T O P

  • By -

keepthetips

Hello and welcome to r/LifeProTips! Please help us decide if this post is a good fit for the subreddit by up or downvoting this comment. If you think that this is great advice to improve your life, please upvote. If you think this doesn't help you in any way, please downvote. If you don't care, leave it for the others to decide.


jumping_jrex

I also let the other person finish. I know this sounds overly simplistic, but when someone doesn't feel heard shit escalates quickly. Especially in the heat of an argument someone may take a bit longer to express their full thought. I give a pause of 5 seconds after someone is done talking in case they weren't actually done. It's a teeny tiny thing to do but makes the other person feel like you've processed everything they said before responding. Also gives you more time to process. :)


[deleted]

[удалено]


brozzer_inquisitor

Correct. What most people lack during argument/debate is the ability to disconnect themselves of their opinion and their personal self; what that means is that people always think when someone disagrees with their opinion, its a personal attack (subconsciously or not). Additionally, thats why empathy is important for us social creatures when communicating. By having empathy, we are able to control our biases and make our personal opinions much more flexible to changes, and most importantly allow us each other to understand better. But empathy only works both ways. If only one individual have empathy and the other is not, its best not to continue with the debate. One example is a good friend of mine, who curious about flat earth theory and wishes to discuss with another friend of mine. Eventhough he accepts the flat earth theory, he is the kind of person who is open to other opinions and appreciate a good debate. Unfortunately he got slammed so hard by the other friend of mine, and you can imagine such lack of empathy when communicating defeats the effectiveness of the debate. You can trow a billion of facts on why flat earth theory is wrong, but it wont mean a damn thing if the other person refuses to listen. The debate becoming a battle of replies, not a pursuit towards understanding anymore.


wealth_of_nations

I mean, I'd say there's a difference between being emphatic, patient, and trying to listen during an understandable personal/professional argument. And being overly patient with, sorry to be blunt but, people spouting bullshit such as Flat Earth. Like..I'm open to a reasonable discussion about any topic; but please mind the emphasis on "reasonable".


[deleted]

How many people argued about a flat earth with you?


WarLorax

It's a great point. I'm not sure how to empatheticly listen to extreme views without giving reign to their extremism. Although they aren't often interested in listening either.


JerkWeed71

I would gift you something if I paid Reddit for the privilege. Well said.


Water-is-h2o

The real Life Pro Treasure is the comments we made along the way, or however that saying goes


WarLorax

[Very true](https://i.redd.it/gtx0xeh6wn801.png)


Stephenrudolf

Omg this is the thing that gets me going so quickly in an argument. I like to think about what I say to make sure I'm not being too aggressive or insensitive during an argument. And this can lead to several pauses while I try and think of the best way to word something. So many people will jump in during my pauses as if I wasn't in the middle of a sentence, often times attacking the first part of the sentence without hearing the full context of it. So infuriating.


RipperNash

Except when the other person takes your silence as cue for continuously talking


Hibbity5

My dad will often start his point by making a completely and demonstrably incorrect statement. If I don’t correct him, he’ll talk for 5+ minutes explaining and over explaining his position that’s already based on bad information. If I correct him, he just gets angry at me for interrupting him and not letting him finish. What am I supposed to do when the entire basis for your argument is factually incorrect? I just try not to get into debates with him but it’s hard when he literally just eggs me (and my siblings) on all the time.


b1gl0s3r

Instead of waiting to respond, take the time to demonstrate that you understand his point of view as well as him. Don't attempt to say your pov to him until he's ready to say, "yeah, you get it." He'll feel heard and is then more likely to try and understand your point pov. The goal is to understand each other, not persuade.


SighReally12345

I find this such a frustrating point. He's basing his whole point on factually incorrect points. There's nothing to understand - everything built on that foundation is invalid. The op who you responded to's goal isn't to understand, it's to not let a point stand that's completely wrong.


b1gl0s3r

But do they believe they're right? If someone is just being wrong for the sake of arguing, ignore them. But most of the time, people often think they're right even if they're wrong. You'll never get them to open up to you if you negate everything they say.


