12/29/2024
In an argument about politics or ideas, there are different ways one can be unreasonable. The most common method is mere stupidity, simply not knowing what you're talking about. Another is being a run-of-the-mill ideologue who regurgitates preexisting thoughts. Yet another is emotionality, arguing out of feeling over reason.
But there's one form of unreasonable debate which is very poorly understood—that is, some people engage in argument in order to pantomime violence. For these types, it’s not actually about the disagreement at hand, but about dominating and humiliating their opponent, often on behalf of a faction, but just as easily for their own gratification.
These categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, those who use argument as a proxy for violence (henceforth referred to as sadists) may also be ideologues and/or morons. But what’s crucial to understand is that sadists can be quite clever, and are often bereft of a coherent worldview. Whatever views they purport to espouse are mere window-dressing for a love of conflict or even cruelty, which would manifest as gangsterism given the right circumstances.
In other words, sadists engage in debate only because the law does not allow thuggery, but whenever opportunity allows, their thuggery reveals itself and the pretense of debate is discarded.
This matters because it’s important to spot a sadist when they inevitably crop up in the discourse. If you can suss out the sadists, and particularly the issues around which they tend to congregate, you can rather easily tell which side of an argument to be suspicious of.
***