WWAD*

*What Would Aristotle Do?

You know the old saying: Arguing with a(n) [fill in your own blank here: idiot, narcissist, conservative, racist, etc.] is like playing chess with a pigeon. It’ll just knock over all the pieces, sh*t on the board, and strut around like it won anyway. This is an excellent description of what happens when you try to argue with someone on social media. Such endeavors are obviously futile, so I wonder why anyone would do it. More specifically, I wonder why so many otherwise sane individuals do it. Okay, you caught me. I have to wonder why I sometimes get sucked into a, ahem, shall we say, difference of opinion, on social media. Even though I tell myself not to time after time because, as previously stated, the practice is futile. But arguing of any sort shouldn’t be futile. Argument depends on logic, right? A good argument is logical, well thought-out, fair, and devoid of fallacies, right? You probably are beginning to see my problem. This might describe a formal debate, but it bears little resemblance to anything anyone has ever seen on Facebook. Curses on philosophy classes for all time!

All conscientious students of language and philosophy are schooled in both the makings of a successful argument and the red flags to look out for when having an argument. Classical debate teaches us about classical logical fallacies, those purposeful, misleading tactics used unfairly to win an argument. Aristotle wrote On Sophistical Refutations in approximately 350 BC. This work is considered to be the first text to systematically discuss deductive reasoning and potential fallacies of deductive reasoning. Over the subsequent centuries, the original treatise has been discussed, refined, revised, and expanded. It has not, however, been refuted. Aristotle got it right. He was a pretty smart guy. Probably too smart to get involved in a futile argument.

I propose that, by nature, an internet argument (think Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc.) is illogical. Rather than being two-sided, a give-and-take, it is two (or more) one-sided arguments (maybe “declarations” would be a better word). It’s the equivalent of babies being set up on a play date while everyone knows they’re not “playing” with each other so much as they’re two individuals playing alone. There just happens to be a similarly-aged person in the room or playpen with them.

Back before the Common Era, Aristotle set out some fallacies to look out for in a debate. These are, in some ways, like spitting on the ball in baseball or travelling in basketball. It might get you the advantage, but, if caught, you’re out. To this day, these fallacies are things to look out for in an argument. They are cheats. They are dirty fighting. But they can also be subtle and often overlooked. They can be hurtful. They can win a battle. But we should never lose touch with the fact that they are cheats. A “discussion” on, say, Facebook, is usually and by nature dishonest. In most cases, there is no actual discussion involved. There is no give and take. There is only give and give. This is my idea and I am right, and I will keep driving home my point until you get tired and go away. No! This is MY idea and I’M right and I’LL keep driving home MY point until YOU get tired and go away. And that’s usually how Facebook arguments end. No one wins. No one loses. Someone gets tired and goes home. The other person gloats about winning.

A discussion of a few of these more common fallacies, ones that are easily recognized, follows. There are many others of course.

One of the most common and popular argument cheats is the one called in Latin Ad Hominem, which translates as attacking the person. Rather than maturely arguing the point, the cheater attacks the person. A highly exaggerated example might be something like, “[I can’t argue the point, so I’m gonna just say] oh, she’s such a nasty woman.” Or if you wear a mask [because you are considerate of others during a pandemic of an airborne virus], it’s obvious that you are a mindless, frightened sheep.” Any time one arguer calls the other a name or attributes a negative personality trait, rather than directly addressing the argument, that is an ad hominem argument. This is more than a mere insult; it implies that BECAUSE of this trait, the one who possesses it cannot possibly be right. Therefore, NOT possessing the trait (the one making the insult) MUST be right. End of story. It is a fallacy because, among other things, it can disarm the victim of the insult into a losing position that has nothing to do with the original point or purpose of the argument. Self-defense is a natural response. This is a social media favorite. It’s very easy to hurl personal insults from the anonymous safety of one’s computer screen.