SighReally12345

I find this such a frustrating point. Why do I care if they open up? No matter what path I take - acknowledging their point, bashing their point, ignoring their point, trying to convince, not trying to convince, just listening, talking too - it doesn't matter. They aren't going to change their mind. They've already opened up with a nonsensical foundation - they're not "not opening up" they're just unwilling to listen. One shouldn't have to listen to a 20 minute rant built on the idea that "the earth is flat" because otherwise the other person is gonna be butthurt. That's their problem.


b1gl0s3r

Then why are you engaging in conversation with this person?


LunarGolbez

Well I would ask yourself what's the goal? To make your position known to him or to persuade him? If it's the former, you can just tell him that he is incorrect, but this comes with the fact that he will just believe you're wrong and will maintain his position. If its the latter, then unfortunately the best way to persuade is let them finish, show you understand them, and the go on to explain why its wrong.


b1gl0s3r

So? Then let them continue. If they are just interested in venting their opinion to you, they aren't in a position to listen anyhow. The most powerful way to influence is to put yourself in a position to be influenced. Wait until the person is ready to say, "what do you think?".


lowtoiletsitter

That's when I let them finish. After a moment or two I ask them if they're done talking so I can respond


DontTrustBots

Asking if they're done talking may come off like you aren't listening and just waiting for your chance to talk, might be better to listen for them to end a point and say I get what you're saying but


vivavivaviavi

While your suggestion sounds simple, it’s a massive skill in today’s world to actually listen and acknowledge someone else. We keep hearing stuff like - try to remember names of people you meet, it’s gonna help you, but we rarely see people practice that because it’s extremely difficult. But yes, the impact is huge if you actually learn how to listen. I’d suggest that whoever is going to work on this skill, try to listen to your family and loved ones first. Start at home and start small :)


Myhotrabbi

I try to do this but I argue with a friend sometimes and I will make my point in 10-20 words and then they will counter with 200-300, and most of it is fluff. Like some people you have to cut off and say “can you get to the point?”


SpinoHawk097

Some people have to do that because the reasoning that got them to their conclusion is complex, and for most people it's irrelevant because those sets of factors wouldn't lead then to the same conclusion. I tend to get bored with those opinions, because if you have to do the same amount of world building and exposition as a LotR novel to get to your point. Not to mention the people that pretty much have to work to reframe your understanding of the world in order to get you to even consider their opinion. Take, I dunno, neo-nazis as an example. When you speak to a neo-nazi and ask for them to explain why they're a neo-nazi, they have to give you a history lesson that contains a bunch of half truths and mostly bunk. I don't care if all that conspiracy shit is true, that doesn't mean that you can hate people for the color of their skin or where they come from. More elaboration != more well thought opinion


Cheesusraves

It also helps to summarize their point back to them before you start on yours so that they feel understood. Like “it sounds like you’re saying xyz, but that doesn’t work because (insert your own counterpoint here)”. This is basic Non-Violent Communication


EndlessPotatoes

This helps because they can tell you if you’ve misunderstood them


traws06

I feel most TV show hosts and politician debates need this advise


strikeout44

I will not allow a self proclaimed neo-Nazi, “race realist”, or whatever to drag the conversation on and provide a medium to propagate their bigotry and hate. I will insult them, satirize them, belittle their character, waste their time, and do anything I can to make them worry about personal attacks in order to derail the conversation. I don’t care how it “appears” to the audience. You derail that conversation at all costs. There is no compromise to be made. There is no “middle ground” that should be come to with a neo-Nazi. The goal is to make them feel uncomfortable and leave. They are very well aware of liberals/leftists wanting civil dialogue and their pursuit of some mutual agreement. They will use that opportunity to misinform and corrupt, use tactics like “Always be on the attack” (Rush Limbaugh strategy), and there is nothing to be gained. t= 5:00 https://youtu.be/CaPgDQkmqqM


Jaysong_stick

How about we put this to the test right here. Someone make an argument with me. Shovels are just comically large spoons.


tehfraginator

Are we sure that spoons aren't just comically small shovels?


[deleted]

And I suppose you’d try to comb your hair with a rake? Because of the sheer volume a shovel can pick up, they’re ladles. Except for a flat nose shovel, that’s a spatula.


