When art  critics get together  they talk about Form  and Structure
and Meaning.  When artists get  together they talk about  where you
can buy cheap turpentine.                           (Pablo Picasso)




Away back when  I was in high  school AP English class,  one of the
few really  useful things  I got  from the  class was  an important
point  in the  process  of argumentation  that  our teacher  called
Rogerian argumentation[0].

The  gist of  the point,  and you'll  see it  mentioned in  various
places online where folks are interested in genuinely learning from
one another, is this:

Give the other people you're  discussing with, and their arguments,
the benefit of the doubt. Start  from the assumption that they have
good reasons for their position  and that they are arguing honestly
with you. If you  can, try to take on their view  of things as they
describe  it and  accept  it  as much  as  possible,  begin from  a
position of open-mindedness.

As the other 'side' makes their arguments try as much as you can to
see their  side of it and  consider how their points  support their
argument - not  merely to pull them  apart but to see  how they fit
together.  Be willing  to reconsider  your position  or to  concede
valid  points they  make. Reevaluate  your own  points in  light of
their  points and  overall argument  as they  become clear  through
further discussion.

This one small point can save  endless amounts of time arguing back
and  forth trying  to  'score points'  in  conversations that  lead
nowhere.


The second point, nearly as important  as the first, is a technique
for preventing reasonable discussions from going off the rails into
pitched bloody  battles. At each  stage in trading  statements back
and forth, restate  the other side's position in your  own words to
confirm that you  are hearing what they are  saying correctly. That
can and  often does  include agreeing on  the definitions  of terms
related  to the  topic before  proceeding with  offering arguments.
This also helps  to clarify when both sides cannot  see enough of a
subject in the same terms  to have a productive discussion, perhaps
saving you from having to waste the time with it.


If  it  becomes  clear  either that  the  folks  you're  discussing
with  are not  arguing in  good faith,  using logical  fallacies or
deliberately  muddying the  discussion to  prevent actual  reasoned
discussion then again it's probably  time to stop wasting time with
them and go read a book or something.


The  class in  informal logic  that I  took in  college has  proved
invaluable as time has gone on. Not  only did it give me methods to
diagram someone's arguement if necessary, to understand it and find
the valid  and invalid points  being made, but more  importantly to
build up the habit of  objectively evaluating arguments in terms of
that  structure -  thesis,  grounds,  grounds-for-grounds, and  the
warrant that  connects them all.  It's hard to estimate  how useful
that one  class has  been to  me in  my professional  life, arguing
points and evaluating the arguments of others.



A willingness to walk away and not 'win' discussions comes in handy
but seems  to be  in short  supply in most  places I  visit online.
People just  hate to lose  face[2]. The need  to feel that  you are
being heard and  your position accepted can run pretty  deep - as I
know from  personal experience. I  have beat  my own share  of dead
horses now and again, maybe more than my share actually. But we try
to do better as life goes along.


In conversations  where no one has  a hard and fast  position these
techniques are of course not necessary although they may still make
the conversation more productive.


Perhaps the 'Anonymous'  board on SDF's bboard  offers something in
the way  of a solution  to arguments run  amuck. You may  have some
idea of  who was flaming you  with napalm and tossing  in the white
phosphorus as  a chaser but you  don't know for sure.  I suppose it
also preserves plausible deniability for those who want it.


There's  also the  precedent of  the Bad  Attitude[3] usenet  group
at  (early days)  Netscape  as a  release  valve for  frustrations,
inappropriate venting and the like. Of course that link also points
out the risks of maintaining an archive of something like that long
term, depending on what your organization  is and who might want to
see your rantings.



bonus section: Tomasino's[1] fun questions:

1. Koyaanisqatsi - don't ask questions just watch it.


2. The First Circle by Aleksandr  Solzhenitsyn - why do you need to
read this book twice? Because you will  in no way retain all of the
lessons  about  living  in  a  totalitarion  dictatorship  and  the
inhumane  things that  people do  to  other people  in one  reading
through  it.  (Everyone  really  ought  to  also  read  'The  Gulag
Archipelago' but  it's three impressive  volumes long so  read 'The
First Circle' first.)


3. 'Go' by Tones on Tail




[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogerian_argument
[1] gopher://gopher.black:70/1/phlog/20190330-fun-questions
[2]The 'Anonymous' board  at SDF  may offer  one potential  solution
there although it  still gives  the option  to post  non-anonymously.
[3] https://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html



NO CARRIER