One example of an Ad Hominem “argument” that I recently observed was from a man on a Facebook group site. This man is labelled a “Conversation Starter,” which I’ve come to understand merely means that he posts a lot. This guy, as it happens, posts so much that the group administrator has asked him to dial it back a bit. Some of his postings are benign—forwards of news stories, for example. Others are meant to provoke. Of course I can’t name him, so I’ll call him “Derwin.” Derwin is not from the US or a resident of the US but seems quite taken with the recent resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement. To be more specific, Derwin is apparently quite against the movement. Again, this alone is odd because it really has no effect on him that I can see, at least from what he posts. Derwin has lately taken it upon himself to post anything he can find that shows African Americans who are against the movement or against the current protests. He seems to want to prove that anyone supporting BLM is wrong because, look, here’s a real live Black person who says so. Of course, you can find anything you want on the internet, so, sure, he can find Candace Owens, for example, spouting off on how George Floyd was no martyr. When I simply pointed out to Derwin that Ms. Owens’s stance that George Floyd doesn’t deserve to be the symbol against police brutality because he was engaged in activity other than going to choir practice when he was detained and subsequently killed was faulty and illogical, Derwin did not argue my point, and it’s very important to keep remembering that. He did not defend the stance implying that Mr. Floyd pretty much caused his own murder. He didn’t even try to make that point. He merely accused me (in a very condescending manner) of not watching the entire video. See, what he did? He essentially called me basic and shallow. He implied that I was not very bright because I couldn’t possibly have seen the entire video and not agreed with him! Then he went away and moved on to some other posting.

Another internet favorite is the Straw Man argument where the arguer sets up a false opponent only to tear it down. Aha! Take THAT, point-that-was-never-made! The false opponent is often very easy to tear down because, well, it isn’t real. It has no substance because it never was an argument to begin with. And did I mention that it isn’t real? People who are pro- (individual and personal) choice want to kill all your babies! We must stop them! People who want to be treated equally by local businesses are trying to destroy your religious freedom! People who want to prevent other people from using assault weapons on children in schools want to take away your guns and leave you defenseless against the countless marauders in your suburban streets!

My favorite recent example of a Straw Man flouter is a person I fondly call “Black Hat A**h*le (BHA).” If you don’t know who this particular person is, I’m sure you know his type. Country accent that sounds exaggerated and drives home that he’s “one of us”. Black cowboy hat to add to the salt-of-the-earthy, one-of-youse vibe. Lots and lots of swearing throughout to make him seem and sound “real.” Last month, he went viral with a rant for the ages. It was all about Black Lives Matter merely being a front for looting and violence. He, of course “loves Black people,” (his words; and he has a lot of Black friends; also his words) but does not support the BLM movement because, you guessed it, but I’ll quote him anyway “ALL F*&CKING LIVES MATTER!” As part of the very long rant, he, at one point, went off on Colin Kaepernick, whom BHA called, “Colin Karpernick or whatever the f*ck his name is.” For now, I’ll ignore the tired trope of refusing to name people of color (hence, “boy” or “son”). I’ll ignore that he managed to segue from George Floyd and current protests because, well, who knows? In the Kaepernick part of the rant was the Straw Man argument: Kaepernick isn’t oppressed, so “what the f*ck does he have to protest about?” (in fact, you’ll be pleased to know that we learn later from BHA that no one in America is oppressed!). Kaepernick made 14 million dollars (according to BHA) and was a terrible player, so what does he have to disrespect our flag for?! Straw Man: Kaepernick protested because he’s oppressed, which, of course, was never the case. If anything, it was the opposite; Mr. Kaepernick was using his public position of privilege to call attention to the plight of others. Maybe this level of selflessness is conceptually difficult for BHA and his friends. By doing this, BHA conveniently surpasses or at least trivializes the whole point of Kaepernick’s protest as well as the current BLM protests. All while assuring his audience that he “loves Black people.”

