Every time we argue with a fool we lose
The declining value of both dunking on an idiot and trying to have a 'reasonable' discussion
When I was younger I had next to no difficultly pumping out half-baked opinions. It wasn’t that I was unconcerned with accuracy as much as I was erroneously convinced of my own brilliance. An inflated sense of self, delusions of grandeur; these are the qualities necessary to garner attention with written words. And frankly, my ability scores in these attributes were off the charts in my 20s.
That I focused these dark arts on baseball and sports in general is a relief to me now because the thought of firing out attention-seeking missiles of content at anything important … well, that would just be terrifying for my older, wiser self.
The world is so much easier to navigate when you have complete confidence in your perspective, but the least bit of curiosity has a tendency to grow and corrupt that confidence. You meet people who challenge you. You read things that change your mind. You see glimpses of a world you didn’t imagine existing.
The slightest crack in the facade you present to the world has a way of growing into an enormous gap from which a new self emerges. I always think of a He-Man toy I had as a kid. If the action figure was struck in the chest, a part would rotate to reveal a dent in his armour, then two, then three and then, upon the fourth strike it would rotate back to being the unblemished armour again.
Genuinely curious people are like He-Man action figures: presenting their heart, having it dented and emerging as new individuals afterwards.
I think responding to one’s curiosity in this way is an empathetic act. It’s an admission that other perspectives matter, that there may be reasoning other people possess that is beyond our own current vision.
A very good way at becoming Twitter’s main character for a day is to do the opposite of this, to put forth an opinion that takes zero people into account other than yourself or those like you.
On two successive days this week, Twitter’s dunk machine went into overdrive at the opinions expressed by two different Postmedia writers in two very different formats.
The first was Jesse Kline’s editorial on Wednesday suggesting that more public spaces should be privatized. It’s a very well-written piece except for one thing: the passive hostility toward lower income people.
I would gladly pay $5 or $10 to take my kids to the park if it meant a reduction in my property taxes. […] There is, in other words, no reason why municipal governments need to be responsible for so much green space, or why discussions about the proper use of public lands needs to be so political. If advocates want space for a homeless encampment, sell them some land and let them fund it through private donations.
While the idea that there would be an eagerness on behalf of private donors to sponsor homeless encampments — “Welcome to Tent City, brought to you by Starbucks” — or that everyone has the means to afford a regular $10 entry fee to enjoy space — “The best form of citizenry is a tiered one” — are probably the epitome of bad faith arguments, what bothered me more was the measured tone of the piece combined with its abhorrent lack of anything resembling consideration.
Its argument is presented so confidently, so plainly, so articulately by Kline, but it glaringly ignores an enormous demographic of human beings. The measurement and craftsmanship that clearly went into the writing combined with the absence of thought for anyone at the lower end of income rankings reveals a disturbing amount of inhumanity: “Let us consider all aspects that matter. Why would those humans merit mention under such terms?”
On Thursday, Postmedia hockey writer Michael Traikos tweeted (since deleted), “Things I'll never understand: adult cyclists who wear a bike helmet,” which, you know what, fine. I mean … it’s an undeniably stupid thing to say, and saying stupid things is kind of a hallmark of social media. But what made this take so terrible was 1) the seemingly randomness of expressing it in the middle of the day without any context; and 2) his constant doubling down on the opinion after people began questioning him.
The most cursory of checks — literally, a Google search and clicking the first link — reveals a study in New York City that found almost three-quarters of fatal bicycle crashes (74%) involved a head injury and nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet. But again, it’s not the obvious stupidity of the opinion that’s bothersome to me. It’s the lack of consideration for a world outside of him.
By firing off the opinion, Traikos primarily fails to consider how his reinforcement of (not so much toxic- as just plain moronic-) masculinity might influence others, but he also offers a glimpse into the mindset of a self-focused individual who never accounts for things outside of his control. I challenge you to find anyone who rides their bicycle on roads with anything approaching regularity and is without an anecdote of (at the very, very least) a close call with a motorized vehicle.
The thing about riding a bicycle in public is that you are by default interacting with that public, and within that public are people operating cars, trucks and vans all with varying degrees of skill handling their vehicle, all with varying degrees of distraction to their daily routine.
Once again, the opinion-expresser has forgotten that there exist things that are outside of them.
As evidenced by the GAZILLIONS of dunks on social media in the aftermath of Kline and Traikos expressing themselves, it’s fun to dunk on bad opinions you disagree with. The hoop goes from 10ft high to approximately 7ft high. It’s also exceptionally easy when the people you’re dunking on show their asses so spectacularly.
What’s frustrating is that those who tend toward the more libertarian side of arguments are also those most likely to suggest that reasonable rhetoric and debate should prove them wrong if they indeed are. However, there is no legitimate argument with someone who myopically values their own perspective above all others. They’re so enshrined in themselves that the very concept of other people is foreign, let alone the value or well being of others.
The dunks get stale and the arguments are fruitless.
The lesson I draw from this is that writing and pushing forth opinions (yea or nay) isn’t nearly the contribution it’s often assumed to be (especially by those in their mid-20s armed with just enough knowledge to believe themselves smart, but not enough to understand they’re not). It’s such an obvious cliché, but one that’s perhaps been undermined by the rampant availability and increased access to megaphones and platforms: actions speak louder than words.
Instead of dunking, go and use some public space for good, and tell others how great it is. Instead of arguing, buy your kid a cooler-looking helmet and continue to always wear yours.
Photo by A n v e s h on Unsplash