You know the thing – someone posts something on social media (ie facebook) and there is a good discussion going, then that one person (the Douche) ruins it for everyone.
The discussion turns into a bunch of people helplessly trying to help Douche understand the issue in good faith – but Douche is not interested in good faith, Douche wants to upset you. Douche wants to get upset, they enjoy being upset. Douche wants to insist that you’re oppressing Douche.
- The topic is always something that the left/right argue on: something about equality, usually, either around sexism, gender, or racism.
- Douche is bullying under the guise of wanting to understand your argument.
- It’s everywhere and it’s tiresome.
- If you want to see a great series of youtube clips deconstructing the alt-right style, check out this video by Innuendo Studios.
- I have only ever experienced this with white guys. I suspect it’s born of the white-privilege-toxic-masculinity.
- They take offense and let you know how affronted or offended they are. They REALLY LET YOU KNOW
- They either demand an apology or else demand an acknowledgement how hurtful you’ve been to them personally
- They often make up things you say that they then react to and ignore what you do say
- They often go back and edit their earlier responses, then accuse you of being unreasonable. If you screen cap and paste the evidence of this, they will ignore that.
- They ignore anything anyone says that doesn’t fit their version of reality – and claim you do the same
- They shift and wiggle and you can’t pin them down, but they claim you are doing this to them
- They start with ad hominen attacks (insulting you personally)
- They claim they’ve been ad hominen attacked
- They try to appeal to the person whose post it is to rescue them from their awful friends (butthurt)
- Their logic is baffling, obtuse, absent, or just bizarre
- They use ‘facts’ to support their statements and say things like ‘everyone agrees’ and ‘we all agree that’ – and then make unsupported statements/hypothesis
- They ALWAYS think they are more intelligent than you and will show it by using big words or terminology
- They don’t ever see the irony
- They are almost always racist or elitist but claim not to be
- They usually show their misogyny very early on; they often claim to be allies
- They ignore or tone police/patronise women but will engage with who they think are men
- They do one, many, or all of the 9 replyguys types.
- I particularly love the concept of sealioning – demanding that it’s up to you to PROVE TO THEM you are right, but if you try to supply evidence or proof for your claims, they will ignore that or claim you are biased
#replyguys
@sbarolo and @shrewshrew (on twitter) have identified 9 types of replies you get.
I’ve enjoyed just posting the link to the twitter thread and pointing out what the replies are they are doing. This twitter link is glorious, it goes into what the types are.
I’ve noticed it’s not just Science/Technology/Engineering/Math people, but since they are a well educated and internet savvy group they are the best at formulating the words calculated to anger you and they all do this all the time.
I particularly like the distinction between the ones who mean well (ANNOYING but can be reasoned with), the ones who divert the argument to the one they want to have, and the ones who mean harm. I’ve noted that a lot of people who do this but mean well, when this is pointed out to them what they are doing, they will make the effort to stop doing it.
My methods for dealing with the ones who mean harm
I won’t engage them in their actual arguments as soon as they’ve reply-guy’d, or used ad hominem attacks – I have a strategy that works pretty well for me.
What I will do is point out in the thread to the OTHER PEOPLE in the thread what strategies they are doing.
- Don’t take these people seriously
- They cannot deal if you don’t engage in the arguments they want to have
- Never criticise them personally, never try and argue the point, instead point out the logical fallacies in HOW they are saying it. They won’t get it, but the rest of the audience will.
- Ignore them, talk to the other people on the thread ABOUT them, if you can privately convince people to also ignore them it works best
One day, impressed by the lyrical quality of the insults I was getting from one guy, I wrote a poem using his own words to me. Brendan the Broflake I called him – and posted the poem to him. He was enraged further, but since all he seemed to want to do was insult me from the get go, I found I really didn’t mind.
Use memes
Some logic i’ve seen used is just so dang bizarre, I am literally lost for words and I know I’m wasting my time. This is when I find a meme and post that. The benefit of these is everyone reading the post will get a laugh out of it other than Douche.
I particularly like using the “You’re argument is invalid” ones. Cuts to the chase.
A good approach if you’re not a poet: wowdog them. Take phrases and nonsense they’ve said, go to the wowdog meme generator and post them your results. In particular, take the accusations and insults they’ve hurled at you and post them.
Here are ones I’ve used:
Another one (in response to, oh I don’t know, they all blur after a while):
Flouncing
At some point, Douche will always threaten to flounce off because he is not being taken seriously (hint, he’s not).
Oh, if only he would, but he never does. He keeps coming back.
Flounce memes are awesome. AWESOME.