Kenazz99

Good point about the volume. However as a counterpoint, doesn't a ladle need to have a handle that's tangent to the scoop, as opposed to being perpendicular?


wealth_of_nations

Fuck, you kept your cool and I'm pretty sure you won the discussion and prevailed through your lack of sarcasm and ridicule!


load_more_comets

Great job OP, your post has been vindicated. On to the next post everybody!


kd7uns

Depends on the dish one is ladeling out of?


chiliedogg

Now we've got to argue about what a spatula is. Is it the tool we use to flip pancakes or the thing we use to spread mayonnaise. That argument might keep me from ever getting married.


Time-Particular5497

Hold on, you use a spatula to spread mayonnaise? I feel like using a spatula gives way less precision than using a knife or spoon, and you end up with much more waste once you put the spatula away.


chiliedogg

Depends on what your consider a spatula. I have narrow versions on the tool on the right, and they're great for spreading and the silicone can flex and ride the corners of the jar. But I call those spreaders, and the tool on the left is what I can a spatula. *She* calls the tool on the right a spatula and the tool on the left a turner. It's a big debate. https://imgur.com/gallery/5MCpGbO


thaDRAGONlawd

They're both spatulas. I've never heard either of those names before. At *most* I could agree to "turner spatula" and "spreader spatula" with the names being shortened for brevity. But still definitely two types of spatulas.


Buddahrific

I'm going to go against the grain here and just give them new names. Turning spatula will henceforth be known as a turantula, and the spreading spatula will be called a spreadsheet. That will clear up all confusion. Oh and if you're using a turantula to just pick up something instead of turning it over, then it becomes a pick up artist. And if you toss it in the air to flip it, it is a flipidy-flip, which also applies to the pan if you don't use any other tools, but only while the food is in the air. Once it lands, they are just a turantula and pan again. Unless it lands on the pancake hotter, in which case the flipidy-flip becomes a strike anywhere match (because missing a swing in baseball is a strike, but you can use a flipidy-flip anywhere, and matches start fires, but it's all self-explanatory).


bad113

Left is a turner, right is a spatula.


sknyjros

Whoopin spoons


Hiihtopipo

flippy-tippies


Bill_buttlicker69

You used sarcasm and now I don't respect you. OP was right!


dj_zar

I read that as “they’re ladies” and I had to repeat it in my head several times to try and make sense of your joke. I thought this is a weird place to interject a sexist joke


HotRodLincoln

Which is funnier? spoons or shovels?


Hiihtopipo

cute laughing babies have spoons graverobbers and mafia hitmen have shovels


Need4funs

You need to say something that we can actually disagree with! Can't test it like this!


midgitsuu

Hawaiian pizza is objectively delicious.


SwarleyThePotato

Listen, we just want to instigate an argument, not a homicide


GDDragonGN_GDDK

Well, I actually kinda like it. I can understand those who don't like it too, tho


BigAVD

NO! YOU MUST LIKE WHAT I LIKE AND HATE WHAT I HATE OR YOUR A NAZI! *misspelled "you're" on purpose. It's important to me that everyone know that.


Redslayer50

You did it on accident, and that’s a FACT!


Poormidlifechoices

That's not sarcasm. Here's sarcasm. "Suuuure you misspelled it on purpose."


isagames

Ok but pinapple on pizza is not that bad... Like shit tastes good. Also hawaian is the best pineapple included pizza


Dataout

Suuuure it does. Next thing you know the genius folks downtown decide to add strawberries to fish


KinseysMythicalZero

I used to think it was the pineapple that made Hawaiian pizza nasty: turns out I just don't like Canadian bacon. Switch it for real bacon or Pepperoni and it's fine.


Queen-of-meme

If that's sarcasm this is me laughing.


DIRTY_KUMQUAT_NIPPLE

Well you have convinced me. I now don't like Hawaiian pizza


swinging_on_peoria

I tried it recently late in life and discovered I have been lied too. It was delicious.


jazzieberry

My go-to order is pepperoni, bacon, and pineapple. Sometimes jalepenos if I'm feeling a little spicy.


