Almost every forum argument since the old days of Usenet BBS?
Ok, seriously there are some very reasoned people in forums (others not so much) and there are some reoccurring arguments that I hear that makes me wish for a "Smack the Poster" Button. And since I'm an unbelievable narcissist I think that you guys would like to hear them.
Argument 1: "If you like x or think y than you are an idiot/know nothing about z/don't deserve to live."
My problem with this argument is that you've left no room for another person to exist. You've left no room for an actual discussion, just stated your opinion and insulated from anyone coming around with a dissenting opinion. This is bad form, and anti-intellectualism at it's worst. All opinions deserve discussion, but when you wall your opinion away you don't allow it to be challenged, or allow another, with probably a good point to take sway you or allow you to look at it from another side.
I saw this the most during the Great Mass Effect debate, where a person would say: "If anyone liked Mass Effect 3's ending, then their an idiot." It could very well be that a person is very intelligent and still connected with the ending of the trilogy. Or that that the Mass Effect ending really did suck, and that a very intelligent person just didn't see it that way. This doesn't make their opinion wrong, just that their opinion is at odds with yours, and by stating your opinion in such a matter-of-fact, way, you've left them with no room to stand in an argument.
Argument 2: "(Quote an argument) NO IT ISN'T, STOP SAYING THAT!!!!1!!!1!"
Same problem as above, really, except this is more of a Non-argument than anything. My friend has a six year old child that uses the same argument tactic, and I can't help but picture him when I see this argument. My problem with this argument is really that, what do I say if I disagree with it? Are we seriously going to go down the path of: "No it isn't" "Yes It Is" "No It Isn't"? Because honestly I can find much better things to do with my time.
Argument 3: "[Poster] Is just butthurt, because x, y, and z."
Ok, right here, that's when you shut me off. People who know me know that I'm not a big fan of the term "Dumbing Down," the reason of course is that every time I see it used, I can think of about twenty different arguments that would have made the point better. But I will take that argument a thousand time before I will actually give credit to the word "Butthurt." Mainly because with dumbing down, it at least implies a form of reasoning. You're meaning that they took away depth for the purpose of making it more accessible to Joe Sixpack. But with "Butthurt" the only reasoning I can see is to forgo the argument and instead attack the poster. There is a term for this form of argument in academia, we call it the "Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy." In this, I get the feeling that you have no REAL argument, so you have decided to attack the arguer with a conjecture that you have no real way of determining. Besides, it could very well be that the person is "butthurt" because of X,Y, and Z. That doesn't necessarily follow that he doesn't have a point, or that his argument doesn't have merit. The only effect is that the poster has to sit on a donut while typing his post.
Argument 4: "It's bad because it doesn't have X, Y, and Z (and you have to have X, Y, and Z to be good).
This is a complicated point, but something I think I can brief down. Mainly this comes up (In gaming forums, at least) where people will say "If it doesn't have good gameplay, than is sucks!" (sorry, I tried to write this in standard form, but my hands will strangle me, before allowing me to type suxors with 0's and 5's) My problem here is it assumes that all pieces of work are equal, and I don't think that's the case. For instance, I love me so Mass Effect (One and Two being some of my favorite games), but I will admit any day that the gameplay kind of sucks. The cover based shooting isn't very fluid, the use of powers is either too restrained, or too easy. And the binary moral choice system being tied to dialogue choices is probably the worst stumbles in the whole of moral choice systems. But that's not the reason I'm playing Mass Effect. I'm playing Mass Effect for it's engaging characters, moral dilemmas, deep world and well written dialogue. I'm not saying you couldn't like the gameplay, or that you HAVE to like Mass Effect, even with those perks. Just that maybe we can try to meet things on their own terms before boiling them down to nebulous ideas of what makes something good?
Argument 5: Taking the thing pointed out as a joke, and boiling it down to the crux of the argument.
Yeah... I kind of looking at the OP on this one (Sorry guy, don't mean to call you out). This seems to blatantly ignore that, especially in comedy, writers tend to bring out the point that is most succinct and most effective. Hell, in my online series (Mr. Pedantic Presents: Straight To Home, Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge), I'll often times use the same techniques, even though I know it has nothing to do with good story telling, just that it's funny to point out. This does not mean that this is the crux of their argument. I don't believe that Moviebob (in this case) thinks that J.J. Abrams films are bad because he uses lens flare. The point was just a fun visual joke, because he had an entire review to do and couldn't spend more time on deconstructing his problems with J.J. Abrams. Now there are plenty of reasons to hate J.J. Abrams as a director. He's generally lax on cohesive storytelling, relies too heavily on WTF moments in the middle of the story, is generally a flash-in-the-pan director, rarely do his characters resonate with any meaning, and when he does make an interesting narrative he tends to over-convoluted it to the point that there can be no real meaningful conclusion.
Now, there are plenty of reasons to LIKE J.J. Abrams as well. No matter what you can say of him as a storyteller, he really does have a passion for what he does and it shows. He does honestly try to connect with his audience and has a moderate respect for us and well as an intense respect for his talent. And his action direction is honestly spot on. He doesn't connect with me a lot (especially with Star Trek [2009], but I can respect him. My point is, that when you boil something down, (especially a hyperbolic joke) to the whole meaning of an argument its.... Well it's like saying "AHA! But you didn't mention this!" So self-satisfied that you got the point, while missing the point entirely.
Now there are a lot of other arguments that piss me right the fuck off, most of them dismissive or plain assumptive arguments, and I might touch on them later, but for now I think that anyone who made it this far, can get from what part of my increasingly demented mind I'm coming from. So, I'll leave with just the point, can we at least start giving our arguments and other people a little consideration before streamlining our thoughts into general assumptions? Can we have some decency to the other human beings out there? Or would that just make the internet explode?
