Yesterday the lingering remnants of my faith in human intelligence were slapped around in a non-trivial manner. I was on a political forum (yes, I realize that was my first mistake) and was trying to have a debate on a current social issue. The issue itself isn't important because this event has happened before on other topics, but this time something hit a nerve and it finally sunk in for me that people are generally utter twits.
When I take a stance on an issue and present that stance for discussion my first course of action is to present my reasons and logic, immediately followed by credible sources for any facts or data that I mention. This is ingrained habit for me, stemming from years of work in the sciences, and I would feel my arguments were naked and weak without such supports. In the case of yesterday's debate, I posted over a dozen sources at the end of my somewhat lengthy personal statement, sources available on the 'net for all to see and read for themselves. I thought this was good form and that people would be more likely to understand or even accept my views if I gave solid proof that my stance was valid.
Oh, if only.
Instead, the opposition replied that I was simply "regurgitating," and that, in fact,
they were in the right because they came up with their own thoughts rather than simply posting what somebody else said. Keep in mind that I had posted several paragraphs in my own words explaning what my personal feelings on the subject were, and that the citations merely supported the facts I had presented. The opposition accused me of trying to make everybody think like me, trying to force my views on others, and being arrogant.
Now, I'm a pretty reasonable person, so I didn't understand this response one bit. I tried again, pointing out that I had only been trying to show that there was more to my opinions than hot air and that I had intended merely to give people a solid reason to care about my stance. This was answered by the accusation that I was calling opposing stances stupid, that I was (again) trying to brainwash people, and that I shouldn't try to make other people look silly by posting so many sources when they merely posted their personal feelings.
Needless to say I became slightly hot under the collar at this. I guess I am supposed to let other people feel good even if they are wrong and I have proof of their wrongness. After all, to steal a phrase from the Daily Show, the facts must be biased! I shouldn't call attention to the idiocy of others, even if they are trying to pass that idiocy into law!
Screw that. From now on I am going to begin compiling a book of all my arguments and citations and proofs, and it's going to be titled "The Big Book Of Why I Am Right." People can read the book and reach their own conclusions, but if they disagree they damn well better write up an equally large and well-cited book of why I'm not right, and you don't get to cite yourself, God, or Rush Limbaugh. People who refuse to read The Big Book Of Why I Am Right will be clubbed about the head with it until they submit.
