People such as no_fun_girl have repeatedly posted excellent resources and explanations around these kinds of issues in a multitude of threads. Yet rather than citing these resources when attempting to debate, many of you:
- Raise questions clearly already answered (often in detail) already
- Re-explain the “101” version of something already posted or discussed in depth
- Insist on taking a naive position
And this forum is still far better than most…
I see a pattern with nerd guys specifically. “Skeptic” issues and “feminism” issues both have a wealth of well-researched information and a long history of excellent discourse (to use two examples).
For reasons, shitty nerd guys have developed this very specific style of debate (which, “coincidentally,” overlaps heavily with literal Nazi argumentation tactics).
Let’s look at the skeptic “community.”
- Nerd guy sees a homeopath and realizes how utterly stupid homeopathy is (which is true)
- Nerd guy feels superior to this stupid concept and the “stupid” homeopath (more on that later)
- Nerd guy feels like he is a wizard for having seen through the scam of homeopathy, seeks out other wizards to prove his wizardry
- Pre-existing wizards tell the new wizard how smart and rational he is
- The wizards together now assume they are genius paragons of rationality for the sole reason that they rightly understood that an obviously fake thing was fake
This newly crafted wizard will now assume he knows everything about skepticism due to having been accepted by the skeptic community and by manifesting the shibboleths (mostly around making fun of stupid things like homeopathy). He’ll also studiously ignore more complex debunkings (probably because they make him feel like a muggle again). The existing skeptic community will just reinforce this.
So, when this wizard interacts with someone on ANY OTHER TOPIC, they assume that they’re so smart and they never do even the most basic research. They end up having no foundation.
Without a foundation, they’ll make statements that are clearly incorrect or misguided to anyone who has even a basic understanding of the topic. Then, if they are called out, they will DEMAND EVIDENCE to prove exactly why they are wrong.
When the long suffering feminist (for example) is tired of constantly explaining basic easily googled concepts and decides to just ignore him, he assumes he was right all along and his superior logic won the day.
Even worse, he becomes conditioned to always argue this way. The less he learns about a given topic, the more effective his argumentation becomes (in his eyes anyway). He starts to literally believe that he is so smart that no one can stand up to him.
He never realizes that people are giving up because he’s an idiot. He is a black hole of discourse. Anyone “included” in a community that tolerates these block holes ends up throwing energy into them forever while never accomplishing anything, or just remains silent. Silence implies complicity, and the community concentrates even further to a base layer of shitheaded wizards who take silence as agreement.
So… maybe we should make argumentation from ignorance a bannable offense?