Communication is, by definition, the exchange of ideas between two or more people. This isn't exactly a news flash. However, communication requires that two or more people stay in the conversation. This is where the concept of anti-communication comes in.
At a given point in many conversations, someone will say something specifically designed to shut down communication, either because they never intended to communicate in the first place, or because their butthurt has grown to the point where it's larger than they are, and they can't communicate past it.
It is important to distinguish, however, something said as an attention-getter. Attention getters are an old, effective tool in speeches and writing. For example, starting a paragraph with "I am a complete dumbass" or even "You People are complete dumbasses" grabs peoples' attention right away.
On the other hand, saying in the middle of a post that "You People clearly aren't capable of understanding any of this", in one manner or another, shuts your message down entirely.
Also, appealing to authority is almost always a way to shut things down. The reason I stopped posting in Think For Yourself, Schmuck during the BIP days was that any disagreement with the echo chamber mentality resulted in having one or two knuckleheads scream "WAY TO EAT THE MENU" inappropriately. Likewise, being told that you must accept someone else's bigotry because of your own privilege has the same effect...And in both cases, it weakens the (very valid) concepts that are being misused.
The root of the matter is this: If your choice of wording or your butthurt has caused your message to fail to reach its intended target - intentionally or otherwise - then you have not engaged in communication, you have indulged in anti-communication. The failure of the idea to be transmitted and received is your failure, not the failure of those lousy ingrates that should "just listen to the message, not the way it was sent", which is, of course, patently ridiculous. The burden of communication is on the person trying to send the idea, not the people receiving it.
Okay for Now,
The Good Reverend Doktor.
The NEED was a master at this. Would shut down communication, then blame ME for not communicating.
:potd:
Excellent clarification of a somewhat wriggly concept.
You guys need to stop being interesting when I have things to do.
A++ WOULD READ AGAIN
AND, IN FACT, WILL.
This is a really good concept to see articulated. I don't think I've ever seen it put quite like that, but yes, yes, the shutting-down thing. Totally!
It's different from insulting as a point-maker or an attention-getter. I at times use a deliberate method of insulting people as an attention-getter, and it usually has about a 50% success rate... that's where I do to them exactly what they are doing to another person or group, wait for them to go full monkey, and then ask them if they can see what I mean about how much it's stupid and sucks. The desired outcome is that they will go sulk for a while and then realize that the thing that hurt their butt was an active demonstration of the thing that they were arguing was OK, draw themselves back up on two feet, and come back to rejoin the fray with their perspective changed.
Unfortunately, about half the time that doesn't happen and instead they carry their butthurt with them for life and hates Nigel for ever and ever.
Of course, sometimes I just plain think someone is shit and have no intention of engaging them in argument because I'm just amusing myself by making fun of them. I usually say so, though, to give them a chance to avoid engagement.
Not that they ever do. :lol:
Since anyone with enough sand in their nethers can keep up an argument no matter what, I had a brainsplooge about how the mechanism (if you will) of anti-communication seems to work.
An anti-communication statement is a way of giving yourself the last word, while simultaneously setting the conversation so far back that the other person simply gives up. If they persist, they have slog through a huge tangent to get back to the original point, or give up.
Appeal to authority forces the other person to either discuss the validity of your cited authority, discuss the validity of your citation itself (e.g. whether or not the authority actually supports your statement), or give up. Statements that attack the worthiness of the other person to even participate in the conversation have a similar function. The other person has to take time and energy to bring themselves back into the conversation.
So anti-communication can serve essentially three overarching purposes:
1) You're tired of talking to a dumbass and you'd rather just shut the discussion down than waste more of your time and energy on them.
2) Trolling.
3) You're putting on a show for people who already agree with you, reducing the other person to a symbol of "Them" while creating the impression of a win for the "Us." The only reason you'd do this, of course, is if you care more about validation with your tribe than you do about sharing your ideas with the other person.
A special case of #3 is when the person you're arguing with is also a member of your in-group, and you're trying to one-up them. They must either concede their point to preserve face, or risk scorn from the group.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 10, 2013, 07:00:12 AM
A++ WOULD READ AGAIN
AND, IN FACT, WILL.
