How to Tell If You're Arguing With an Idiot

We've all been in these situations, and it's pretty nasty. So here are some pointers that should help you in deciding when to run away. Not an exhaustive list by any means, but should give you a good idea of what to look for.


1) Emotional Instability

Responding with too many LOLs, hmmmphs, huh!, doh!, LMAOs and expletives. They can't process logic and reasoning. Their brain simply rejects rationale, and finds solace in these outbursts.    

Example - Genetic research and biological studies have shown that we are only a pair of chromosomes away from the big apes. Response - LMAO..ROFL!!, I can't help you if you believe that.

2) Rogue-like Behaviour

If you corner them with solid evidence/logic on one topic, they start talking about something else, enter hibernation mode or simply shut down.

Example - Research/studies show that African Americans and Mexicans commit most crimes in the US, it needs to be addressed. Response: You're a racist and Sikander ne Porus se ki thi ladaayi! and now I'm off to sleep. (Okay, bad example, but you get the picture)

3) Comprehension Disorder

This is a pretty severe disability; they can't tell an analogy from a direct comparison just as they cannot tell their head from their posterior.

Example - The Muhammad Ali vs Joe Frazier Fight of the Century was like watching a Pitbull vs Wolf fight. Response: Huh! You’re a bigot, did you just call liberal African Americans dogs?

4) Logical Fallacies (This is THE most important, so I'll be thorough with it)

A.  Ad hominem - Attacking the other person rather than countering the claims or conclusions.   

Example - There is substantial evidence that divorce/dowry/violence laws are gender biased and susceptible to misuse. Response: You're just a misogynistic pig who hates women.    

B. Ad ignorantiam - They just love this. They know it is right simply because you can't prove it is wrong.

Example - Watch any religious fanatic go on and on about "intelligent design" and what not.                                                         

C. Association/Causation/Coincidence/Effect – They get these jumbled up and can't differentiate between them. Reversal of cause and effect..Treating coincidence as a predetermined effect...Intentionally reducing a wide set of possibilities to only one or two.

Example - Watch any gender ideologue go on and on about Patriarchy and how anything and everything that happens in the world is a carefully thought out evil scheme.

D. Authority - Speaking from authority is a frequently used tactic. Using “he said so/she said so” as the base of an argument.

Example - Mrs. X said so in this article, I'm saying the same, therefore I'm right and you're wrong. Mr. Y said the same thing in an interview, therefore I'm right and you're wrong.

E. Analogical Fail - Another thing they cannot seem to resist. They have this habit of comparing people, things or situations which are not analogous at all. Even if by a stroke of luck they do find something analogous, it will almost always be inconsequential to the argument.

 F.  Broad Strokes - A very important tool in the hands of religion apologists. Basically, because two things are more similar than dissimilar, therefore both are the same.

Example - All religions teach peace and compassion. 

5) Fact-Farting

This is actually a pretty creative ability they seem to possess. You must be wondering how I came up with such a filthy term. Allow me to explain - you see, they have this peculiar knack for mentioning "facts" and "stats" conjured out of thin air. And as we discussed earlier, about their inability to tell their head from their posterior, it becomes pretty clear where these smelly facts erupt from.

Example - Anytime someone's throwing 9 out of 10, 8 out of 10 or any other bogus statistic without evidence. 

6) Blatant Hypocrisy

Thaali ka baingan as they say..changing their tune every minute to suit their argument.

Example - We should have secular Government and Laws. Response –Yes. Then we should also get rid of caste/religion/gender based laws and policies. Response - No, because oppression, because minority, because penis.       

 

7) Playing the Victim

The hallmark of an idiot. They twist honest/direct approach into personal attacks and proclaim the argument is over and they've won.

Example - That thing you quoted is a total fabrication. Response: Did you just call me a liar? How dare you! You lose, I win.

8) Shaming

Usually, a tactic used as the last resort, but may surface earlier. "How can you say such things to me?", "I never knew you were like this", "I'm scared of you now", "I'm disappointed in you", basically anything to appeal to your good nature to make you bow out.