BHA doesn’t stop there. He also flouts the “slippery slope” fallacy. You know this one well. Legalizing marijuana will obviously lead directly to a world of heroin addicts or, at the very least, lazy couch potatoes. Marriage equality will lead directly to bestiality, polygamy, and wild orgies in every home and on every street corner. While we’re at it, it will invalidate all current marriages. Wearing a mask to help lessen the impact of an airborne virus leads to succumbing to all government authority, which will obviously lead to the acceptance of tracker chips they’re going to inject along with the eventual vaccine. Slippery slope arguments can be exhausting, and maybe that’s the point. BHA points out to us during his rant that the BLM movement has become so widespread that it is creating unfounded suspicion of all police officers. While BHA is quick to point out he’s “no fan of police officers,” he also wants to make it clear that there’s no way that police in the US come after you if you’re innocent. It’s not like (his words, I swear) “they just go into some innocent person’s home and kill them!” Point one: this is a giant leap from the BLM protests of police brutality. Point two: Botham Jean and Breonna Taylor, among others, would disagree with BHA’s fundamental point. If they could.

Another one to watch out for on the internet involves false equivalencies. It’s sometimes called the “two wrongs make a right” fallacy. As is clear from its nickname, it’s the kind of thing we are taught not to do from a very early age. “I don’t care if your brother took the last piece of pizza! That’s not a good reason to set his hair on fire!” I had a recent experience with a flouter of this fallacy. Here’s the scene: a news story told of one of the numerous situations where a selfish, entitled, mouth breather (MB) was asked to put on a mask before entering a business establishment, in this case, a fast food restaurant. A young man, probably making minimum wage, was working at the establishment in order to save money for college. Said young man asked said mouth breather to put on a mask. MB said he didn’t have to because he had been issued an exemption. Young worker asked to see the exemption. MB pulls out a gun, points it at young worker, and says, “Here’s my exemption.” Wow, where to begin? Commenters reacted with the usual gamut of shock and anger at MB. How could he? Poor young worker! What has this country come to! One commenter, however, decided it was a good time to point out that it’s “illegal” to ask for someone’s medical exemptions. I confess I joined in the piling on. What the hell? Are you saying it’s okay to pull a gun on a young man for that? Are you saying you support the MB? Oh, no, not at all said the fallacy flouter! I’m saying they were BOTH wrong, so it’s all the same. Most of us told her she was a lost cause and not worth our time. She, of course, played the victim. After all, she was only trying to show there are two sides to the story. You know what? There are NOT always two sides to a story. Threatening lethal force is not “the same” as (correctly or incorrectly) asking for one’s credentials. To equate the two is a classic case of trying to cheat in an argument or trying to justify a stupid response by making a false equivalency.

Finally, we’ll look at the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy. Perpetrators of this cheat like to point out the ignorance or hypocrisy of others. So, instead of admitting wrong or even trying to defend their stance, they will point out others’ ignorance or wrongdoing. A popular name for this (and we’ve seen a LOT of it lately) is whataboutism? Accuse me of illegal use of my office to gain favors from foreign governments, will you? Aha! But what about that incident nine years ago for which there were four congressional hearings finding no wrongdoing on the part of my opponent! Huh? What about THAT?

There are so many examples of these people out there, but my most recent encounter was with a troll who likes to lurk on known liberal sites just to throw out his salvos. The scene: a known liberal celebrity who is very popular posted an article about racism. Several trolls came out from under their bridges as they are wont to do in these circumstances. You can count on them. I very innocently pointed out that I liked the celebrity very much but liked even more how he triggered the racist trolls. For some reason, this triggered one of the racist trolls. He spent the rest of the day (really) tagging me in memes pointing out that Lincoln was a Republican and that the first ten Black members of Congress were Republican. He made no claims. Just my name and memes. My interpretation was that he couldn’t defend himself, so just wanted to remind me of my American history, which pointed out MY ignorance and hypocrisy. Wink emoji here?

So, back to the original, titular question. What would Aristotle do regarding an argument on social media? Trick question. He never would engage to begin with, understanding, as we all should, that the practice is hollow, fruitless, senseless, unsatisfying and profitless. The only way to beat a cheater is by cheating. There is no “high road” on the internet. And around we go. Care to argue about it?