Arguing with the self-styled feminist Ally…
So this post was provoked by something that happened on a mutual friend’s post the other day. She is a strong feminist and also a Buddhist and has been working to fight the misogyny she’s found in the Buddhist community. She posts really good things and it gives me insight to a culture I’m not part of.
I’m going to post it all here in the form of a conversation. I have changed names.
Things to note:
- My profile pic at the time of this discussion was literally a photograph of me graduating with a Bachelor of Science So being lectured about something not being ‘scientific’ was super funny. CHECK IT OUT.
- My profile pic was from 23 years ago – I have found if I use a photo where I am younger, the patronising is much worse, from both women and men I don’t know. Ageism is a thing!
- Notice I never mention the topic of the post and I am constantly accused of doing that. My argument was with his methodology of arguing – and he NEVER understood that.
- Try and debunk what he’s doing….
*****
So – My friend posted a link to this quite, about Freud.
ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly: “This would certainly require more sources and evidence to back this claim up. A quote of a quote from a third-party reporting which is not backed up by original source material (like, actual scientific discourse, at that time mostly in the form of letters between Freud and his contemporaries, which would be the likeliest form of source material available) does not constitute scientific evidence on a level required to rewrite a whole chapter of scientific history, in this case particular of the field of psychology; even though Freud has fallen out of favor in the field and his methodology is rarely practised today, he has not formally been repudiated. This is not saying anythig about the matter at hand, which would certainly be scandalous _if_ proven historically correct. If it is not, this must be regarded as an unfounded claim, and sadly, treated as opinion rather than established fact, rendering it useless in the discourse about equality in our society.
It’s pretty well known that this occurred. Freud first believed his female patients, but then changed his mind in pursuit of “legitimizing” psychiatry/ psychoanalysis as a scientific field https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freud%27s_seduction_theory Freud’s seduction theory – Wikipedia”
MyBuddhist friend : “ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly:, its also well known that some of Freud’s own male students molested their clients and he covered that up too. Hysteria. Sigh. Part if the long history of men abusing women and then blaming them for it.”
Me: “Also this: https://www.quora.com/What-is-sealioning”
MyBuddhist friend: “Avril, this is exactly what I have been experiencing! Thank you!!! Where did u learn this stuff?”
ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly: “I’m not “sealioning” here, I want accuracy and established fact presented in such a grave accusation. There are various different accounts, each implying a different history on how Freud arrived at the Oedipus complex theory; none of which, at least those I have seen up to date, provide the proof required for scientific rigor.”
ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly:” “Scientific rigor” being the main point here. Women, and men, for that matter, can take my sympathy for their respective causes for granted, and I consider myself an ally for everyone in want of a world of equality. I also believe that it is hurtful fur any cause to argue with unbacked claims and opinion rather than fact; in short, I want you guys to succeed in your quest for a more just world where women across the board are treated as equals in every respect, but I would hate for you to lose because of weak arguments that can be put in doubt. That’s why I tend to challenge such claims, to see if they stand up to the test, not to discredit the cause in which they are brought forward.”
Me: “MyBuddhist friend The best resource i’ve found is here https://twitter.com/sbarolo/status/1036685010869407744Scott Barolo on Twitter”
Me: “So succinct. ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly: you should also look at tone policing, as your second reply there does 100% that.
Also “the prestige”. ”
MyBuddhist friend: “Avril, this is awesome! Thanks”
Me: “MyBuddhistFriend glad to help! It was written for women in STEM but it’s applicable pretty much everywhere.”
MyBuddhistFriend “Avril, STEM?”
ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly: “The sad fact is that I cannot say anything “right” without being squandered just for the fact that I am a man saying these things, as that somehow makes me totally unqualified to seriously being on your side. Sealioning, tonal policing, … The list of terms applied can only grow as time progresses.
Do you see that you are employing the very tactics you are accusing me of? Do you also see that I am pointing out methodical flaws and neither arguing the cause, not the people involved? Please, don’t be so quick in pointing fingers, pointing a finger at somebody means four others are pointing back at oneself.”
Me: “MyBuddhistFriend Science, technology, engineering and mathematics.”
Me: “ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly, I’m not sure if you’re being deliberately funny?”
ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly: “Avril I find nothing funny in all of this, I can assure you.”
Me: “cool”
MyBuddhistFriend “ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly: Im ok with your saying we need rigor. But a woman just supplied you with an article and you have not responded. What I do find concerning is that you have not actually engaged with what we are saying here. You have not engaged with the fact we are facing a lot of violence and oppression. You have just minimised it and said our approach doesn’t work. You have not empathized at all and u r now taking up quite a bit of space here making it about yourself, which is something men do a lot. Make ur point and move on.I dont think your really reaching us here or learning anything.”
