My rules for arguing
Since I’ve been in a few digital fights lately . . .
If you disagree with me and you choose to pick a fight in a public digital space (a social network or my blog, for example), I will respond based on logic, data, and examples. I will not bring your character into it.
If I choose to take issue with something you’ve done in public, the same rules apply.
If you disagree with me and you choose to pick a fight in a private digital space (email, direct messages), I will respond based on logic, data, and examples. I will not bring your character into it. And I will not make it public. That’s your decision. You can be fuming mad at me in private, or in public, it’s up to you.
If you are a client, I’ll argue based on my principles. I will do what I can to serve your needs within the limits of professional ethics. If you go beyond those limits, I can’t help you. And no one will know about our disagreements unless you choose to make them public, because client interactions are confidential.
My disagreement with people in my family are none of your business, but in case you care, these same principles apply. It’s always private. The only difference is that sometimes feeling are what we talk about, and there’s a little gentle and loving sarcasm coming from both sides that keeps us all humble (including me). That’s how I do it; you should do it your own way.
In any of these settings, I’ll defend my perspective firmly, and if you show me I’m wrong, I’ll change my mind quickly. That happens all the time. People who don’t learn from their mistakes stay just as stupid as they get older, which is pointless.
The wrong way
I’m not claiming my rules are the only rules that make sense. But I do know what the wrong way to argue is.
It’s attacking people’s appearance, personal qualities, or character, in public or in private.
It not just that it’s not fair to the people. It’s that it only feels good for a moment, and then feels bad later. It’s that it never changes anyone’s mind. It generates emotional backlash, not insights. Ad hominem attacks appeal to the reptile part of one’s brain; haven’t we gotten beyond that?
That’s how I see it. If you disagree, I look forward to our argument.
Inquiring minds would welcome sanitized examples!
Sorry to miss out on an argument with you.
I agree wholeheartedly with your method. I make a sincere effort to stick to my principles and let others stick to theirs. And avoid those who feed off of fight-picking, just for the sake of fight-picking (as some weird way to prove superiority?). If I am reduced to labeling an “opponent” with disparaging names, that says much more about who and what I am than it does about the other person, and just proves that I have nothing to back up my argument, such as it is.
I hope that posts like yours today influence others, even in a small way, to realize and accept that each of us has a right to our own opinions and beliefs, and that just because you think one way and I think another way, we are not obligated to force our ways upon each other. I learn far more from people with different ways of seeing the world than from those who think in ways similar to me.
If it’s a rude comment on something I’ve posted, I don’t hesitate to delete it. Second time may earn a block.
If an argument turns into personal attacks, I simply stop there. Once it is made personal, it is made clear that we are done and nothing at all will restart the conversation aside from an apology as public as the personal attack.