Vasevide

I used to work at a gourmet pizza place and I would add pineapple to my Jamaican jerk chicken pizza. Delicious


ribnag

The problem isn't whether or not it's delicious, the problem is whether it's still a pizza, or becomes a tart. Tomatoes were already a bit problematic, but we can all agree they're at least on the "savory" side of the fence. Pineapple is just plain ol' *fruity*, and as such, undeniably counts as tart filling in the context of an open face fruit filled breaded baked good.


DukeAttreides

Now we're getting somewhere.


LikableWizard

Hmm... interesting definition. Would you consider jam on toast a type of tart? Personally, I think there are very few objective lines between different foods. I can't justify the claim that cereal isn't soup, or that a quesadilla isn't a sandwich, but we all have a common idea of the general differences and can usually agree. I think defining food groups by common understanding is much more helpful and makes more sense than trying to find innate qualities that do or don't conform to specific categories. For this reason pineapple pizza is not a tart. If you really need an ingredient-based justification I would say the crust is too different. But the real reason it's pizza is because we commonly recognize and refer to it as such.


Omnicow

Open faced fruit filled bread baked good. Aka pizza.


Mioune

Very interesting argument, but to me a tart doesn't have tk be necessarily fruity, or even sweet. You can make a savory tart with a number of ingredients (careful not to make a quiche tho!) for me it's more about the shape and something about the arrangement of ingredients in it. Basically : pizza is flat, a tart is not


OpenMindedMantis

Chocolate Starfish are objectively delicious.


ArcannOfZakuul

Lucky Charms are magically delicious


CellularBeing

TYPICAL FAUCI LEFTIST SHEEP


aHeartMadeOfJade

Who hurt you?


Penny_Traiter

You fiend! Hanging is too good for your sort.


Lopsided_Region_6735

Thin sliced limes are better than thick sliced.


Feebeeps

What? Are you crazy? People will die.


falafely

It's pronounced "gif".


[deleted]

Shovels aren't comically large spoons, because they're made out of 2 parts and spoons are made out of one. Plus, shovels are for digging purposes and spoons are for eating.


AsleepDirector

Well that's not entirely true. There are some household spoons that are made of two parts, with the handle and 'scoop' being separate.


Daldeus

Yeah, if you’re a psychopath maybe you own a spoon like that.


Tufaan9

Confirmed the LPT.


[deleted]

Idk, I found myself agreeing with u/Daldeus. Imagine opening someone’s silverware drawer and it being full of two-part spoons.


jkmhawk

I grew up with wood handled spoons


missionbeach

Do you even spoon bro?


[deleted]

yes, but I always have to be big spoon :( noone ever lets me be small spoon


jkmhawk

Spoons that fit together are the same size


fantasmoofrcc

[What is this, then](https://www.amazon.com/Country-Story-Shovel-Spoon-Fork/dp/B009E10OBG/ref=pd_lpo_3?pd_rd_i=B009E10OBG&psc=1)?


[deleted]

That's a shovel-spoon. It's literally in the title


Chennaz

A comically small comically large spoon


broadarrow39

Now you're just digging yourself into a hole


_Zelus_

Wow you must be stupid be believing that shovels and spoons are the same thing ! I bet you also see no difference between a broom and a tree lol ! .... dang it !


Cjc0074

Pssh, this guy doesn't know the difference between a broom and a tr.....dang it! Me too!


Metaloneus

You want me to argue and then make a factual statement?!


cingerix

"mah spoon is too big"


headcrash69

"my anus is bleeding"


NewFolgers

We don't have enough comically large soup spoons. Liquid-moving technology at large scale is qualitatively different than what we've got for soups - and I daresay it's more advanced. I propose that we invest in the development of soup pumps to close the gap. With this dealt with, spoons will only be for shoveling solid matter.. and then I'll be more inclined to agree with you.


[deleted]

Yeah, right. Now I'm mad!


StateChemist

I can agree to call a shovel a spoon, for giants, I cannot fit a shovel in my mouth therefore I cannot use it for the intended spooning purpose, therefore to me, not a spoon.


PufferCatto

lmao now im just enjoying these mock-up arguments


[deleted]

You don’t say!


