I LOVE debates, I LOVE confrontations over ideological differences and I LOVE exchanging opinions with people on different topics [even if I ultimately end up being wrong]. I firmly believe that the smartest people in our society are the people who are open to sharing their opinions and also engaging people into sharing their own. But I definitely understand why there are a large mass of people out there who REFUSE to get into debates, because it was always ends up in being an overemotional argument that ends up proving NOTHING. Why? Because most people are too damn STUPID to obey and understand the UMBRELLA theory.
Now I’m not sure if the term Umbrella Theory is referenced to another ideology and I’m too lazy to search Google to find out, but what I mean by the umbrella theory is this:
To obey the Umbrella Theory means to respect the fact that you and the other person share the same ultimate ideological belief although there are big and small differences in the other variables, and REFRAIN from attempting to discredit their MAIN position.
To have an opinion on most topics in the world, the most basic requirement to begin building a position is choosing the affirmative or the negative [or, in other words, choosing A or B]. This is essentially choosing one of the two metaphorical umbrellas to stand under. Then after doing that, you then build upon your position with your own unique point which then outlines which PART of your chosen umbrella you choose to stand under. For example:
The Topic: Allowing Abortion
Umbrella A [The Affirmative]: Pro-Choice
Umbrella B [The Negative]: Pro-Life
Now if you decide that you think abortion is justifiable MAINLY if a woman has been raped, then you would fit under Umbrella A, but you would be standing ideologically at the RIGHT side of the umbrella, whereas someone who believes abortion is fine under any circumstance is ideologically standing at the LEFT side of the umbrella. The reason so many arguments get out of hand is because there’s always some anti-intellectual DOUCHEBAG who tries to PUSH someone out of the ENTIRE umbrella simply because they are too emotional to look at the topic and the other persons opinion from a logical perspective. THIS is the reason why conservations, blog posts, blog comments, and just shooting-the-sh*t around the way typically can get out of hand.
There’s a lot of blogs I’ve read and personally written where I read the writer CLEARLY state which umbrella they stand under, and then a bunch of simplistic, uninsightful troglodytes [who also stand under the SAME theoretical umbrella] try to attack and disrespect the writer by trying to push them out from under the ENTIRE umbrella simply because the writer stands on a different side of the SAME DAMN UMBRELLA.
This BULLSH*T needs to stop.
Let me give you an example of this stupid sh*t, using the example above: Picture the person who thinks abortion is OK mainly if a woman has been raped and the person who thinks abortion is OK under any circumstance. They are BOTH pro-choice, but their own personal opinions shade their specificity on HOW pro-choice they are. The reason this debate gets out of hand is because one DOUCHEBAG will say some sh*t like “YOU DON’T BELIEVE WOMEN SHOULD HAVE ANY CHOICE IN ANYTHING! YOU HEARTLESS PRICK!” and the reality is NO – that’s NOT either of your points because neither of you are PRO-LIFE, you’re BOTH PRO-CHOICE. And the person said MAINLY, not ONLY. So what the DOUCHEBAG in this scenario essentially did was try to PUSH the other person out from under the entire PRO-CHOICE umbrella into standing underneath the PRO-LIFE one, which makes the other person PISSED because they feel like they are not being listened to or understood and simultaneously disrespected which will usually cause them to lash out in response.
I have seen this scenario play out on topics from Natural Hair, to Dark Skin, to Rape and a bunch of other topics. It’s F*^KING impossible to have a logical and progressive debate with someone when your entire intent is to not argue the other person’s theoretical stance, but to illogically skim over their main point just to make your DUMB-ASS emotional stance.
My only words of advice to DUMBASSES who suffer from disobeying the Umbrella Theory: Do the world a great service by speaking/writing a lot less – you are getting in the way of people who want to have CONSTRUCTIVE conversations.
This Is Your Conscience
27 Comments, Comment or Ping
lincolnanthonyblades
Ladies & Gentlemen, Have You Ever Had Someone Try This Sh*t On You? [Taking Your Point And Trying To Twist It Into The Opposite Point Using Illogical BS Reasoning]
Feb 6th, 2012
Paul B.
I see it happen all the time. When I see a person can't keep it on topic or fail to actually address what I've said, it's time to keep it moving.
Feb 6th, 2012
grandgryph
since when is a theory to be `obeyed'? a theory is just an explanatory device; and in this instance one of many. it very well might be that the person ignoring the umbrella is challenging the theory and – the very classification system that organizes positions – with their response/stance. also, small distinctions can have huge implications – pragmatism has its limits.
any who. debate is a contact sport: politeness and harmony are usually a disarming tactics; so ought to be treated with the same skepticism any other maneuver might be.
given that most people aren't the least bit versed in debating tactics – or reason – my practically mindless algorithm works like a charm. my approach in debate generally is to
1) expose inherent contradictions in that person's position (then laugh while they scramble to obscure or steer away from them);
2) undermine a position with contrary evidence (often from the writers own sources)
and/or
3) attack so as the writer has to depend fallacious arguments, tautology, desperate consensus-building cliches or other general nonsense to support his/her original position – or to hide just how wrong and foolish s/he might have been in the first place.
after inflicting one or several these insults, i will pursue the opponent with an intellectual lope; very much like a wolf that's fatally wounded a caribou and chases just so it will bleed out faster and be sufficiently weak when it decides to go for the neck, lol. there's a lot to learn from mother nature, lol.
Feb 6th, 2012
Paul B.
#3 is the most hilarious one to me.
