D&D General Poll: Should a poster be expected to read (or at least skim) all posts before posting in a thread?

[Thomas Shey]

Didn't read any of the discussion up to now, but to reply to OP I definitely think people should read the comments to the thread, or at least the last few pages, otherwise how will they meaningfully take part?
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Not reading the discussion can have the positive side effect of pulling a thread that's digressed badly back on track by dropping new seeds of discussion closer to the original topic into a thread that's drifted.

Assuming it doesn't just disappear without a trace, because the people interested in the original topic have come and gone. But you're not wrong.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Didn't read any of the discussion up to now, but to reply to OP I definitely think people should read the comments to the thread, or at least the last few pages, otherwise how will they meaningfully take part?

They won't because all they want to do is jump in and give what they think is the perfect reply, a reply that a half dozen, or more, people have already given. And probably given better than this late-to-the-thread poster ever could. And then those of us who actually do at least skim through every single post before commenting, have to put up with all the repetitive posts. There have been many threads I did not post in because I read everything first and saw what I thought about saying already said, so I do not clutter up threads with yet another post giving the same reply. The only time this is different is in the threads with a poll that ask for explanations of why we voted the way we did. Those threads are expected to have multiple similar replies.

 

[Parmandur]

TIL I don't actually know what "begging the question" really means lol. And the wikipedia page on it has not helped me a great deal lol. Growing up everyone I knew used it to mean "raising the question" (so back to the '80s in the UK), and I still see that, but it seems like it's not being used that way here and wasn't in the in the original Latin.

Random Ruin fact: I once got suspended from a forum for three days (not this one in any form) because I didn't know peculiar American-specific usage of a phrase lol. I can't remember what it was sadly, but the mod used this extreme colloquialism to tell people to stop discussing something (which is like, the third meaning of it when I looked it up later with like "American slang" and "C. 1940" or something on it, and one I'd never come across), and I just had no idea what they were talking about because one of the more conventional meanings made sense in context! The internet!!!!! Hooray!!!!

I remember reading a funny anecdote about an American linguist who was enjoying a large family dinner with some friends & family in England. When the host asked if he would like another serving, he loudly declared "No, thank you, I am completely stuffed," which is to say, full of food. This caused some awkwardness.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I remember reading a funny anecdote about an American linguist who was enjoying a large family dinner with some friends & family in England. When the host asked if he would like another serving, he loudly declared "No, thank you, I am completely stuffed," which is to say, full of food. This caused some awkwardness.

If it was back in the '80s or earlier I could see that causing a lot of confusion! Especially in the countryside.

Over the '90s American influence has gradually ensured that people have started using stuffed for full and I think it may be the more common usage now - rather than shorthand for "stuffed and mounted", i.e. "in a very bad situation" (err... though a more direct translation of "stuffed and mounted" would be too much for Eric's Grandma).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you go down that route, it is most likely that you will end up arguing over what, exactly, is a strawman, whether it's a strawman or not, etc.

Tbh, I've rarely seen that happen. But yeah it's unhelpful when it does. More often the person changes tack. Sometimes they back off or even admit they misunderstood.

I also think the missing scenario you've got there is:

"Person is too thoughtless and/or pleased with themselves to even consider/accept they might have misunderstood and that their wild misrepresentation is correct"

That often only emerges after you point out that they're misrepresenting your argument. I'm not really sure how to deal with that, especially when people do it who are otherwise reasonable (and presumably having a bad day or something). Disengagement is normally best I think.

But on a messageboard a discussion is not between two people. I actually agree with everything you're saying if you're talking about a 1-on-1 discussion IRL or in direct messages or something. But that's not what messageboard is. If someone misrepresents your argument on a messageboard, I know from long experience, that if you don't point out it's a misrepresentation, other people will start believing that the attractive simplification they've offered (which is typically a strawman, disregarding and removing any complexities, nuance, subtlety or the like in your argument, and often changing some key point outright). I tend to avoid "strawman" nowadays unless the misrepresentation appears intentional or extreme - otherwise I reiterate and explain that the person has misunderstood - which I'd say is accepted about 75% of the time here (it was like 20% of the time 15 years ago lol, people have become more reasonable!).

Also like, the trouble for me personally with taking a Classical-style approach (logos, ethos, pathos) is that a lot of people in the Classical era "won" arguments in incredibly dirty ways (yeah I'm looking straight at you Cicero, straight at you), whilst being completely in the wrong, and using those sort of tools. They won over the audience, but that's because the audience was awful, awful, awful Roman elites. If I seem Roman-fixated at the moment it's because I've been reading about Rome a lot lately (and my ancient history studies largely centered on Rome - plus I never learned ancient Greek, only some Latin). The internet has particularly undermined the "credibility" side of things, because so many people who are "credible", are, in fact, wrong. Frequently factually wrong even. But I'm not a trained rhetorician.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But on a messageboard a discussion is not between two people. I actually agree with everything you're saying if you're talking about a 1-on-1 discussion IRL or in direct messages or something. But that's not what messageboard is. If someone misrepresents your argument on a messageboard, I know from long experience, that if you don't point out it's a misrepresentation, other people will start believing that the attractive simplification they've offered (which is typically a strawman, disregarding and removing any complexities, nuance, subtlety or the like in your argument, and often changing some key point outright). I tend to avoid "strawman" nowadays unless the misrepresentation appears intentional or extreme - otherwise I reiterate and explain that the person has misunderstood - which I'd say is accepted about 75% of the time here (it was like 20% of the time 15 years ago lol, people have become more reasonable!).

Also like, the trouble for me personally with taking a Classical-style approach (logos, ethos, pathos) is that a lot of people in the Classical era "won" arguments in incredibly dirty ways (yeah I'm looking straight at you Cicero, straight at you), whilst being completely in the wrong, and using those sort of tools. They won over the audience, but that's because the audience was awful, awful, awful Roman elites. If I seem Roman-fixated at the moment it's because I've been reading about Rome a lot lately (and my ancient history studies largely centered on Rome - plus I never learned ancient Greek, only some Latin). The internet has particularly undermined the "credibility" side of things, because so many people who are "credible", are, in fact, wrong. Frequently factually wrong even. But I'm not a trained rhetorician.

Here's the thing. Yes, a message board is a public forum. And ....? So what?

Try this thought experiment. Imagine that every single one of your posts here disappeared, tomorrow. You with me? Now, what would happen? How would your life change? How would this forum change? How would "the public" change?

This isn't specific to you. I've been around for a while. I've been involved in flame wars on usenet. On listservs. On websites that still used the blink tag. And the vast majority of my writings, my arguments ... they've all disappeared. They are gone. All that stuff that mattered so very deeply at that very moment, all those trolls to be vanquished, all of those posters to be put into their place, all of those wicker men to be burned down with or without Nic Cage in them?

Didn't matter.

I close my eyes
Only for a moment, and the moment's gone
All my words
Pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind
All my posts are is dust in the wind
Same old arguments
Just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we write
Crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see
Dust in the wind
All our posts are dust in the wind
Oh
Now, don't hang on
Nothin' lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away
And all your wins and arguments won't another minute buy
Dust in the wind
All our posts are dust in the wind

There's a reason that everyone (EVERYONE) knows the xkcd comic ... THERE'S SOMEONE WRONG ON THE INTERNET. We've all been there. That rush of putting someone in their place. Of knowing you totally pwned him. Of feeling the exhilaration of making sure that "the public" wouldn't misunderstand the argument.

...and? Eh. The sad fact is (and this is why we all know that comic so well) no ... one ... cares. The public doesn't care. There is no cheering section following the blow-by-blow. It's the saying that I use- you don't wrestle with pigs, because if you do, the pig likes it, and you both get dirty. In a short period of time, the conversation will have moved on, the threads will have moved on, and whatever thing was so super important ... won't be.

This place is nice because we talk about dragon, and fireballs, and stuff that should be fun. I amuse myself by writing out these long posts, sometimes I hide weird quotes (no, not the obvious ones) or acrostics in them- not because I expect people to find them or care, but because it makes me laugh.

If you get enjoyment out of the argument, then, really, that's good for you (I'm not being sarcastic). But it's not enjoyable for me. And as soon as I see someone (almost always incorrectly) start dropping informal logical fallacies on a board where people discuss "How awesome is my Warlock???," I take them approximately 193% less seriously.

PS- You should branch out from the Roman material; ethos, pathos, and logos are straight-up Aristotle regardless of any later appropriation by Cicero. However, if you truly care about argument and winning, you should note that people are not logic machines. If you want to appeal to people and convince them of the rightness of you cause/argument, you don't do so by logos alone.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Try this thought experiment. Imagine that every single one of your posts here disappeared, tomorrow. You with me? Now, what would happen? How would your life change? How would this forum change? How would "the public" change?

Are we talking "never existed" or just got deleted, because these are two entirely different situations with completely different outcomes!

For me the main benefit of discussing stuff, including arguing, at this point in my life, is two-fold:

1) I often sharpen up my own ideas and even become aware of what I really think about stuff in the process. This has actually been pretty beneficial to me overall.

2) I learn things. All sort of things. Often interrogating people (in the most literal sense, not tying them to chair lol) about stuff can be highly informative, and can bring out unexpected stuff.

For me, sometimes you have to point out logical flaws and so on in order to move forwards. I've seen this very clearly within the last two years. There was a thread here with an interesting discussion, but one poster had a serious logical flaw "stuck in their throat" as it were, and was basically spamming the thread because they couldn't get it out, and kept repeating stuff. Eventually they were made to understand the flaw, and the discussion progressed, and was more interesting.

But to come back to 1, if I'd never argued with people about stuff, I'm absolutely convinced I'd be the worst for it. My ideas would be the worse for it. I don't buy this "pigs" analogy, because I'm not arguing with pigs - i.e. real trash like Nazis - I'm arguing with fellow human beings, most of whom aren't terrible, and many of whom I can learn from.

One nice thing about this forum, too, in this era at least, is that it's less "factional" than many, in that I may end up agreeing with someone one day and disagreeing the next, which means I'm more attentive to what people are actually saying and learn more from discussions.

Also just as general point, I've sometimes come across old arguments, read them, and been convinced by them, before I've even posted about something, often changing my opinion. That's something I like about forums.

As for:

There's a reason that everyone (EVERYONE) knows the xkcd comic ... THERE'S SOMEONE WRONG ON THE INTERNET. We've all been there. That rush of putting someone in their place. Of knowing you totally pwned him. Of feeling the exhilaration of making sure that "the public" wouldn't misunderstand the argument.

Yeah, I mean, who hasn't fallen into that trap? I did a few days ago. People misunderstood a mechanic in Total War Warhammer 2, and were dismissing a problem as a result, and I felt the need, not to "pwn" anyone in that case, but to explain stuff over and over for like 40 minutes before I said "That's enough of that!" lol.

But I've often had a lot of positive feedback on this kind of stuff. Like people thanking me even. And then in some places seeing arguments I made repeated (sometimes almost word-for-word) as the right approach later on. So I don't think it's as worthless as you're implying, given I'm just one human in 7+ bn, and thus arguably we're all of limited, dust-like value.

The trap is not knowing when to stop, which I suspect you agree on. When I was younger I definitely didn't know that.

You should branch out from the Roman material; ethos, pathos, and logos are straight-up Aristotle regardless of any later appropriation by Cicero. However, if you truly care about argument and winning, you should note that people are not logic machines. If you want to appeal to people and convince them of the rightness of you cause/argument, you don't do so by logos alone.

Yeah I guess I myself am trapped in a potentially stoic-like mindset where I don't really want to win an argument that I'm not sure is logical, like I'd honestly rather lose and be convinced by the actual logic (which has happened, countless times - I know people say no-one changes their mind, but I also know that's utterly false, from both lived experience and seeing others do it). So at a minimum the logic has to be there lol, for me, anyway. Not going to talk politics but I feel like in the world today, especially in my country, there's an awful lot of people winning arguments with a ton of pathos and very little logos and limited or false ethos. Maybe that itself is a lesson of a kind, though?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah I guess I myself am trapped in a potentially stoic-like mindset where I don't really want to win an argument that I'm not sure is logical, like I'd honestly rather lose and be convinced by the actual logic (which has happened, countless times - I know people say no-one changes their mind, but I also know that's utterly false, from both lived experience and seeing others do it). So at a minimum the logic has to be there lol, for me, anyway. Not going to talk politics but I feel like in the world today, especially in my country, there's an awful lot of people winning arguments with a ton of pathos and very little logos and limited or false ethos. Maybe that itself is a lesson of a kind, though?

(For the rest, I would reiterate what I said before- if you like arguing, that's great! But not my bag.)

Here, I would say that I probably didn't fully explicate the nature of an argument. An argument is not just reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth (or falsehood). It's effective communication- with the idea implicit that all communication is the attempt to convey a message.

Art, music, film- they all have arguments. Guernica (Picasso) has an argument; the advertisements you try to ignore have arguments; Zack Snyder's oeuvre has an argument. Arguments are implicit in all forms of communication. Understanding how to effectively make those arguments requires understanding how to appeal to the audience (Aristotle would say to logos, pathos and ethos, but he was more concerned with the oral argument).

Effectively communicating, effectively persuading people requires a knowledge of not just your own argument, but your audience as well. The appeals I would use to convince a scared ten-year old to try a roller coaster for the first time is not the same argument I would use to convince my partner to move across the country.

Changing minds is almost never about logic. Hopefully, it can be about facts, but often it requires, at a minimum, some emotional involvement as well, plus a trust in the persuasive person (the ethos). It would be great if our minds worked in a manner similar to a computer (or a non-Pon Farr Spock), but they don't.

Anyway, if it works for you, that is great. I trust that it brings you all the joy and happiness. In the meantime, I am going to work on my new project ....

Salt & Vinegar Potato Chip Infused Vodka!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Salt & Vinegar Potato Chip Infused Vodka!

Truly you are an enemy of god.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Truly you are an enemy of god.

Am I an enemy of god, or is god an enemy of my digestive tract?