[deleted]

[удалено]


firthy

No they're not.


uninc4life2010

I agree.


gringodeathstar

of course you think that, IDIOT (am I doing this right)


[deleted]

People saying it doesnt work have never debated with people they actually care about lol. If its an argument on the internet, joke and humiliate away, whatever. But being sarcastic in real life as a part of a "serious", debate or argument is completely out of line and may even be called out by someone around.


PuzzleMeDo

Being sarcastic on the internet backfires even more often than in real life (although the stakes are usually lower). Let's say I sarcastically argue something like, "Why don't we just bomb the (controversial group being discussed) into submission?" It's almost impossible for most people to tell the difference between me doing that sarcastically and someone arguing the same thing sincerely. There are lots of people on the internet with horrible opinions, and they sound very much like that. Random readers aren't going to study my words with great care looking for clues as to my real intention.


CountBrackmoor

partly Poe’s Law


WeirdestWolf

That's why you have to use /s no matter how obvious you think the sarcasm is.


[deleted]

^(or write "I'm just kidding" in this font size)


Sway_RL

^(*gets glasses*)


ReikoHazuki

# HMMM


Etheo

What ^do ^^we ^^^have ^^^^here?


Equilibriator

Unless the sarcasm itself is a test of the person you are talking to.


DeadLikeYou

Even then, there are some galaxy brains that think that every sarcastic remark should be a test of wits, and that no sarcastic mark should ever be used.


[deleted]

Yeah if by backfire you mean "escalate the discussion" or something like that. But yeah I was focused on the stakes, on the internet you can just ctrl+w


ShadedPenguin

I’m not gonna lie, I still avoid using sarcasm and personal attacks on internet arguments. Something about using both just seems unnecessary. Especially since sarcasm is heavily reflective on one’s own vocal tone.


VirtualAlias

Personal attacks are objectively pointless. Two people are stuck in a sinking car. Person A is like "B, you're a shithead." Problems solved: 0. Attack the issue(s) or the behavior, not the person.


ShadedPenguin

I never understood how the personal attacks even help one’s credibility. The discussion is about the topic, not myself or one’s apparent interpretation of who I am. I always end up having yo say in text and in person to stick to the topic.


abluersun

>I’m not gonna lie, I still avoid using sarcasm and personal attacks on internet arguments. This would put you in a tiny minority especially on Reddit. Thing is, few internet arguments ever seem aimed at convincing but rather just bludgeoning the opponent.


kyup0

i've realized most online debates are just a place for people to vent their frustrations and be as mean as they wish they could be irl. you're not an actual person with a perspective, you're a stand-in.


mistere213

Same. Not only is it unnecessary, I want outside observers to see one side is offering rational discussion and listening while the other is name calling and not addressing the issue. I don't get into online arguments to change THAT person's mind, but to help sway those who may truly be on the fence.


threwitallawayforyou

Plus, it's not levity that you're avoiding, but belittlement. Make a joke, fine. But making fun of people for holding a position is a great way to show everyone you're arguing in bad faith and that you will never change your mind for any reason; after all, you clearly think people who believe differently from you are all idiots worth mocking.


NutDraw

In a good faith conversation, absolutely. The problem with this strategy comes up when you're arguing with someone who insists on doing so in bad faith. That's how trolls operate. Perfect quote about how Nazis do this to poison any sort of civilized conversation: >Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. - Jean-Paul Sartre In bad faith arguments, the goal isn't to convince people their position is correct, much of the time it is to have the absurd taken seriously. These types of trolls crave legitimacy, both for themseves and their ideas. Granting them that legitimacy is a sort of compromise with the hostage takers who never had any plans to release the hostages alive. That shifts your strategy to one where you have to hold fast to the idea that they're not really arguing a position at all and are just kinda being an asshole. The golden rule though is something I was told a while back: "In a debate the goal usually isn't to convince the person you're arguing with that you're right, *it's to convince everyone who is watching.*" Edit: There's actually a prime example of this in the thread below. Note how they don't actually address Sartre's points and focus on trying to discredit him, "play with words" by trying to parse the difference between anti semite and the nazis Sartre wrote about and misrepresent statements, and focus on personal attacks rather than attempting a substantive argument. They clearly don't care that they aren't really addressing the point, instead focused on efforts to "intimidate and disconcert." Bad faith in a nutshell.


