NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed that posters often ignore the content of a first post and just try to put the OP in a very vague category and then argue against the most extreme view that fits into that category?

For example, there's a thread where someone said it was hypocritical that there were muslims responding with violence out of anger that they had been accused of being violent.

Instead of replying something like "yes, those people were being hypocritical" (or whatever), they simply assumed he was making a bigoted attack against muslims in general and argued against the supposed generalisation.


This kind of "dismissal by categorisation" happens a lot, particularly with the American "liberal", "conservative", "Democrat", "Republican" categories. For example, "hey, that suggestion is something I'd categorise as 'liberal', therefore I will dismiss it automatically, instead of judging it on its own merit".

I'm not having a go at NS General in particular - I'm sure many other forums are much worse.

Lots of people jump straight to the last page and just try and join in. Doesn't always work though.

Instead of replying something like "yes, those people were being hypocritical" (or whatever), they simply assumed he was making a bigoted attack against muslims in general and argued against the supposed generalisation.
If you think that's not what's happening in OPs like that then I would say it was more your own inability to read between the lines.

How long have you been on the forum? Now, while I'm willing to admit that what you say happens unwarranted quite often, we do have a few people that are notorious about making such statements only to underline their bigoted agendas.

You are obviously an anti NSer, how dare you generalize against us. You are not worth the debate, I shall dismiss your view.

If you think that's not what's happening in OPs like that then I would say it was more your own inability to read between the lines.

however, it does happen so often that peole are so used to reading between the lines that they don't read what is posted and only go for what they THINK the OP is trying to say.

In other words. people consentrate soo much between the lines that they don't see the lines.

You are obviously an anti NSer, how dare you generalize against us. You are not worth the debate, I shall dismiss your view.

Maybe all he reads are threads by Deep Kimchi or OceanDrive and then he generalizes about them all. ;)

I agree absolutely -- illiteracy is a terrible problem in our country today. I suggest you get your illiterate friend to some free reading classes, and hopefully he'll gain some experience and the teasing at school will stop. Good luck. [/sarcasm]

however, it does happen so often that peole are so used to reading between the lines that they don't read what is posted and only go for what they THINK the OP is trying to say.

In other words. people consentrate soo much between the lines that they don't see the lines.
:p

This could get complicated.

It's true that there are often cases where people will argue what they want to argue. Having said that, opinions don't form in a vacuum; in the case cited, it's not unreasonable to point out that there is a world of difference between 'three Muslims in Somalia' and just 'Muslims'.

You should have been here a month or so ago when Jolt's system problems were shuffling non-OP posts into the top position. That really messed with people's minds.

I've noticed that posters often ignore the content of a first post and just try to put the OP in a very vague category and then argue against the most extreme view that fits into that category?

For example, there's a thread where someone said it was hypocritical that there were muslims responding with violence out of anger that they had been accused of being violent.

Instead of replying something like "yes, those people were being hypocritical" (or whatever), they simply assumed he was making a bigoted attack against muslims in general and argued against the supposed generalisation.


This kind of "dismissal by categorisation" happens a lot, particularly with the American "liberal", "conservative", "Democrat", "Republican" categories. For example, "hey, that suggestion is something I'd categorise as 'liberal', therefore I will dismiss it automatically, instead of judging it on its own merit".

I'm not having a go at NS General in particular - I'm sure many other forums are much worse.

Are they unable or unwilling? You probably mean unwilling, but...

If you think that's not what's happening in OPs like that then I would say it was more your own inability to read between the lines.

"Read between the lines"? You mean "make up stuff that's easy to argue against".

How long have you been on the forum? Now, while I'm willing to admit that what you say happens unwarranted quite often, we do have a few people that are notorious about making such statements only to underline their bigoted agendas.

Nonetheless, it's a logical fallacy to dismiss a statement on the basis of who said it. In fact, that's closely related to what I was talking about in the OP.

Are they unable or unwilling? You probably mean unwilling, but...

As likely as not they are both able and willing to read. However my theory on this posting style is that that many of those who practice it have a very narrow viewpoint which they trust and believe in. More to the point their viewpoint feels comfortable and consistent and as safe as a security blanket fresh out of the dryer to them. Of course they support and defend viewpoint that makes them feel safe against the nasty ravages of those who are against it. Nobody wants to feel cold and unsure or have their security blanket taken away.

My theory of why these posters tend to steer topics to the old same grooves is once again that the viewpoint is comfortable to them rather than that they are illiterate. When a guy has a very narrow viewpoint which he has unwavering faith in he risks mental unease and broken faith every time he questions the validity of his view. If he stays to those arguments he is familiar with then he is safe from the angst of reconsidering his viewpoint. If however the discussion takes an unexpected turn he is at risk of the discomfort of a changing viewpoint.

On the plus side I also think that almost all of this style of posting can be chalked up to inexperience and will disappear with time. Before it disappears a young poster needs to somehow blindly lurch onto the reality that respectfully considering opposing viewpoints is not merely polite it is also in his own interest to do so.After he grudgingly concedes that considering and even adopting parts of other views wont immediately kill him with angst and despair he will start advancing quickly from rote memorisation and parrotting others ideas/ideals to the astonishing new world of free will and critical thought.

:p

This could get complicated.

It's true that there are often cases where people will argue what they want to argue. Having said that, opinions don't form in a vacuum; in the case cited, it's not unreasonable to point out that there is a world of difference between 'three Muslims in Somalia' and just 'Muslims'.

true, but also in the case cited, you have churches being firebomed, riots as well as demonstrations, and some deaths occured... more than just three (or a handfull) of muslims.

now it has also been notied that the response to the Pope's message was also less than the Danish newspaper. meaning that more Mulims are not flying into murderous rages at any exscuse.

so instead of trying to say what you think the op is saying... try and confirm it first. some do get the OP of any thread to admit they are painting all memebers with the wide brush, others say no, they do mean the fringe/extreme/lunatic groups.