Universe Tests...

So I wrote about the What if I'm wrong? approach to arguing online last week and then this week I've been tested over and over to try and see that through. 

Mostly I've been walking away from arguments because...well...I'm not wrong. 

And I know, I know, that's totally against what I was talking about, but I'm going to give you frameworks so you can see what I mean.

Two different times I've stayed out of arguments online because the basic premise is your facts are wrong because the sources you are using don't agree with me.  Ummm...well...

One was around politics. And I've seen it a few times. It's about the non-existent voter fraud. The argument is that there was massive fraud and the way you can tell is by the lack of proof of voter fraud. What? You have to do the head shake on that. Instead of the lack of proof of voter fraud showing that there wasn't voter fraud they have decided that actually shows MORE fraud. I guess if there had been no fraud the proof of the fraud would be really clear? It just doesn't make any sense. But they say it like it's a deep and solid revelation. Like it's a mic drop moment. The voter fraud was so rampant that they even covered up the evidence of the fraud. BOOM! See?

You cannot argue with that. I learned that lesson arguing with anti-vaxxers. No matter what you would show them they used it as proof of their argument. The lack of proof was just proof of a vast conspiracy. 

So instead of saying, well what if I'm wrong and coming at the argument trying to understand how the lack of proof means that something happened instead of a lack of proof showing that nothing happened I walked away.

The second is the same sort of thing. A friend has been researching and learning about a subject. And twice people have told her that the research she is doing isn't good because her sources aren't telling her the opposite of what she is learning about. That the only way to prove something isn't biased is if it gives a positive review of something that is clearly negative. We've both-siderismed our way into this sort of nonsense. That somehow we must always include both sides of an argument even if it's not appropriate. It would be like saying that the report you just read that throwing a plugged in toaster into a full bathtub is dangerous ISN'T valid and is clearly biased because it didn't mention the times you could throw a plugged in toaster into a full bathtub and be fine.

Now I will grant that what she is studying has two sides. But she already knows one side, and is learning about the other. And the side she knows about didn't teach her anything about what she is learning either. But somehow that's not an issue. The only issue is that her new studies aren't parroting the old lessons. Well, of course they aren't. That's not what they are teaching. 

So instead of saying, what if I'm wrong and actually the only way to learn something new is to say that the thing you already know is the right thing I've walked away. 

Because I'm not wrong. It's a nonsense argument. 

I've also had to walk away on two different arguments where there was no real chance for me to say what if I'm wrong because there was no actual real attempt at a valid argument made. Instead of explaining why they believed what they did they retreated into "that's just my opinion and I get to have that." Well, yeah, you do. Nobody is saying you don't. But why do you think that? Why do you believe that to be true? I've told you why I disagree. Not just I DISAGREE in all caps so you really understand that I disagree, but what specifically I think about that issue so you can see WHY I disagree. Now your turn...but no. No explanation, just IT'S MY RIGHT TO DISAGREE! Okay, sure. Nice chat. 

I have talked before about growing up the black sheep in my family. Not believing what everyone else did. And how that actually helped me define what I believe, and why, and how to talk about it. I think if you can't defend what you believe there is a good chance you don't actually understand why you believe what you do. You are just parroting talking points, or channeling old patterns someone else has given you. Until you understand what it is you believe, why you believe that, and you can explain it to someone else I think you don't really know what you believe. 

What if I'm wrong? Well, you are going to have to give me a reason to think I might be. And just posting in all caps that you have a right to your feels isn't that. 

So I walk away. 

I see you, Universe, showing me the what if I'm wrong part about my what if I'm wrong take on arguing. Well played. 

(also quick update on the sleep program, I decided to not do it. I can always go back to it sometime if I change my mind but I don't think it's healthy for me to focus so much on NOT sleeping)