Tip #29 Not Every Win is a Win
Aug. 9th, 2015 01:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastOn a recent Youtube Live event, BiblethumpingWingNut was taken to task for repeatedly interrupting an atheist caller. His defense was as follows.
"OK people - by what standard was it wrong for me to interrupt the guests on my hangout? I wanted to. It's my hangout & by my moral standard it's ok to do so. According to +Skylar Fiction it is a moral truth that I can interrupt him."
This is a common tactic. And, I can readily see how it can feel like a win. It puts an atheist on the defensive.
Another common tactic is to respond to matters of morality by bringing up abortion. It's been used when I took issue with treating the 10th Plague as a good thing.
It's another one that can easily feel like a win. Both of these can easily feel like wins, as they put the non-believer and/or pro-choice person in the position of having to satisfy your own morality. In terms of verbal warfare, that's a good tactic.
Remember back when I said this isn't a war?
There are two problems with seeking the win before all else.
No, these kinds of tactical defeats aren't really wins. In terms of convincing the non-convinced, it does nothing, because the only "win" is in your opponent not satisfying you. It says nothing on whether or not they are satisfied with their own position.
More importantly, with these kinds of tactics don't address anything. Counter-attacking someone else's morality doesn't show that you didn't actually do something wrong, when accused or criticized. It just shows that winning is more important to you than treating people with respect, speaking the truth, etc.
To repeat, this is not a war, a game, or even a formal debate. This is a conversation. You're not trying to win a contest, but convince people. Verbal warfare wins will turn out to be, in terms of convincing anybody of the truth of your position, losses.
"OK people - by what standard was it wrong for me to interrupt the guests on my hangout? I wanted to. It's my hangout & by my moral standard it's ok to do so. According to +Skylar Fiction it is a moral truth that I can interrupt him."
This is a common tactic. And, I can readily see how it can feel like a win. It puts an atheist on the defensive.
Another common tactic is to respond to matters of morality by bringing up abortion. It's been used when I took issue with treating the 10th Plague as a good thing.
It's another one that can easily feel like a win. Both of these can easily feel like wins, as they put the non-believer and/or pro-choice person in the position of having to satisfy your own morality. In terms of verbal warfare, that's a good tactic.
Remember back when I said this isn't a war?
There are two problems with seeking the win before all else.
No, these kinds of tactical defeats aren't really wins. In terms of convincing the non-convinced, it does nothing, because the only "win" is in your opponent not satisfying you. It says nothing on whether or not they are satisfied with their own position.
More importantly, with these kinds of tactics don't address anything. Counter-attacking someone else's morality doesn't show that you didn't actually do something wrong, when accused or criticized. It just shows that winning is more important to you than treating people with respect, speaking the truth, etc.
To repeat, this is not a war, a game, or even a formal debate. This is a conversation. You're not trying to win a contest, but convince people. Verbal warfare wins will turn out to be, in terms of convincing anybody of the truth of your position, losses.
