Yes. And I think we could also make a similar chart when it comes to dealing with the religious/spiritual. “Derail” ain’t just what’s under a train.
The topic isn’t the topic. The topic is something else. Mostly, it’s you. Let’s talk about how you’re doing the wrong thing because there’s something wrong with you. Like how you’re so judgmental.
Hmmm…I’m already taking issue with this, though. Well, actually, maybe just one issue. “Your Experience Is Not Representative Of Everyone.” I can see how that can be used to derail, but I’ve been on the flip side of this recently where a person was using their experience to dismiss/minimize a problem. (Though, I suppose what she was really doing was using her experience to imply that those who have bad experiences are not representative of everyone…hmmm. OK, I may have to think this one through a bit more. It may actually be fine as is.)
Don Quijotesays
“Your’re Arguing With Opinions Not Fact.” Does that belong in there? Surely it would depend on if the arguement was a matter of opinión or fact.
I would like to object to the Bingo card’s free space being occupied by a generic white male. I think I am outraged. (You can tell that guy from the 1950s is laughing the laugh of the hegemonically advantaged.)
Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :)says
“Your’re Arguing With Opinions Not Fact.” Does that belong in there? Surely it would depend on if the arguement was a matter of opinión or fact.
The context for this is selective application of burdens and standards of proof to dismiss the assertions of the marginalized about their own lived experience.
Really, most of these need some familiarity with the context to full;y make sense.
Pensays
Yeah, they’re not good actually. Several of them are synonyms of each other. A few are contradictory. Some represent options people here have spent a long time arguing in favour of (@3). And they’ve all been framed to sound content free, but in a context where there is content, some of them may be locally relevant and appropriate.
chigau (違う)says
Y’all might be taking this a bit too seriously.
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpysays
Y’all might be taking this a bit too seriously.
Indeed.
The point is not that every utterance of every one of those phrases is always derailment. It’s just a gag, not a philosophical treatise.
PaulBCsays
I found “If You Won’t Educate Me How Can I Learn” to be a little unlike the others, since it appears to express some openness to change. But, yeah, I kind of got the point (roughly, it’s not my job to educate you) and I see it is explained in detail here. http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-education/
I’m not sure it needs to derail things. You could acknowledge that the speaker has conceded their ignorance (good), jumped to incorrect conclusion about who bears the onus of education (not so good), and may be better served by gaining education elsewhere before pursuing the topic further.
Or you could go Lucy van Pelt: I’ll educate you in five easy steps.
I’ve had a few conversations where I’ve sincerely used a variant of “If you won’t educate me, how can I learn?” in attempts to get a topic back on the rails. I ask for an explanation about a claim or how a person arrived at it. They go on and on about how stupid and inferior I am for not getting it instead of actually explaining the topic being discussed. So I ask, “How can I understand your position if you won’t explain yourself?”
Holmssays
#10
So, a re-rail?
PatrickGsays
My initial reaction was that the entire second row is basically a How To Guide for responding to MRAs.
I found “If You Won’t Educate Me How Can I Learn” to be a little unlike the others, since it appears to express some openness to change.
ahhh, you fell for it.
It’s a derailment because the context when it’s used is when somebody stumbles into an advanced level discussion and demands that the people in that discussion stop whatever they’re doing to educate them.
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpysays
@ Bronze Dog
People are allowed to have conversations that are beyond your level of familiarity with a topic and they aren’t obligated to stop their conversation to bring you up to speed. What you’re describing sounds like exactly why that’s a bingo square in the first place. If you really want to learn, ask politely if someone could point you to some further reading instead of demanding that the people trying to have a conversation explain it all to you.
PaulBCsays
ahhh, you fell for it.
It’s a derailment because the context when it’s used is when somebody stumbles into an advanced level discussion and demands that the people in that discussion stop whatever they’re doing to educate them.
Well, yeah, I got it (as noted in the rest of my comment).
Paul BC
Uhm, I’m very sorry for misnaming you.