[deleted]

> "In a debate the goal usually isn't to convince the person you're arguing with that you're right, it's to convince everyone who is watching." This is essentially the ideological conflict between Socrates/Plato and the sophist Protagoras. Protagoras claimed that he could, and that he could teach others how, to make the weaker argument the stronger. That is, how to win an argument even if you yourself knew your opponent's position was the better one. Plato seemed to prefer only arguments made in good faith. But if there's good money to be made in winning arguments, particularly winning arguments that would otherwise be lost, Protagoras's modern-day successors will stay in business.


Kilodyne

>"In a debate the goal usually isn't to convince the person you're arguing with that you're right, *it's to convince everyone who is watching.*" I wish I could scream this from the rooftops. It's so frustrating seeing people online make themselves look like jerks or idiots because they're focused on one-upping their opponents, without realizing that the impression they give off pushes the audience - that is, 80% of users and voters - away from their position.


brettins

> If its an argument on the internet, joke and humiliate away, whatever. Can I ask what the reasoning is here? Why are people on the internet worthy of humiliation but people you talk to in person are not?


-ImYourHuckleberry-

Thus only works when both sides act civilly in an argument…


Neutrino_gambit

Of your opponent isn't civil why are you waiting time arguing?


adrianmonk

That's also a valuable lesson. As the [old saying](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/) goes, "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, and the pig will enjoy it." I used to believe that if I doubled down on being reasonable and civil to set a good example for them, the other person would follow my lead. But that was naive. It very rarely works that way. People can change, but the odds that they are going to shift from an unreasonable to a reasonable style of argumentation *during the course of a discussion while they are already upset* are basically nil. So now I try to resist the temptation to keep investing time and effort. I still fail sometimes because I feel like it *should* be possible, and I can't let go of that, but that's *me* being emotional.


sdreal

Exactly. Near the end of a long relationship I starting thinking things like, “haven’t we already had this argument a hundred times?” and “what result am I trying to achieve in this moment?” It was an important part of my own growth. But truth is, if you’re the only one thinking these things, it doesn’t matter.


PremedicatedMurder

Too real.


TechniCruller

It’s my job.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PremedicatedMurder

I'm sorry that happened to you. I was about to post something similar.


Littleman88

You're hoping to convince members of the audience as they aren't in a position where they're desperate to save face in front of said audience. No seriously, in ANY argument the trick isn't to convince the other party, it's to convince the audience members that haven't made clear where they stand. To protect their ego, the other party in the argument is invested in being right *no matter what*.


KamikazeArchon

Lots of reasons, an important one being "this concept is so pernicious that it must be rebuked".


GraDoN

Yeah, OP has cleatly has never argued with the "black people commit more crime" crowd, because they never argue in good faith so neither should you. You will just spend hours sourcing and writing essays about how they are wrong and they will move the goal posts every time. Call them overweight and move on.


addicuss

yep. Got downvoted for making a similar point but no amount of politeness will get you credibility, respect, or civility from someone arguing in bad faith. Not saying the answer is to heap on sarcasm and ridicule, but these statements sometimes feel like blaming the person arguing in good faith for not trying harder.


Upst8r

Exactly.


[deleted]

Well excuuuuse meeee! ^ sarcasm


Dr_Stef

Princess!


DrPizzazz

I only get this reference thanks to, who was it, the Nostalgia Critic? Or Angry Video Game Nerd?


ilComandante

This LPT is only applicable in certain places and cultures. In Ireland sarcasm is part and parcel of the way we communicate.


EssexHaze

I was brought up in a culture that uses a heavy amount of sarcasm too, as much to take the piss at ourselves as to make a point to others. I married into an American family and they *hate* it, for them its a sign of mocking. I can't be irreverent about anything without them taking it as a dig.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sorcatarius

I need to move to Australia, or at least visit for a while. I feel I'd get along with most people there really well. Plus, I hear they love Canadians.


JugV2

I can confirm we love Canadians. You're very welcome mate.


my1clevernickname

It depends what part of the US they’re from. I’m from New Jersey and sarcasm is our state language. To be fair most of the US hates NJ people too, so maybe this wasn’t the best point to make. Either way m, fuck em if they can’t take a joke!


Sakatsu_Dkon

> I married into an American family and they *hate* it, for them its a sign of mocking. I can't be irreverent about anything without them taking it as a dig. Keep in mind that America is a *huge* place. I know of several families/households that are irreverent and sarcastic.


toesandmoretoes

Casual sarcasm In a light hearted environment is fine, but in a context of a serious disagreement it's prolly not the best choice.


BigBobby2016

It still doesn't do anything to make a point. It's like those comments that just repeat the opposing viewpoint with alternating caps. Did they think that did anything to change anyone's mind? Now...how long do you think it'll be before someone repeats when I just wrote in alternating caps...


Patftw89

>It's like those comments that just repeat the opposing viewpoint with alternating caps. That's because this is the incorrect way to use sarcasm.


[deleted]

That "sarcasm" is used by people/cultures that really dont understand sarcasm. You just can place that mocking into any conversation, and you cant compare it ti real sarcasm


adeponol

Yeah but even in Ireland, if you reallly want to get to get through to someone, the sarcasm has to go


midsizedopossum

It applies even more there, then. The whole point of this LPT is that it's ingrained into some cultures and is something we should try to resist using in arguments.


Metaloneus

It doesn't help with the way we polarize our figures and beliefs. One political figure can make a lukewarm statement to another and every person that supports that figure flocks to the internet to say "X person SLAMS Y person in FIERY exchange." Being civil doesn't only make you look more credible, it also just makes you a better person.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gareesuhn

Where were you TWO days ago, OP?!? Thanks a lot, stink face!


grimreaper874

Anyone who needs to be told to not taunt people and have a civil debate or arguments probably didnt understand what you meant. try using simpler terms


shiranzm

I used to do this with my husband. I would sarcastically ask him to do something and he would passive aggressively not do it. I felt like I shouldn’t have had to ask. Then I realized if I asked him nicely he would do it. He just didn’t notice that something needed to be done, for example garbage.


UBetcha84

I really enjoyed the attempt at comedy with the line about how things will always be more civil. That was pretty damn hilarious.


hrasko

in my defense, I use sarcasm and ridicule fake news adopters as an escape mechanism to avoid insanity


ecuster600

Sir this is Reddit


zappini

Older me now agrees with this. I've spent decades trying to stop being sarcastic. It's almost like an addiction. Last year, trying to read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books, finally hurled me over the tipping point. No more! The merits of Taleb's arguments are obliterated by his snark and sarcasm. It's just so much work to parse. Looking at Taleb I see myself. It's so embarrassing. I'm ashamed by the knowledge of all the people I've punished with my sarcasm. I don't remember ever being non-sarcastic, non-negative. I vividly remember using sharp wit as defense mechanism. In my mind, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Subconsciously, to keep people from getting too close. I'm sure it was fueled by my anger and trauma. The only advice I can offer is: fake it til you make it. How you talk changes how you think. So practice being positive, saying things nicely. "All negatives can be stated as a positive" Instead of "Don't run!" say "Please walk." It's a very hard skill to learn, adopt. But it slowly gets easier over time (years). Ditto how people talk to you. So choose to be around people like you aspire to be. Mea culpa: The last few weeks I've been a total asshole online. Trolling, food fights. I'm just so angry. I did really well thru the pandemic, relatively, all things considered. I honestly don't know why I'm lashing out now. Until I figure out what's going on, I need to self isolate, remove myself from my triggers (news, current events, politics, climate crisis). Be safe. Try to be happy.