Me: “MyBuddhistFriend, i thought he might have looked at the post and decided to archetype all the #replyguys for a joke but seems i was wrong.”
ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly: “For what it’s worth, I think I made my compassion pretty clear above. Where exactly am I minimising the matter at hand when I explicitly critisize the method of argument? That has nothing to do with the established facts, which are true, women are facing a lot of things in life they definitely should not be facing, some men are raping assholes, some men are patronizing assholes; mixing up these things is a nice rhetoric approach, but predictable. You seem to make the same mistake a lot of men make when engaging in a discussion with women; I don’t blame you for it, but the male psyche, due to culture, upbringing and archaic ingrained physical differences, works a bit differently than the kind of thought process a woman is used to; failure to understand this difference is making it quite hard to communicate ideas and concepts that translate well.
Let me apply this to the way this discussion has progressed so far to illustrate this very key problem here:
– I have solely concentrated on the question of proof of claim in the beginning. I study psychology, and the history of psychology, including Freudian psychology, is a topic I am therefore pretty familiar with. I have read a lot of material about that. You cannot know that without me telling you, but I can assure you that the matter is not as obvious and undisputed as you (esp. Avril) claim it to be. To make this complete, I study psychology in addition to previously having studied computer science and at this time, continue to further study computer science; I do have the basis to claim familiarity with the subject of Freud and with scientific methodology.
– After that, I have engaged in a meta-discussion about the method of argumentation, again, coming from a scientific background where logic and proof are a rigid necessity.
– At no point in time have I mixed up the female cause with this pretty single.minded concentration in convincing you that the way you have argued your way all over the place is methodically wrong and hurting your argument, and thus your cause.
– I have not yet looked into the twitter reference you posted, but come one, let’s face it, just because someone posted something on twitter… not so convincing anyway.
Would any part of this conversation change for me if you were men engaged in this discussion instead of the women you are? Nope, not substantially; probably the tone I’d be facing would be a bit rougher and the discussion would be focused more onto one deep subject and not as broad as you try to make it, but other than that, nope.”
ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly:”Sorry, this has become a bit lengthy.”
Me: “you don’t even see the irony do you”
ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly: “Oh, I do – you on the other hand seem to blissfully ignorant of your own application of the very same principles. I hope I have demonstrated that at the very least I am critical of myself and I have gone out of my way to explain myself and the background of the thought process behind it. In other words, what more must I do to meet you halfway in this?”
Me: “oh my wordy.”
ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly:“As wordy as necessary to explain myself unmistakably. I like precision. And I think I am talking to a wall here. Unless you would like to continue to accuse me of various things, which you are welcome to if it pleases you, I have a pretty thick skin and can take it, I will rest my case now, so to speak. I don’t think I can expect a fruitful exchange, which is a pity.
Edit/note: I put it this bluntly to give you a “male” answer. Why? Because equality means equal opportunity, not equal outcome, and thus I will meet you on my terms, just as you will meet me on yours. If both of us are unwilling to meet halfway, well, everything above is a pretty good example on how that is gonna play out.”
ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly: ”
Oh, btw, to adress your accusation of not having read the wikipedia article you posted earlier… The stated theory that Freud abandoned his theory under pressure of colleagues under heavy criticism is nowhere to be found there. We can all agree that Freud ‘s work can hardly be called scientifically sound, which is why it is only marginally present today in the field. We can also agree that Freud’s own hesitation to label males as “perverts” is a pretty shady excuse for abandoning his previous position. We can also agree that his work was at first largely ignored by his fellows at the time – psychology at this point was still at its infancy as a field, and there was a rivalry between Wundt’s predominant school of thought as psychology as an extension of natural sciences with empirically provable evidence and experiments using apparatuses inspired by those used in physics at its core, and the Freudian tradition which disregarded the empirical approach almost completely, which is absolutely astounding if you realize that Freud was not even a studied psychologist, but a physician. Even more astounding is that most of his work was developed in concert with his daughter. You can say a lot of things about the man, but to assert that he caved in under pressure is not supported by facts; his wild ideas are his and his daughter’s, and the man really never cared much about his reputation among his contemporaries; if he did, the whole field of psychoanalysis would not have existed at all, as it was met with criticism right from the first published papers.”
ManWhoThinksHeIsAlly: “Didn’t want to let the accusation stand unanswered, and now I’ll be silent.”
*********
So, readers. You see a man exposing himself for what he is, and this is ONE OF MANY of this sort of interaction I have had, you can have them every day if you wanted to be bothered, usually I don’t.
He was not silent; he went in on the attack on other posts of hers and had a bunch of very similar interactions with her other friends – and was soon blocked from commenting on her profile.