So you think they'd agree with your statement that -
> you don't give a shit what they're saying, you just want to shut them up and make yourself look stronger. The motives mirror the rhetorical techniques involved.
- is a fair characterisation of their own tactics???
> I've identified two strategies: attacks on arguments, and attacks on the people fielding them.
Have you though? Because people seem to sometimes not see the distinction as clearly as you. Have you ever encountered someone who took what you thought was an attack on their argument as a personal attack?
Isn't it possible that some arguments made by the "purity spiral" crowd are the former but you perceive them as the latter?
> You're retreating into subjectivity, relativity, and uncertainty, but I've been here all along.
For example, does accusing me of retreating fit into the attack on argument category, or the attack on people one?
I believe that the distinction is functionally useless because it is incredibly subjective in many contexts. No authority exists that can claim with certainty what side every argument sits on in that fairly limp dichotomy.
Okay then. We have arrived at something like the terminal state I earlier called "identifying subjective factors and agreeing to disagree", and there's nothing more to talk about. But I'll answer one of your earlier questions, since I think it's an interesting one:
> So you think they'd agree with your statement that - is a fair characterisation of their own tactics???
Frankly, yes. in a lot of cases, if they were really being truthful, I think they would. I say that because I have myself followed these impulses in the past, seeking to tear someone down and make them look like a fool (and myself reciprocally stronger) rather than attack whatever argument they were peddling. In my defense, I tend only to do this when my opponent has already stopped saying meaningful things (if they ever started in the first place) and started throwing slurs, but probably not always, especially in the past.
I'm not afraid of being honest, and I have the benefit of being old enough to be able to look back on past versions of myself and somewhat clearly see all the different ways I've been a total asshole to people, many of them total strangers. So I guess my theoretical jerk-revealing machine would have a threefold approach:
1. Add ten years to the subject's age. (filled with life experience and growth; not sure how that works, but this is a thought experiment so)
2. Induce an intense reflective/introspective episode in them.
3. Force them to be honest.
Some people probably just don't have it in 'em to grapple with this aspect of themselves even with the above help, but I expect more do than one might think.
Seriously, though, if you don't think the distinction between attacks on arguments and attacks on people is at all meaningful or useful, we're 100% done here. That last bit is a bonus; feel free to read it and take what you want from it, or not.
It isn't useful for setting some objective metric by which arguments can be judged because people commonly disagree on what category an argument falls into.
So you think they'd agree with your statement that -
> you don't give a shit what they're saying, you just want to shut them up and make yourself look stronger. The motives mirror the rhetorical techniques involved.
- is a fair characterisation of their own tactics???
> I've identified two strategies: attacks on arguments, and attacks on the people fielding them.
Have you though? Because people seem to sometimes not see the distinction as clearly as you. Have you ever encountered someone who took what you thought was an attack on their argument as a personal attack?
Isn't it possible that some arguments made by the "purity spiral" crowd are the former but you perceive them as the latter?
> You're retreating into subjectivity, relativity, and uncertainty, but I've been here all along.
For example, does accusing me of retreating fit into the attack on argument category, or the attack on people one?