I had a discussion at work today about how I don’t think you can really ever EXPECT to convince another person by arguing with them. The most you can hope for is to implant the seeds of alternative theory into their heads so that if they ever come to question their own beliefs, yours might have sprouted into an interesting alternative.
The interesting this about this discussion is that during it I found out that the reason I hold that to be true is because of my sister. You can argue till your blue, hell, purple in the face and she will not budge. She will not even concede a point well made. I often wonder if she ever admits she was wrong quietly to herself afterward. But I doubt it. I mean, I love her, but I don’t know if she’s capable of that sort of introspection.
On a slightly similar note, it struck me recently (last night during an anxiety attack) that some people seem to feel that their entitled to co-op even the most carefully laid plans of someone else. To be vague: I was tentavily looking to this plan, that I wasn’t sure I’d be able to follow through on. (I am a follower of the grand tradition of coming up with awesome plans and then not implementing them. Ie. The Hamlet Syndrome). I thought, though, that I might actually be able to pull this one off. Then some perfect stranger came in (I didn’t know them at all) and started telling me to get a move on.
So that was ruined.
But back to the merits of arguing with people. I love debate, and it’s perhaps the best way to engage people who have not formed strong opinions or are otherwise apathetic. But is it really appropriate to constantly comment on someone else’s blog that they are wrong? Isn’t that a bit of an invasion on their right to have a place for their own musings? I’m thinking specifically here of Winnipeg Free Press columnist Lindor Reynold’s blog, in which one user, “Grumpy Old Man”, really lives up to his name and consistently personally puts down Reynold and others who agree with her. Not that I’m often one of them. I often take exeption to what she’s saying or how she’s saying it, but she’s the “Talk of the Town” lady, and so the column is often largely opinion-driven. Also, heated debate is all well and good, but at what point do you say “if you hate her so much, buddy, why do you spend your time reading and responding to her blog?” I guess this case is specific in a way, though, because it’s a news media blog and not her personal blog. But I’m still not sure that that means civility can’t apply.
I guess I’m just feeling today that some people are insensitive to the fact that it’s fairly easy to make people regret ever having opened their mouth to begin with. Or maybe it’s just me, often wary of getting involved, because of the way other people treat people who do.