Feb 6th, 2012
msjordan11
AMEN! I think you did a good job of explaining this theory. I've been in this situation before…wasn't too sure how to explain it in my own words, but you did that perfectly. No point in having a debate with someone when they try to do this. It just doesn't go anywhere and in general you just end up wasting your time talking or writing.
Feb 6th, 2012
Paul B.
Pretty much.
Feb 6th, 2012
Independent Woman
Agreed. This is why I rarely argue with IDIOTS anymore…
Feb 6th, 2012
Independent Woman
Exactly what debating tactic is ignoring what someone said to counter them??!?!
Feb 6th, 2012
grandgryph
ROTFL.
you tell me. i quite clearly said:
1) expose inherent contradictions in that person's position (then laugh while they scramble to obscure or steer away from them);
2) undermine a position with contrary evidence (often from the writers own sources)
that strategy/algorithm RELIES on what the person says.
so see, i've done it again, LOL.
Feb 6th, 2012
theoneash20
Amen Lincoln
Feb 6th, 2012
Kam
You know what the sad part is these people are ignorant to the fact that they do this. They truly feel they are making a valid argument, one tactic or display of this is when a person leaves a long winded response to your question that shows inconsistent thought.They leave these comments and actually think they are dropping knowledge it's sad and laughable at the same time.
Feb 6th, 2012
HerCommonSense
What do you think is an effective way to counter their thoughtless reply?
Feb 6th, 2012
HerCommonSense
Good points. All very clear and concise.
But my question is how do you remain unemotional in the face of their outlandish remarks?
Feb 6th, 2012
ddddd
Thissss….
Feb 6th, 2012
HerCommonSense
I think it's easier said than done to say that you will just abandon the conversation after someone fails to stay on topic, especially when they insult you
Feb 6th, 2012
HerCommonSense
How do you deal with people like that?
Feb 6th, 2012
msjordan11
Well, at first I respond to the question/assumptions that they are making or asking. If it continues back and forth repeatedly and noone is seeing eye to eye and constant evasive responses to points being made… I just eventually leave the conversation. Some people really thrive on trying to get your attention so they keep the back and forth, making countless inaccurate remarks in order to get a reaction for whatever sick pleasure they seek. Best to just not entertain it. You can't act if there is no audience watching.
Feb 6th, 2012
grandgryph
glad to hear you stopped talking to yourself.
Feb 6th, 2012
HerCommonSense
Great points Susan. It's just so hard sometimes when someone is getting on your last nerve.
Feb 6th, 2012
grandgryph
a very gentle reminder that you think i'm a wind-bag. very nicely done, sense.
anyone who's played any kind of competitive sports has had to deal with trash-talking (and debating on the internet is a competitive sport. people generally make conciliatory sounds after they've been laid out or think that they might be).
trash-talk is one humanity's greatest inventions. i'd explain why but i'm still glowing from nice little pat on the head you gave me for my conciseness.
ah what the heck.
for me at least, the spitefulness trash talk inspires is great to watch. and, more constructively, the desire to make a rat bastard eat his or her words can take one to great heights.
almost all great athletes are great trash talkers. it is part of their motivation system. it can push a useful adversary to greater heights and, though you might get shitted on you get to stand there like, 'holy shit. the f*cker actually did it' or it causes them to meltdown and get off their game. i usually prefer the former to the latter, but i think everyone enjoys a good meltdown every now and then lol.
in political science circles, trash talk is something akin to `agonism' (though the behaviorist definition of that term is pretty insightful too) and some 'progressive thinkers' argue compellingly that hostility, conflict and skepticism are most more useful to the cultivation of democratic thought that politeness and social correctness: those things actually conceal a lot of stupidity and malice.
however, to your point. seeing that i know what the general purpose of trash-talking (i.e., outlandish remarks) is and the social importance of agonism, i've devised several superior meme/algorithms that almost automatically turn other's mediocre arguments and outlandish remarks upon themselves and forces me to construct – and test – very strong ones.
so how do i remain unemotional in the face of outlandish remarks? i don't. i get elated.
first, i rather enjoy such remarks for their comedic value. and, also since i know that once i apply my little argument algorithm an opponent is about to either
1) scurry away to bleed out in private;
2) run and curry favor so as to have someone lick their wounds (i.e., susan jordan)
or
3) 'stand and fight' and be humbled.
i'm about equally satisfied with each outcome, however would be pleasantly surprised by one i hadn't yet anticipated. alas, almost a decade and a half of trolling and nothing.
Feb 6th, 2012
sonicmel
Lol
Feb 6th, 2012
Tudor
As long as that person is truthful and upfront nobody should get upset. Now if they're being deceitful and not communicating I can see how that would get on someone's nerve.
Feb 6th, 2012
MistaHarsh
LOL @ah what the heck
I knew you couldn't just leave it at that lol
Feb 6th, 2012
grandgryph
i really tried, though…i did.
Feb 6th, 2012
Paul B.
No, it's not easy to do, but I know how to return the favor and still walk away. If they've perfected the art of being an idiot, let them show their proficiency at it by themselves. The hardest thing to do (and the least worthwhile) is to show an idiot that they are such. If they had enough sense to know they were an idiot, maybe they wouldn't still be one.
Feb 6th, 2012
msjordan11
It can be….but ignoring them feels SO much better sometimes
Not even worth the time.
Feb 6th, 2012
Georgie
This has happened to me. Typically, I just yield because I'm not willing to waste any more energy trying to get the person to understand. However, it's very frustrating because if they only understood the rules we'd be able to have much better conversations and debates without emotions getting involved. It's quite disappointing. Thanks for posting this blog. Awesome!
Feb 8th, 2012
Reply to “The Umbrella Theory [Why 90% Of People Are TOO STUPID To Argue With]”