I have been thinking about this question. Over the years I have used the internet I have seen many people that try to exude a patronizing superiority to people they're arguing with. Perhaps this is a good way to assert dominance over the other person, weakening them mentally. Perhaps it is uncivil and the goal of a discussion should involve treating the other person inclusively as an ally for reaching a common goal, to understand the meaning of what the other person is trying say. It seems that being condescending or insulting are childish things to do. There's an old saying - don't argue with an idiot because they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience. So if using these methods is so futile then why do we use them in the first place?
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 28, 2024, 2:43 pm
Thread Rating:
|
is being condescending ever a good tactic?
|
 RE: is being condescending ever a good tactic?
September 19, 2014 at 9:54 am
(This post was last modified: September 19, 2014 at 9:57 am by Anomalocaris.)
Yes. Utmost condescension is both appropriate to and a kindness towards those who won't change their minds and won't change the subject.
Being condescending to the condescending, especially if you're better at it, would seem to be a useful arrow in the quiver.
If they have no point and won't shut up, then treat them like children.
I remember a few instances where someone I was talking with copped a patronizing or condescending attitude toward me or my arguments, and while, yes, it pissed me off at the time, I also left the conversation dead set on looking up whatever I had to to prove this person wrong and shove their condescension in their face. Sometimes it would work, other times I would find out that I was wrong.
I think using this kind of approach can be difficult as using it effectively, or having the intended effect on the other person, has a lot to do with their personality and whether it will shut them off from the conversation or piss them off so much it'll spur them into research. So it's a "know your audience" type thing, I think. Use this tactic sparingly and judiciously.
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
Depends on what you want to accomplish. If you want the other guy to stop talking to you in the future about the topic, being condescending works most of the time. If you want to have a meaningful discussion that might change that person's mind, being condescending doesn't help and may hurt.
Is condescension ever a good tactic?
Yeah sure, why not...
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 (September 19, 2014 at 11:55 am)Stimbo Wrote: Is condescension ever a good tactic? Pfft, you would say that. I wouldn't expect you to understand.. ~
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
| Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
| A really annoying creationist tactic | Amarok | 15 | 5805 |
April 25, 2017 at 5:47 pm Last Post: vorlon13 |
|
| The burden of wisdom/enlightenment, being good is too hard! | Mystic | 24 | 7692 |
May 16, 2013 at 10:09 pm Last Post: Godscreated |
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