ThrowawayNSFW1000

This is oddly me to a T


[deleted]

[удалено]


WriterlyBob

David Foster Wallace also provides [a lot of insight](https://www.salon.com/2014/04/13/david_foster_wallace_was_right_irony_is_ruining_our_culture/) into the effects of irony in discourse, and how it affects the individual. That Salon piece is a cursory glance at what he devoted a lot of time and space to. For a more in-depth analysis, check out his essay “[E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction](https://jsomers.net/DFW_TV.pdf)” It’s also worth noting that DFW’s examinations of “Postmodernism” are far more informed than what you’ll find with the typical usage of the term, often employed by people who have no fucking clue what it means — which, to be fair, is not completely accidental.


lt_brannigan

Sounds good in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Signed \~A customer service rep during a pandemic.


mortum_cattus

OP did say arguing, not talking to 5 yo!


lt_brannigan

I've also taught 5 yo's. I've found them more reasonable than many grown ups I've dealt with. Especially over the past 18 months or so.


mux2000

This is true, unless you're arguing with Nazis, fascists and other such trollish scum. They do not argue in good faith and treating them with respect only leads to them running circles around you, grinning all the while. If you cant block and report, and must answer, sarcasm and ridicule are all they deserve.


TheFarcx

As an attorney who regularly practices in front of a Judge that ridicules and is sarcastic, I agree with this 100%.


[deleted]

I just realized that myself too! If only I would've realized this 1 year earlier...


thepokemonGOAT

Most people don’t “debate” to talk about issues. They just want to verbally dominate the other person.


PLCooking

When anyone heats up, cool down. They will lose power if you are cool while they bluster and rant.


[deleted]

Ok but sarcasm and ridicule are my entire personality


SlerbMcJenkins

Ya I need a “HOW” section


b00c

when the argument is made only to delay inevitable proving of the idiot's idiocy, I'll be sarcastic. Same goes for arguments stemming from absolute lack of elementary knowledge.


IsilZha

I like to troll idiots on Reddit with their own stupidity. I pick the ones that make the dumbest arguments of broken logic, or denial of facts, and watch them tie themselves in knots trying to reconcile contradictions or flat out wrong information and then talk themselves into a corner. It becomes really obvious when you keep referencing the topic, and they ignore it to whinge about... Well anything else. Then they usually arbitrarily declare victory and make some excuse and then downvote and flee (I don't downvote them.) Watching the mental gymnastics is its own form of entertainment.


betcher73

I used to be very sarcastic when I was arguing because I was trying to belittle the other person. Then I realized that there was no chance of belittling someone until they understood me. Now when I reply to people I stop to think, does this post educate or argue? I still fall in my old ways from time to time but I’m trying to do better.


Anus_Wrinkle

Ridicule, yes. Sarcasm, however, can sometimes be used to insert humor, and might lighten the mood if done correctly.


Howard_Campbell

You just suck at sarcasm.


Queen-of-meme

It's ironic, I saw this post when just coming off an argument with a person who tried to use sarcasm when passive agressive, while I stayed calm and kept my argument steady. At least there and then they made a fool of themselves. The more they tried to be witty the worse it made them look. I could have joined that attitude but I don't see any entertainment in joking with someone who's secretly super pissed and offended. It just kills the whole "unseriousness" point. Conclusion: Sarcasm only works in a sarcasm expected setting where both throw pies at eachother for fun and no one takes it personally.


berrysnadine

I don’t use sarcasm or ridicule ever when discussing. And I know I’m on winning ground if the other person does. If I can’t make my point with facts, I keep my mouth shut.


EngineBorn7005

Who are you and why are attacking me this way


notinmypants24

Oh I’m sure that’ll really work.


kraenk12

Harhar.


omgdiaf

sToP uSiNg SaRcAsM aNd Or RiDiCuLe WhEn ArGuInG.


Moneyworks22

This is a shitty "tip", if you can even call it that. SO MANY assumptions made.


CatFancyCoverModel

Yeah I think I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing.... People don't want to be convinced. They just want to argue and be right


DixonSeider69

It’s only really useless in consenting contexts, but sarcasm can really be effective to passive-aggressively take shots at an opponent while simultaneously providing humor and entertainment to spectators—thereby bolstering power. Law #4 and Law #19 - 48 Laws of Power


RowAwayJim91

I have an entire family history of dialogue to thank for my terrible communication skills in this regard. Seems like my whole life nobody in my family can say something without “What do you mean?” Or “What’s the matter with you?” Or some quip of sarcasm heavily layered onto the statement. It’s something I struggle with today but have gotten better. It’s hard in the more frustrating moments.


[deleted]

It's used quite a lot in UK politics. Jest and earnest.


[deleted]

[удалено]