I initially started thinking about this in terms of political affiliation. There seems to be this belief held by a particular side that the way to win an argument is by either talking over those who disagree with your view or simply insulting them. Facts be damned. Rational arguments are of no use in such cases. It’s all a matter of that squeaky wheel getting all the oil in the world.
It seems that some groups are trying to monopolize this arguing-without-an argument strategy. They probably have handbooks. Maybe they have secret meetings where the secret handbooks are given out and they all stand around practicing yelling over each other. Then they all take turns coming up with insults that they throw out before quickly turning to walk away to have theirs be the last word. This zinger is supposed to take place of any actual, reasonable argument they might have (but usually don’t, hence the need for the zinger). I don’t think the secret meetings touch on any content, since that’s not the arguing strategy taught there. It’s all about saying as little as possible about the actual topic, throwing in some supposedly patriotic statement while questioning the opponent’s patriotism, and then of course ending with a personal attack on their character, intelligence, etc.
But the more I started thinking about putting this down on paper (after a mini confrontation with someone who thought the way to disagree with my opinion was to just call me nuts), the more I realized how unfair it would be to associate this with a group based solely on politics. Honestly, I’ve been frustrated enough with someone in the past to question their sanity (of course, her sanity is often in question). And I’m sure many of us have an embarrassing memory of having resorted to angry name-calling at some point. So, while it seems that to be unwilling to listen to reason, to use irrational gibberish to try to win an argument, or when presented with irrefutable facts, to revert to tactics of 3-year-olds is the domain of a particular political set, it’s not as simple as that. For though they are the true leaders of this “Nah-nah-I-can’t-hear-you” defense, they are not the only users.
It’s come to my attention that the people who have the weakest arguments are more inclined to do more of the yelling. I guess their theory is if you have nothing to say, just make more noise than your opponent. Definitely don’t stop long enough to listen (or you may be confused by their use of reason). And never back down. Can you imagine the horror of actually having to admit to your opponent that maybe you’ve rethought your previous position and have come to the conclusion that you were—gasp—wrong? Some groups are never wrong. It’s against their religion or political beliefs – or both. Just like some individuals can never be wrong. I don’t know what would happen to them if they were to admit that maybe the possibility of it exists – spontaneously combust, maybe? Who would want to take that chance?