This is a really good concept to see articulated. I don't think I've ever seen it put quite like that, but yes, yes, the shutting-down thing. Totally!
It's different from insulting as a point-maker or an attention-getter. I at times use a deliberate method of insulting people as an attention-getter, and it usually has about a 50% success rate... that's where I do to them exactly what they are doing to another person or group, wait for them to go full monkey, and then ask them if they can see what I mean about how much it's stupid and sucks. The desired outcome is that they will go sulk for a while and then realize that the thing that hurt their butt was an active demonstration of the thing that they were arguing was OK, draw themselves back up on two feet, and come back to rejoin the fray with their perspective changed.
Unfortunately, about half the time that doesn't happen and instead they carry their butthurt with them for life and hates Nigel for ever and ever.
Of course, sometimes I just plain think someone is shit and have no intention of engaging them in argument because I'm just amusing myself by making fun of them. I usually say so, though, to give them a chance to avoid engagement.
Not that they ever do. :lol:
I love you Nigel. I've said it before, but if it were scientifically possible to have your babies I'd totally reconsider being childfree by choice.
What Roger said, the burden is on us.
Of course sometimes you get a Teabagger or a Snakeman, in which case the latter few lines of THIS cover it:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 10, 2013, 07:00:12 AM
A++ WOULD READ AGAIN
AND, IN FACT, WILL.
This is a really good concept to see articulated. I don't think I've ever seen it put quite like that, but yes, yes, the shutting-down thing. Totally!
It's different from insulting as a point-maker or an attention-getter. I at times use a deliberate method of insulting people as an attention-getter, and it usually has about a 50% success rate... that's where I do to them exactly what they are doing to another person or group, wait for them to go full monkey, and then ask them if they can see what I mean about how much it's stupid and sucks. The desired outcome is that they will go sulk for a while and then realize that the thing that hurt their butt was an active demonstration of the thing that they were arguing was OK, draw themselves back up on two feet, and come back to rejoin the fray with their perspective changed.
Unfortunately, about half the time that doesn't happen and instead they carry their butthurt with them for life and hates Nigel for ever and ever.
Of course, sometimes I just plain think someone is shit and have no intention of engaging them in argument because I'm just amusing myself by making fun of them. I usually say so, though, to give them a chance to avoid engagement.
Not that they ever do. :lol:
I have nothing to add to this thread at present but HELL YES.
Aw thanks, guys! :)
Well, fuck. I didn't see this until now. I didn't mean you.
I wrote this thing on another forum, but I think it touches on the idea of communication and anti-communication within a protest setting: hxxps://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/words-words-words.106074/
Communicating is hard, and there's no guarantee it will pay off. When dealing with hostiles, people naturally gravitate towards anti-communication because it's easier and it makes them feel good.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 05:48:24 PM
The root of the matter is this: If your choice of wording or your butthurt has caused your message to fail to reach its intended target - intentionally or otherwise - then you have not engaged in communication, you have indulged in anti-communication. The failure of the idea to be transmitted and received is your failure, not the failure of those lousy ingrates that should "just listen to the message, not the way it was sent", which is, of course, patently ridiculous. The burden of communication is on the person trying to send the idea, not the people receiving it.
Okay for Now,
The Good Reverend Doktor.
Point taken. But still! People shouldn't be so quick to...never mind.
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
BUMP because this subject will never not be relevant
Very well said. Anyone with a point to make should make sure their rhetoric is sharp.
Quote from: Lord Azzandro The Flame on October 12, 2013, 01:15:16 AM
Very well said. Anyone with a point to make should make sure their rhetoric is sharp.
:|
Got a full day behind me, plus a little Crown and some pan toast.
Not sharp. :sad:
Somehow this makes me think simultaneously of Transactional Analysis and Orwell's essay "Politics And The English Language".
Something about communicating Adult <--> Adult and making the message clear as possible, I think.
OH OH OH SHIT
I posted this in the pics thread, but where it really belongs is here!
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/f26bb4150a13d2be11d80d85546c00ca/tumblr_mulbf77bF91s71q1zo1_r1_1280.png)
Resize and emote? :lol: