An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. What good is it? In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. This file was derived from: Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read.
For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators’ salaries should be increased, one could respond: Retrieved from ” https: In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: Person A makes a statement and Person B fires all missiles, profanity, invective, and wrath toward Person A as the first response. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications.
Retrieved 28 April Retrieved 29 September If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one’s opponent. This wouldn’t refute the author’s argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case.
If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way. I have noticed a marked increase in anger. Counterargument might prove something. The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read.
What It Means Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. My father’s Welsh though. Retrieved 22 July Michael the Brave User talk: Yet sometimes online conversations turn nasty, angry, snarky, sarcastic, or just plain offensive pretty esssay. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. For example, correcting someone’s grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers.
Paul Graham (programmer) – Wikipedia
If there’s something wrong with grabams senator’s argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn’t, what difference does it make that he’s a senator? Minister of the Right Talk: When Graham considers the point of view of a programmer using a language higher than Blub, he describes that programmer as looking down on Blub and noting its “missing” features from the point of view of the higher language.
The most powerful form of wssay is to refute someone’s central point. Store”co-founding the influential startup accelerator and seed capital diaagree Y Combinatorhis blog, and Hacker News. An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it’s right.
That doesn’t mean people are getting angrier. Files are available under licenses specified on their description page. Someone who has oaul chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words.
Sometimes people are angry and in my attempts to calm them down, I urge them to use scripture. By giving names to the different forms howw disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
Disagreeing with “How to Disagree”
If you can’t find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a djsagree man. It’s still a very weak form of disagreement, though. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or grahzms supporting evidence. But when he looks up, he fails to realise that he is looking up: Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement.
In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue.