Arguing for Argument's Sake, or, The Ego Running Wild

Round and round and round they go;
Will they stop?
Goodness, no!

There comes a point when one should question whether or not they're still contributing to a conversation, or just keeping it going, beyond the point of merit. If continued participation becomes one or more persons just repeatedly saying " Nope. Debate me", the conversation should just be allowed to die. Once you've reached that point, they aren't making meaningful contributions, they're just being obnoxious and seeing how far they can push.

That's why I stop participating in some conversations; I know well enough to leave dead horses alone, and I recognize the difference between pure discussion, proper argument, and just refusing to back down or walk away.

Especially when I've already said what I want to say, and exhausted what valid and (hopefully) meaningful contributions I have to offer. Everything after that is just me pitting my ego against someone else's, and I just don't care that much about convincing people to agree with me. I'm not here to engage with people who want to argue just to argue, and I'm not here to convince people to agree with me.

Ego. Ego is king in such "discussions". Ego is everywhere, but especially there. Here, too, that's quite likely, and that's MY problem.

Have at it folks, but don't expect me to engage beyond this point for reasons I've already stated. I will not be led about by my ego, if I can help it.

The rest of you feel free to engage a "discussion" on Ego- GO!

Do you not find it egotistical to judge the merit of others conversations here by creating an entire thread just to call out what you consider dead horse beating? If you don't want to engage in a conversation, then don't engage, but don't try and shame others with your passive-aggressive opinion.

It may be a good idea to make sure to know how to truly discern whether someone is debating for debate sake vs when they sincerely are trying to have a clearer understanding of the topic.

It also helps ones nerves to at least humor an assumption of the latter until there are no more clues left in their responses of the former.

Let's try not to fall for cynicism in social observance. It actually risks hijacking our opportunity to bring our better ideas out for those who may need them.

Sadly, many threads end up like this. Nit-Picking, ego stroking, et cetera. Sadly, the nature of an open forum. (part of the reason I usually post the more serious topics of discussion in higher tiers of threads. A bit more of a vetting process in whom can view those. )

But seriously, you want real conversation? Voice chats. Intonation and word stressing is important to our language. And that is where text conversations devolve. Because its easy to nit-pick and argue infinitely over text. Because there is a divide, even unconscious, between the profile and the person behind it. And, far too easy, is it for someone to throw a stick into the system, laugh, and log off while we invested few are left to clean up the mess.

I do believe it was JamesSand that put it best. Avoid the use of the word 'you' in these forums, because oftentimes that is when one will find they're making it personal, rather than discussing ideas.

Who knew there was something called 'meta-discussion'! I didn't.. Anyway, its a term used on some forums to avoid derailing and attacks.

The point being that its not necessarily a value judgement on the merits of the contribution in broad terms, but rather a value judgement on the merits of the contribution in terms of the particular topics original post. Seemingly a means to keep topics in a more defined lane and stop them meandering off into whatever the most frequent poster feels like talking about.

So it would in theory allow a more effective space to explore topics without them being derailed so easily by semantics or philosophical sniping etc.

From one forum for example;

"META-DISCUSSION – Discussing the discussion. For instance, complaining about the tone of the discussion, the personalities of other contributors as supposedly revealed in the conversation, the inability to stick to the topic at hand, or comparisons of the discussion to conversations elsewhere on the Internet."

I personally like the idea of topics being more focused on what the original poster intended, and being expected to remain on that topic unless taken of it by the original topic poster only.

I think it is very easy to stray into this loop as discussion is in itself egotistical. One cannot discuss something without first identifying with themselves in order to forward their opinion.

Now the best we can do is try and not allow the ego to pull us into this loop but this loop is on a different level for each individual. So here we have a bunch of egos rubbing on each other (think a sweet dance club, egos being all those people). Eventually someone gets too drunk or starts a fight ect (and your rapper or NFL player comes out and shoots someone over something trivial).

All of this said, we are at a time in society where we find ourselves easily set off. Perhaps, we have too much information, or to much emotion or to much attachment. Because in identifying ourselves to make the conversation happen we are forgetting these parts have to exist for it to happen.

In my personal practice sometimes I pull off a bit, I take a look at what people have said, see if i have anything valid to help the conversation, or open myself to learning something I didn't see. In the end though it comes down to when I decide whether to respond or not.

Not everything needs a response and not every response will be needed.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

While I understand the grievance in principle, I must too question just in what way this thread is not as well (if not moreso, even) about ego. I too leave many a conversation after seeing that I have said what I was going to and there is little more to add without repeating myself more than I judge worth the time and energy it costs. Sometimes I am one of the first to disengage, sometimes one of the last, sometimes I don't engage at all because it is either ground uninteresting to me, or too expensive, or long treaded or any of the above, and sometimes I re-engage after having left already. Some engage or disengage for similar reasons, some for entirely different ones. Who is any of us to shame any of the rest of us for these choices, just because we would make different ones, especially seeing as literally noone involuntarily suffers any damages from them whatsoever?
Let's suppose even the worst of this fantastical scenario. Let's suppose we have one or two interlocutors who - with good argument or poor - engage in bad faith exclusively, and debate a thing ad nauseam after all others long left, for no sounder motivation than the lust to come out on top by the end of it. Anyone name one way in which that is wrong, or even undesirable that involves something other than the negligible expense in storage space on the server.
At the same time, and let this be a respectful difference in opinion, if we can have those, I for one also find it technically unimportant to sway anyone, let alone everyone, to my side of a given issue. However, my education, while stronger in some areas than some have been led to think it can be, is still rather narrow, all things considered. My intuition, too, while stronger than I think it has any right to be, is weaker still than would warrant anyone's confidence. My thinking is far from perfect, and my feeling is nowhere near even that. I do not trust myself to come to any kind of reliable end on my own, even without taking into account personal biases. Now some would call this recognition of one's own weaknesses an ego running wild, and I'm in no position to tell them they are wrong, but I am stuck with that self-doubting "wild running ego" one way or another. I must engage with others, especially those who will not mirror my own sensibilities back at me, but who would instead challenge me. If, after all, I cannot test my ideas against competing ones, then I cannot say that they would stand up to any test and so I cannot sincerely hold them with any confidence.
But that being said, everyone is still free to engage or not to engage with or without good or bad reason. If you are not interested in what ever argument, because you have it all figured out already, or at least better than everyone else around, and don't find it worth the cost to discuss it any further, either for your own or anyone else's benefit, then by all means, don't have it. Nobody should force you into a debate you do not wish to have, and nobody does.

I wonder what it would be like if there was a forum category where the website was coded to hide all of the profile information so you had no idea who posted what reply, no pictures no usernames no signatures just content.

Tellahane wrote: I wonder what it would be like if there was a forum category where the website was coded to hide all of the profile information so you had no idea who posted what reply, no pictures no usernames no signatures just content.

Ever see the comments on new sites that allow anonymity, scary stuff (not with out useful comments in there but they tend to be rare), but an image of the unfiltered character of a community.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Tellahane wrote: I wonder what it would be like if there was a forum category where the website was coded to hide all of the profile information so you had no idea who posted what reply, no pictures no usernames no signatures just content.

Love this ...