debate, I believe I have developed some rather accurate insights into one of natures wonders that plagues forums such as these. I have named this specimen the insulting deflector and I vainly hope this guide gives some ideas as to what you're dealing with and how to deal with it.
I do not presume to have more experience or intelligence than anyone reading this. I am fairly certain there are many who are my better in either. Even so the objective of this guide is not only to inform but to alert.
To alert to the simple fact we cannot let this type of behaviour be seen as a legitimate method of debate if we are to set a good example. This behaviour must be challenged and countered wherever it crops up and it can be countered. Not with anger or insults but with the opposite, with calm and intellect. With unshifting patience that cannot be worn down with childish cruelty. With pride and integrity in the fact that if we hold fast against such intellectual cowardice without giving into the desire to be dismissive we can see the debate through to its inevitable conclusion.
1. The defintion.
The insulting deflector is one who relishs in avoiding giving direct answers to questions he cannot answer without comprimising his position. He will attempt to change or redefine the question into an entirely new one. Other times he will dismiss a very reasonable question entirely as stupid or childish giving a feeble explanation of why this is the case. When in a tight spot he will often insult his opponents too in an effort to anger them into an aggresive retort that comprismises their integrity and reduces the debate to a slanging match.
All three of these methods are an attempt toward an ultimate objective, to have all thoughts of the original question that caused him pause entirely erased in a haze of text, barbs, straw man and hot air.
Dismissing such a person as an idiot is not only giving the individual what they want and setting a bad example but it is also entirely inaccurate. This person is not an idiot, he is dishonest. Big difference. He is merely emulating the retorts of an idiot to inflict frustration that will end the debate prematurely. They see this outcome as a victory. Such a person is entirely unused to the extraordinary patience and will it takes to see a debate tainted with these methods to its inevitable conclusion. This leads me to my next section.
2. Persistence and Technique.
These observations were gained through trial and error on various subjects whose identities I will keep to myself.
Your question has been asked but it has blatantly been avoided. Of course you should take great care to read through your opponents statement to ensure this is the case. Assume this is down to a honest mistake, copy and paste your question, explain why you feel it unanswered and ask them to answer it.
Same result? Well now, this is starting to look suspicious but it could still be a mistake. Is he insulting in his retort? Ah, now its looking slightly more certain. Still, you're here to debate and should conduct yourself accordingly. Explain why you see his deflection as a deflection and that you're unsure as to why he is resorting to insults. You just want your question answered after all. Copy and paste your question in quotation marks again. While repetitive this cannot be classed as anything other than being helpful by patiently showing him the question he missed.
Oh dear, did he do it again? I bet he seemed more angry and desperate to take attention away from the question this time too didn't he? Know why? His insults did not have the desired effect, you remain calm. He wanted you to get angry, hurl abuse, maybe ever threaten him giving him licence to turn this into a slanging match, block you, back out with the moral high ground or all three. Lucky your an adult isn't it?
Show puzzlement and mild sarcasm at why he is evading so desperately and some minor resentment at treating you and anyone reading as if they were fools unable to see through such a guise. Minor sarcasm is more devastating in this regard because it sends the subtle signal that his abusive behaviour is not worthy of being retorted as though it were anything more than a minor inconvenience. The insulting deflector is above all else an attention seeker and this will vex him indescribably but he'll be unsure why.
De-construct his deflection once again. Helpfully display the question you wanted answered, an ultimatum underneath:
"Please answer, retreat or if you feel like making this thread a little more cringe worthy; continue with your obvious deflections."
Or some variation. Slight irritation is warranted and acceptable. At this point he will be very aware how his behavior will seem to the readers in contrast with yours.
Repeat this step patiently until a result other than insulting deflection occurs. Even if he notices this tactic there is little he can protest about. The question remains unanswered for all to be seen and your query is still legitimate, why shouldn't you demand an answer? He will either begrudgingly or accidently answer your question after some time or he will retreat under a veil of insults. The first one allows the debate to continue in a legitimate manner despite his best efforts, the latter grants you a victory of sorts and the satisfaction you stood your ground against this abusive behaviour.
Either way the behaviour has been confronted and countered setting a good example to others that this type of method will not be presented without resistance.
3. Patience is a virtue.
Yes yes, I am perfectly aware of what an incredible cliche this is. It also happens to be bang on the money. When faced with such overwhelming rudeness and abuse of the art of debate it is incredibly tempting to respond with the same. But to quote another cliche "that just makes you as bad as them". Like it or not giving in to this temptation allows the insulting deflector a free pass for their behaviour.
I have seen people more informed and probably more intelligent than I fall into this toxic trap, the opponent retreating with the satisfaction he got to them. It does not have to be this way. By keeping your cool you give the insulting deflector no valid reason for his behaviour or for his retreat. This in itself is intensely frustrating for this individual and he will not keep his smug mask intact for long when faced with it.