So, what do you do? Usually, it's advised that you excuse yourself as soon as you see things mentioned in the first point. Although you may take your chances by going as far as number 4 or maybe even 5, depending on how well you think you know the person. But, do NOT let it go any further, under any circumstances. Not only will you be left with a very bad taste, you may very well lose some of your own IQ points.

A Word on Modi and Why You Shouldn't Vote

Time to be politically incorrect again, yes; it’s become a pet peeve of sorts. So, Narendra Modi, NaMo, Voldemodi, Modi-vational, the much maligned, much championed CM of Gujarat, who at this rate will probably end up with more aliases than Lord Krishna. Now, I’m not a fan of the guy (he does give the impression of being an extremist, admittedly), although he seems to display pretty good administration and leadership skills, relatively speaking.

In all the brouhaha, past and present, two things I take issue with –

1. Genocide – I’m pretty clear on this one. The chain of events, the numbers, everything simply points to riots. Genocide is what the Nazis did, what happened in 1984 against Sikhs, what happened to Kashmiri Pandits. I’m still open to explanations though.

2.  Government’s Complicity – Now, this one is a bit trickier, I admit. It may very well be true, I don’t know and no one else knows either, except Mr. Modi and those close to him. As it stands, all investigating committees and the Supreme Court have given him a clean chit. The Special Investigation Team led by Mr. Raghavan actually even mentions that Gujarat Police did everything to control the situation.

So, what does this mean? It means that people put more stock into anecdotes and journalistic media (which, by the way, is widely regarded as the most dishonest profession in the world) than the Supreme Court. I mean, sure, you have every right to do that. Believe whatever you want. The junta becomes the judge and jury on the basis of allegations. Sure, you have every right to do so, but it won’t be very wise if you act on it.

 I am not trying to change anyone’s mind. I’m also confused. You have his supporters and you have his distracters. You have the journalists and local people with stories of Government’s complicity; you also have other people with rebuttals to those. What am I supposed to believe? As a rule, I never believe in anything people say unless supported by evidence, facts or at least something that hints towards a majority opinion, a la consensus (sometimes, even that’s not enough for me). We are primates after all, faulty by default, prone to lying, exaggeration and skulduggery.

On the other hand, we have our agencies and the Supreme Court that believe he is not guilty. Now, let’s not kid ourselves here – with India’s history (read non-existent) of conviction and incarceration of politicians, we can’t put our blind faith in these decisions either. This leads us to an impasse – and what I’m trying to say here, ladies and gentlemen, is that we maintain status quo.

Yes, please DO NOT vote. No, I’m not saying please do not vote for him, or do not vote against him. I’m saying do not vote at all. If you find yourself at an impasse (not sure if he’s guilty or not), stay at home when the day of voting arrives. Why? Let me explain –

1) If you vote FOR him (or the BJP), you run the risk of being party to the election of an extremist Prime Minister.

2) If you vote against him (or the BJP), you run the risk of being party to denying the country a Prime Minister with great administration and leadership qualities, again, relatively speaking.

3) If you vote for someone else (or some other party), you run the risk of giving one the advantage over another who could have made a great Prime Minister. 

Let’s take Nitish Kumar (RJD) as an example. Sure, he’s also a very good administrator and a pretty affable fellow, to say the least. He still doesn’t have the charisma and the presence that Indian leaders have sorely lacked for quite a while. We need a Prime Minister who isn’t afraid of taking hard decisions, someone who doesn’t find solace in eternal cootchie-cooing with absolutely rogue neighbours. Yes, I am looking at you China, Pakistan, Bangladesh. 

We need someone who speaks, speaks with heart, with conviction. Take our manifestation of a lullaby Prime Minister as an example – a koala getting up from a drunken stupor can motivate you more than Mr. Singh’s hour long speeches. Okay, that was mean, I quite like him as a person actually, but he's not a leader in any sense of the word. Now, I’m not saying Mr. Modi displays all these leadership traits in obscenely significant droves, but he does seem to have an upper hand vis-a-vis his adversaries.

 Finally, both questions still loom large. What if he’s guilty, what if he’s not guilty? And that’s why it would be a disservice to the nation if you’re at an impasse and yet choose to act on it. So yeah, please do not vote at all. I realize it’s an irresponsible and cowardly thing to do, but I don’t see any other solution. Those who've made up their mind, well, you've made up your mind.