this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
747 points (96.3% liked)

Comic Strips

12569 readers
3882 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
747
Sealioning (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by ahlooolahhh@lemmy.world to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The insults never add anything useful to arguments and still appeal to the same basic things as insults alone, even if they are accompanied by logically sound arguments. And while they don't logically weaken a position, they can emotionally weaken it for those who recognize frustration reactions as a sign of weakness.

Rage and anger might feel powerful, but they actually betray a sense of a lack of control. Trolls take advantage of this because it's a sign they are getting to you. Plus it's rare that people respond to insults by agreeing with the one who insulted them and the times when they do usually involve an appeal to authority (where the insulter has authority to back up their position and challenging them can have consequences).

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 8 months ago

If you're measuring argument "strength" logically, the first paragraph is false; and if you're doing it rhetorically, it's misleading.

On logical grounds, insults neither add nor subtract appeal to the argument. That can be seen in the example: at the core, the argument in the bottom left could be rephrased to remove the insult, and it would still convey the same reasoning. Emotional factors shouldn't be considered on first place..

And, on rhetorical grounds, insults can weaken or strengthen a position depending on the claim, context, and audience. (A good example of that would be the old "fuck off Nazi".)

for those who recognize frustration reactions as a sign of weakness. [plus the second paragraph]

This is an audience matter, so it applies to the rhetorical strength of the argument, not the logical one: I don't argument for the sake of assumers, and claims to recognise frustration out of how others convey an argument is assumer tier irrationality. As such, even if insults would weaken the argument for them, I don't care.

In fact, they're perhaps the major reason why I personally would recur to insults - to discourage their participation, since assumers are as much of a burden as sea lions (for roughly the same reasons).

If, however, you do argument for the benefit of this sort of trashy individual, be aware that even the assumers might react positively towards insults against a third party. Some will make shit up that you're "weak" and "frustrated"; some, that you're "strong" and "brave". It'll depend on the general acceptability of the claim that you're making on first place.