What's with This?: "You're Angry"; "You're sad"; "You have stress"; "You're worried."

[alcibiades_mystery]

I've noticed an uptick in arguments that seek to portray other posters emotional states. I find it an odd way to argue online.

Now, off the bat I should say this: I'm sure somebody could look back through my posts and find me saying something roughly similar. I suspect it is a simple trope that many people use from time to time. But what I've seen over the last few days and weeks seems to be something far more systematic, or, at the very least, a far more common trope that is turning into an answer to any disagreement, rather than functioning as a rare or curious one-off.

I don't want to pull examples, since I don't want to focus on any particular posters (and some do it far more than others, and far more consistently). Rather, I'm asking after the propriety of the mode of argument itself, perhaps its rhetorical ethics.

It strikes me as a piddling and dishonest and, well, somewhat abusive way to argue or respond. It's dishonest because there's no way the accuser could know what mental state motivated an objection, and abusive because it seeks to belittle the accusers interlocutor. Oh, now, you're just angry, the upshot being that the interlocutor will be more "reasonable" once that bad affect subsides. Does this remind anyone else of an abusive spouse or sibling? It just has the air of something sleazy about it as an argumentative response. It also, in the aggregate and seen over and over and over again starts to look very much like a language strategy of the kind developed by political organizers, the way Gingrich used to call things "bizarre." That's probably making too much of it, to be sure, but I was wondering what else y'all thought?

Is "You're very angry / upset / stressed / worried about something, so that's why you disagree with me" a sound way to argue?

[woolldog]

1. Calm down. nt

[Blue Yorker]

2. This thread can lead to something. Why was the accusation of stress made?

Did the person accused of being overwhelmed by stress do anything specific which led to that outcome?

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. I'm not interested in exploring any single instance

Largely because no single instance or single poster motivated this thread. I've seen a lot of it, and it's not clear that some kind of "anger," "stress" "fear," or "worry" would be deducible from any given utterance, much less from multiple utterances over, and over, and over again.

I'm curious about the argumentative strategy or response as a whole, and it does very much seem like strategy.

[bluerum]

3. You seem.... confused.

Ha - just kidding.

Although I do not recall being abused in this specific fashion, I agree - it seems a passive agressive if not outright agressive way of invalidating an argument. It is erroneous and inaccurate and seeks to minimize if not dismiss ones position based on emotional volatility.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Oh, I am

[Quantess]

6. Yes, I have noticed it too, lately.

It must be a new trend.

I think we should only reach into that bag of tricks if there is substantial reason to think someone is upset or stressed out, etc.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. At the very least, it's a sad an easy go to if people can't support their position

Seems to be getting a lot of play, is all.

I think it borders on a personal attack, and I'm putting it out here now that if I'm on a jury, and it is cited as a personal attack, I will vote to hide. I don't think people should be systematically attacked by having emotions ascribed to them.

[bemildred]

8. I think it has its place.

It is difficult to have an interesting, civil, or even coherent discussion with someone who is worked up emotionally and inclined to vent, so sometimes you point that out in hopes they might get a grip. In any case it states why you are not trying to respond more substantively, because you don't think you will be heard.

It can also be an annoying rhetorical ploy, and dishonest, so I think you have a point too. But I don't know any way to distinguish the two, people who are annoyed are not going to see sweet reason just because you decline to participate, so they will get annoyed with you about it, and might well think along the lines that you argue about it.

I would agree that "you disagree with me because you are upset" isn't much of an argument.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Oh, there's no doubt

It has its place. These things tend to be easier to parse out in f2f, to be sure. Maybe it's just our translation of f2f on to online space - most of the time.

What I'm commenting on is a rush of such posts, as if it is either a) the only answer somebody tends to have or b) a very systematic strategy.

In any case, I think it's almost always cheap, and can verge on to abusive very easily. I'm committing myself to hiding any post that proceeds in that manner.

[bemildred]

10. Well, it's much easier to dissemble in cyberspace.

So of course lots of people do. Sock puppets and alternative personalities can be fun. No danger of getting pounded by the guy you just went out of your way to piss off.

I do quite agree with your point, it's happened to me, but having seen it so often, it tends to be boring or amusing rather than annoying as it once was, one of the classic internet ways to be a luser.

Edit: another thing, the exercise of logic or reason is a discipline, it's hard work, and a good deal of laziness lies behind diversionary stategies. I myself often blow off arguments I am not in the mood for, or do not have the time for, or when I do no believe the other poster actually gives a crap what I think.