Should he adjust his behaviour to be polite through awareness of this tactic then... who cares? Isn't this exactly what the tactic essentially aims to achieve? A polite and honest answer? What if they are polite and deflect? This in my experience doesn't often happen, it is near impossible to deflect someone discreetly and repeatedly while remaining polite. If it happens the first time then someone whos being legitimately polite will have made a mistake and acknowledge that you require a clearer answer to your satisfaction. If it is you who are mistaken they should politely explain very clearly why it is not a deflection but nevertheless endeavour to be clearer and give more significant detail.
This is not common place, if it were we wouldn't need to debate whether there was a heaven or not. We as a species would reach a higher understanding on all things, conflict would be eradicated and we would already be there. Well... ok that might be a slight exaggeration for effect but my point is assholes are everywhere and bullshit is their native language, not social etiquette.
4. Conclusion.
I apologize for any spelling or grammar mistakes you may find. This has been a long one I'm sure you'll agree. I hope this hasn't come across as lecturing or protentious. If it has I apologize, that was truly never what I was aiming to put across. This has simply been an attempt to put across some minor observations that although obvious to almost anybody remain relatively overlooked and ignored.
So, what is "Jerrys final thought" on this topic?
That everytime we give into the anger an insulting deflector is intentionality attempting to inspire in us we let ourselves down?
No, you should of already concluded that all by yourself.
That debate is not simply a tool but an art form that should be calmly but passionately defended from "trolls".
Close but thats still not it.
My conclusion, is that it isn't for yourself or any ideal you are fighting for when you passively confront this blight on an otherwise interesting and thoroughly enjoyable activity.
No, its the person who reads it. The person whos learning what reason is, how adults conduct themselves in a discussion. You're helping them decide whether discussion is a pointless endeavour that ultimately ends with conflict... or something wonderful that defines us as a species. You're doing it for the person you were when you witnessed your first debate and found yourself captivated by the calm clarity that the words of the speaker inspired, for the person you became when you realized that talent wasn't exclusive to that speaker and for the person you are today who honours the inspiration that pushed you to pursue this art form.
Our actions are not simply defined in terms of what we do but also what we choose not to do and it can make the difference between someone who sees the best in us or the worst. Our amazing ability to communicate without offence, without deception and without hostility is one that has become the essence of who we are. It is worth defending.
And with that; "Take care of yourselves, and each other."
Introduction.
I should start by saying this is a guide for everyone as this problem is inevitably encountered by everyone. It is a guide that does not take a theistic or atheistic stance but adopts an ideal that the art of debate should not be left to be tarnished without significant difficulty. I think thats an ideal we can all appreciate.
I make it a point to try and pick up a lesson from every debate, I believe I have developed some rather accurate insights into one of natures wonders that plagues forums such as these. I have named this specimen the insulting deflector and I vainly hope this guide gives some ideas as to what you're dealing with and how to deal with it.
I do not presume to have more experience or intelligence than anyone reading this. I am fairly certain there are many who are my better in either. Even so the objective of this guide is not only to inform but to alert.
To alert to the simple fact we cannot let this type of behaviour be seen as a legitimate method of debate if we are to set a good example. This behaviour must be challenged and countered wherever it crops up and it can be countered. Not with anger or insults but with the opposite, with calm and intellect. With unshifting patience that cannot be worn down with childish cruelty. With pride and integrity in the fact that if we hold fast against such intellectual cowardice without giving into the desire to be dismissive we can see the debate through to its inevitable conclusion.
1. The defintion.
The insulting deflector is one who relishs in avoiding giving direct answers to questions he cannot answer without comprimising his position. He will attempt to change or redefine the question into an entirely new one. Other times he will dismiss a very reasonable question entirely as stupid or childish giving a feeble explanation of why this is the case. When in a tight spot he will often insult his opponents too in an effort to anger them into an aggresive retort that comprismises their integrity and reduces the debate to a slanging match.
All three of these methods are an attempt toward an ultimate objective, to have all thoughts of the original question that caused him pause entirely erased in a haze of text, barbs, straw man and hot air.
Dismissing such a person as an idiot is not only giving the individual what they want and setting a bad example but it is also entirely inaccurate. This person is not an idiot, he is dishonest. Big difference. He is merely emulating the retorts of an idiot to inflict frustration that will end the debate prematurely. They see this outcome as a victory. Such a person is entirely unused to the extraordinary patience and will it takes to see a debate tainted with these methods to its inevitable conclusion. This leads me to my next section.
2. Persistence and Technique.
These observations were gained through trial and error on various subjects whose identities I will keep to myself.
Your question has been asked but it has blatantly been avoided. Of course you should take great care to read through your opponents statement to ensure this is the case. Assume this is down to a honest mistake, copy and paste your question, explain why you feel it unanswered and ask them to answer it.
