Philosophical Ramblings

Exploring the internet and other forms of media, one finds a vast diversity of public opinion expressed and a variety of ideas circulating throughout discussion, being both professed and debated in a sphere of information. It is the exercise of one’s freedom of speech, which allows one to contribute ideas for conversation and further permits one to proclaim their own view on a particular topic or issue. In this liberty, we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts, and each individual is responsible for the style in which they construct their arguments. There are are many ways that one may formulate an argument or approach another individual’s argument; and one such method is name-calling.

Ridicule describes the subjection of someone or something to mockery or derision. In debate, it most commonly takes the form of name-calling, which often results in a stream of vile vitriol that transforms once hospitable discourse into an uninhabitable sewer of drudgery with swift exchanges of harsh and biting words, often directed towards the proponent of the argument rather than the content of the message itself (ad hominem).  What I wish to draw into scrutiny is the value of ridicule in public discourse. 

Wikipedia notes that name-calling is a logical fallacy which appeals to cognitive bias. It further states that name-calling is used:

“to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that an invoked bad name will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When employed, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits.”

Ridicule is cheap and easily generated when one cannot construct a coherent, consistent or substantial argument or counter-argument using factual evidence or reason, and so simply resorts to derogatory terms, attempting to appeal to any cognitive bias that the audience may possess.. The assumption – a valid assumption – that is generated from this employment of name-calling is that the proponent who engages in it does not possess any substance to formulate an argument along the lines of reason, and so instead engages in a “method [that] is intended to provoke conclusions … about a matter apart from an impartial examination of the facts of the matter.”

An argument that is founded upon ridicule rather than reason is also not very persuasive. I hypothesize that it has the reverse-effect of a persuasive device in that it may likely reinforce one’s opponent to believe in the primacy of their own opinion without modification. This is because the individual in the debate who has been subject to ridicule has received no substantial reason to modify their own opinion, other than to avoid further derision. The person would be better convinced to alter their opinion if they were presented with a reasoned counter-argument that appeals to their sense. Ridicule may thus lead an individual to become defensive, and not contemplative or open to another view that contrasts with their own. 

As noted above, name-calling is a distraction from informed analysis and reasoned discussion. It directs one’s energies away from the content of the argument and focuses them into emotion and a battle of words where insults fly. Think of all the wasted web-space on the internet that has gone into these tussles of verbage which have ultimately resulted in no clear victor by the virtue of the fact that ridicule is cheap and easily generated upon command. 

It is often difficult to avoid engaging in ridicule when it seems to be becoming a norm in some forums, and one may ask why I am writing this since it does after-all, it seems so obvious doesn’t it? I am actually writing this as a response to the frequent encounters I have had with baseless ridicule upon the internet – in the forums and on blogosphere throughout the web. In my experience, at various times I have been labelled both a ‘bleeding-heart liberal’ and a ‘right-wing nut’, sometimes even a ‘moonbat’ or various other derogatory and yet empty terms. This written piece has resulted as a response to such inane name-calling – highlighting its empty value and its utter futility in the face of reasoned inquiry.