Once again, we’ve been accused of condescension – this time it is by The Longest Comment Ever In The Indian Blogosphere. As the condescendingest Cartelian, I am tempted to simply link to what I had said on the subject some time back.
But seriously, I find this arguing over the tone of posts pointless. I am not concerned with the tone when others write about me, and I find it bewildering when others get upset over the tone. I am not out to insult you. I am just concerned with getting my arguments out in the best manner possible, and a slightly combative tone works best because it gets the reader interested. I don’t hurl insults, or “label” people. I don’t talk about people’s hidden motives etc. I am only concerned with answering your best argument with mine. Angry people don’t give out their best arguments, so please don’t get angry.
I have comments enabled, but I realised some time back that I don’t need to “win” every single debate that goes on there right there. I sometimes simply walk away from that debate because I’ve said all that there is to be said. Sometimes I take the debate to another post, sometimes I don’t. If I don’t, it might mean anything, including that I am short of time or that I am bored or not in a mood to do so. You are at liberty to think that it is because I know that I’d lose the argument. I don’t care all that much.
You say you find arguing over the tone of posts pointless. Fine. Then why do you feel the need to write a post on that topic, ignoring all other pertinent points raised in the comment?
Agreed, you may be at an higher intellectual plane than us ordinary mortals, and may not even feel that arguments that really matter in my post, need to be dignified with any response. But by choosing to dignify the ‘pointless’ argument in that post you are rasing serious doubts about your own characterisation of yourself as being “so smart that we sometimes find it difficult to get down to the appropriate level to explain things to you people.”
If I point to your tone, I am being pointless. Fine. But what about the other substantive arguments? Conviniently Ignore. When others do something like that you guys heap scorn, condescending to their ‘evasive manoeuvres’
When others do it they are just pointless ignoramuses, when you do it you are just being smart. When someone points to this double standard, shift the goalpost and talk about how pointless the talk of condescendation is.
Seriously, you can call me the dumbest person on earth for all I care. But, for once, look in the mirror.
Good God man, did you read the next two posts? They are about substantive issues that you raise. Do you expect me to answer all your points at one go? I have a habit of making long posts, but I’d be insane to match your 5000 word comment with a 10000 word post, because that is what it would take. No one would read it. So I split it. It will be impossible for me to answer all your points even with a series of posts – partly because I agree with some of them – I agree that the guy who wrote about research methods was being utterly stupid.
You read my blog enough to know that I am logical to a fault. Then I hope that you also know that I frequently make those tongue-in-cheek comments and it is a matter of amusement to me when people fall for it. Why give me that pleasure?
Ravi, since I also made the charge of condescension against you (even before Chetan did), let me try and see why it matters. It matters because it is probably not the best way to argue: one tends to inadvertently shift the focus from the argument to the tone. When you wonder why so many people don’t like the condescending tone, the answer is just that: people don’t like it. I suppose if you looked up the dictionary for words such as ‘condescending’, ‘arrogance’, etc., you will see they are supposed to be negative. I don’t find the condescension at all in Amit’s blogging, not eve in Yazad’s. But I do in yours, and sometimes Gaurav’s. I would have said this if you weren’t a friend or if I didn’t like your blogging. This is not so much of an accusation from me as an honest perspective. Ultimately it is up to you, I will just stop responding the next time you engage with my arguments.
Well sorry about that. As to why give you that pleasure? I thought I had hurt you a lot and a little bit of pleasure might be helpful. 🙂
P.S. My apology was exclusively about not waiting to read your subsequent posts and not regarding the other things I mentioned. I stand by those.
Shivam, I hope you will reconsider your decision not to engage my arguments. The content of the argument matters more than the tone, and the world will be a worse off place if these arguments didn’t get thrashed out.
(Note to myself: The fact that the argument matters more than the tone also means that I should change my tone if it is getting in the way of a polite argument. Point taken. )
Ravi, I meant that I will not engage with your arguments only if the condescension gets too much for me to handle. The amazing thing about you is not that you are condescending but that you admit being so and see no problem with it! Now that’s honesty, if nothing else.
What I mean to say is that there is no need to say things like, “Your argument does not make sense.” You just have to argue – whether or not one’s argument makes sense will be proved by the counter-argument.
Hi Ravikiran,
I got upset for the same reason Gaurav Sabnis says he has disabled comments on his blog, about arguments and mental peace.
I try to behave as if you are sitting in front of me, wouldn’t somebody mind a lot if I started swearing or dissembling?
That said, all of us commit mistakes. I know I have done some horrible ones in my life. And I respect people who have the guts to own up.
Hat’s off to you.
amit