Same result? Well now, this is starting to look suspicious but it could still be a mistake. Is he insulting in his retort? Ah, now its looking slightly more certain. Still, you're here to debate and should conduct yourself accordingly. Explain why you see his deflection as a deflection and that you're unsure as to why he is resorting to insults. You just want your question answered after all. Copy and paste your question in quotation marks again. While repetitive this cannot be classed as anything other than being helpful by patiently showing him the question he missed.
Oh dear, did he do it again? I bet he seemed more angry and desperate to take attention away from the question this time too didn't he? Know why? His insults did not have the desired effect, you remain calm. He wanted you to get angry, hurl abuse, maybe ever threaten him giving him licence to turn this into a slanging match, block you, back out with the moral high ground or all three. Lucky your an adult isn't it?
Show puzzlement and mild sarcasm at why he is evading so desperately and some minor resentment at treating you and anyone reading as if they were fools unable to see through such a guise. Minor sarcasm is more devastating in this regard because it sends the subtle signal that his abusive behaviour is not worthy of being retorted as though it were anything more than a minor inconvenience. The insulting deflector is above all else an attention seeker and this will vex him indescribably but he'll be unsure why.
De-construct his deflection once again. Helpfully display the question you wanted answered, an ultimatum underneath:
"Please answer, retreat or if you feel like making this thread a little more cringe worthy; continue with your obvious deflections."
Or some variation. Slight irritation is warranted and acceptable. At this point he will be very aware how his behavior will seem to the readers in contrast with yours.
Repeat this step patiently until a result other than insulting deflection occurs. Even if he notices this tactic there is little he can protest about. The question remains unanswered for all to be seen and your query is still legitimate, why shouldn't you demand an answer? He will either begrudgingly or accidently answer your question after some time or he will retreat under a veil of insults. The first one allows the debate to continue in a legitimate manner despite his best efforts, the latter grants you a victory of sorts and the satisfaction you stood your ground against this abusive behaviour.
Either way the behaviour has been confronted and countered setting a good example to others that this type of method will not be presented without resistance.
3. Patience is a virtue.
Yes yes, I am perfectly aware of what an incredible cliche this is. It also happens to be bang on the money. When faced with such overwhelming rudeness and abuse of the art of debate it is incredibly tempting to respond with the same. But to quote another cliche "that just makes you as bad as them". Like it or not giving in to this temptation allows the insulting deflector a free pass for their behaviour.
I have seen people more informed and probably more intelligent than I fall into this toxic trap, the opponent retreating with the satisfaction he got to them. It does not have to be this way. By keeping your cool you give the insulting deflector no valid reason for his behaviour or for his retreat. This in itself is intensely frustrating for this individual and he will not keep his smug mask intact for long when faced with it.
Should he adjust his behaviour to be polite through awareness of this tactic then... who cares? Isn't this exactly what the tactic essentially aims to achieve? A polite and honest answer? What if they are polite and deflect? This in my experience doesn't often happen, it is near impossible to deflect someone discreetly and repeatedly while remaining polite. If it happens the first time then someone whos being legitimately polite will have made a mistake and acknowledge that you require a clearer answer to your satisfaction. If it is you who are mistaken they should politely explain very clearly why it is not a deflection but nevertheless endeavour to be clearer and give more significant detail.
This is not common place, if it were we wouldn't need to debate whether there was a heaven or not. We as a species would reach a higher understanding on all things, conflict would be eradicated and we would already be there. Well... ok that might be a slight exaggeration for effect but my point is assholes are everywhere and bullshit is their native language, not social etiquette.
4. Conclusion.
I apologize for any spelling or grammar mistakes you may find. This has been a long one I'm sure you'll agree. I hope this hasn't come across as lecturing or protentious. If it has I apologize, that was truly never what I was aiming to put across. This has simply been an attempt to put across some minor observations that although obvious to almost anybody remain relatively overlooked and ignored.
So, what is "Jerrys final thought" on this topic?
That everytime we give into the anger an insulting deflector is intentionality attempting to inspire in us we let ourselves down?
No, you should of already concluded that all by yourself.
That debate is not simply a tool but an art form that should be calmly but passionately defended from "trolls".
Close but thats still not it.
My conclusion, is that it isn't for yourself or any ideal you are fighting for when you passively confront this blight on an otherwise interesting and thoroughly enjoyable activity.
No, its the person who reads it. The person whos learning what reason is, how adults conduct themselves in a discussion. You're helping them decide whether discussion is a pointless endeavour that ultimately ends with conflict... or something wonderful that defines us as a species. You're doing it for the person you were when you witnessed your first debate and found yourself captivated by the calm clarity that the words of the speaker inspired, for the person you became when you realized that talent wasn't exclusive to that speaker and for the person you are today who honours the inspiration that pushed you to pursue this art form.
Our actions are not simply defined in terms of what we do but also what we choose not to do and it can make the difference between someone who sees the best in us or the worst. Our amazing ability to communicate without offence, without deception and without hostility is one that has become the essence of who we are. It is worth defending.
And with that; "Take care of yourselves, and each other."
"That is not dead which can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred.
- Abdul Alhazred.
