Conversational cheap shots

July 22, 2004 4:04 PM

It seems evident that here we all too aware of these, but just in case you're knee-deep in a flame war: conversational cheap shots.
posted by xmutex (24 comments total)

That's what you think, stupidhead!

(heh heh heh)
posted by holloway at 4:19 PM on July 22, 2004

If I have to call it out once, I have to call it out a million times, you poor pathetic amnesiac n00bs.
posted by brownpau at 4:33 PM on July 22, 2004

If I have to call it out once, I have to call it out a million times, you poor pathetic amnesiac n00bs.
posted by brownpau at 4:34 PM on July 22, 2004

ARGH, I DOUBLE POSTED IN A TRIPLE POST.
You may now all pile on me with all the cheap shots you can muster.
posted by brownpau at 4:35 PM on July 22, 2004

That's 2 down, 999,998 to go!
posted by scarabic at 4:36 PM on July 22, 2004

Just reading that page feels like I'm talking to my ex-boyfriend. Now all I need is for someone to refuse to say that I exist.
posted by redsparkler at 4:44 PM on July 22, 2004

Conversational cheap shots - all recycled from the classic 1930 Robert H Thouless book, Straight and Crooked Thinking.
posted by raygirvan at 5:00 PM on July 22, 2004

Why, that's Calvinism!
posted by kaibutsu at 5:01 PM on July 22, 2004

I'm not sure if I fail to disagree with that or not.
posted by swift at 5:02 PM on July 22, 2004

It's an okay link, I guess, but it doesn't include Winston Churchill's famous Bucket o' Cocks rebuttal.

Heh heh.
posted by stet at 5:09 PM on July 22, 2004

"Well now, we don't have enough data to go any further" is a favorite of mine.
posted by Veritron at 5:13 PM on July 22, 2004

you're new here, aren't you? ... we can never discuss anything right ...78.997% of the posters here have done this sort of thing ... but when you've had more experience ... you'll realize that it's calvinism

redsparkler ... you're seeming less insubstantial than usual today ...
posted by pyramid termite at 5:14 PM on July 22, 2004

oh, they missed one ... "i was only kidding" ... "i was just testing you" ...
posted by pyramid termite at 5:15 PM on July 22, 2004

He's missing PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE:

"Now, a complete idiot who furthermore hates America will probably respond [insert the retort you're most afraid your opponent will come up with]"
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:24 PM on July 22, 2004

One of my unfavourites:

"I'm not going to argue with you," immediately followed by a complete restatement of his/her argument.

Then, if the other person replies to that restatement, "I SAID I wasn't going to argue with you. [More restatement.]"

Basically a way of trying to both take the high ground AND suppress the other person.
posted by orange swan at 6:14 PM on July 22, 2004

Who needs this when you can just make up shit to support your position?
posted by gyc at 6:29 PM on July 22, 2004

This redsparkler, it vibrates?
posted by ashbury at 6:32 PM on July 22, 2004

*grabs Witty, rubs his @#$%ing nose in this link*
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:44 PM on July 22, 2004

Whoever made this page has basically ripped off O'Reilly, seriously though, I was just rereading the conversation between O' and the son of a guy that died in the WTC on 911. O'Reilly does this stuff like a pro.
posted by crazy finger at 8:48 PM on July 22, 2004

Boy, I'm pleased you drew that MeTa thread to my attention, stet - that bucket of cocks call is fantastic.
posted by wilberforce at 10:35 PM on July 22, 2004

I feel like we have one of these logical fallacy/argumentation technique posts at least once a month. I think we all get it by now.
posted by ChasFile at 7:05 AM on July 23, 2004

This sort of thing just makes it worse. If your purpose in having a discussion is to "win", then none of these tactics are "invalid". If your purpose is to achieve understanding, then many of the things listed on that page aren't tactics if earnest. Assuming that anything that appears to be a conversational gambit must be a conversational gambit and reacting in kind is probably how most well-meaning conversations become contests. If people tried harder to converse in good-faith and assume that others are arguing in good-faith, things would be much more productive, fun, and interesting.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:18 AM on July 23, 2004

"We need to define just exactly what you mean by _________."

It's Noam Chomsky!
posted by dodgygeezer at 12:32 PM on July 23, 2004

This redsparkler, it vibrates?

Well, sure...but you have to admit that she exists first.
posted by dejah420 at 10:07 PM on July 23, 2004