My apologies
PaulBCsays
Bronze Dog #10
So I ask, “How can I understand your position if you won’t explain yourself?”
But again, there is an incorrect assumption of onus. Depending on the discussion, the answer may be “Do the required homework first and then come back.” This sounds rude, and may just be bluster, but there are other cases in which it is impossible to have a fruitful discussion without shared background knowledge.
Georgia Samsays
Potentially a great tme-saver for trolls & sealions. Instead of typing out the whole sentence, they can just say “I4” or “G3” or whatever.
The problem wasn’t that I lacked detailed knowledge of a living science or how an overwhelming consensus formed. In those situations, I generally know when I’m outside my element. The event I’m describing was in threads about divergent pseudoscience like astrology, parapsychology, or religion when some believer engaged a skeptical forum to post ideas that are incoherent, naive, or poorly communicated. So, I seek clarification. Whenever I try to do my homework in such a topic, I’m accused of cherry picking the worst examples or knowingly seeking out the hucksters instead of the real psychics/astrologers/theologians. If they claim to come in to enlighten us ignorant non-believers, it only seems appropriate I focus on getting them to actually say something meaningful instead of making insinuations about my personal life or gloating about their innate superiority.
PaulBCsays
Bronze Dog #19
In that case, “How can I understand your position if you won’t explain yourself?” may be a little disingenuous, and you might really mean something like “After making a good faith effort to understand what you are saying, I am pretty sure it is complete nonsense. Your move.”
throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamblesays
I suppose “You’re just looking for something to be offended by.” encompasses the “professional victimhood” charge often levied?
Alexandersays
The only one on the bingo chart I would object to is “I haven’t had it easy either”… even though I would never consider using such dismissive phrasing. I just wish there was a equivalently brief (yet unambiguous) way of saying, “I may not share your pain in this area, or even understand it, but there are areas of pain in my history that allow me to commiserate. We should work together on finding ways to Stop Being Cruel.”
khmssays
#22 Alexander
I just wish there was a equivalently brief (yet unambiguous) way of saying…
Human language.Brief, unambiguous: pick one.
Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpysays
@ Bronze Dog
In that case you’re not even talking about what the bingo card is referring to.
Re: Seven of Mine @24: Hence I referred to it as a reversal of the card’s version when I brought it up.
antepreprosays
I think from now on, every time I encounter someone using this kind of arguing style on the internet, I am gonna reflexively picture that face in the Free Space there.
Now there’s a quote to put in one of those bingo squares.
azhaelsays
@29 brianpansky
In a different context, sure, in this one, nope. Chigau’s comment is not even derailing a conversation, it’s just pointing out that first of all, this is an in-joke, and second of all, they are all very much context specific and judging their merit outside of that context is absurd.
chigau (違う)says
Actually…
brianpansky got it.
It was kinda a meta joke…
never mind
Dark Jaguarsays
What’s wrong with derailing? META SPLOSION!
I’ve actually used a large number of those in a legitimate way. Well, I thought I was being legit, I wasn’t consciously trying to deceive anyone and… I’m part of the problem aren’t I?
Yes. And I think we could also make a similar chart when it comes to dealing with the religious/spiritual. “Derail” ain’t just what’s under a train.
The topic isn’t the topic. The topic is something else. Mostly, it’s you. Let’s talk about how you’re doing the wrong thing because there’s something wrong with you. Like how you’re so judgmental.
Hmmm…I’m already taking issue with this, though. Well, actually, maybe just one issue. “Your Experience Is Not Representative Of Everyone.” I can see how that can be used to derail, but I’ve been on the flip side of this recently where a person was using their experience to dismiss/minimize a problem. (Though, I suppose what she was really doing was using her experience to imply that those who have bad experiences are not representative of everyone…hmmm. OK, I may have to think this one through a bit more. It may actually be fine as is.)
“Your’re Arguing With Opinions Not Fact.” Does that belong in there? Surely it would depend on if the arguement was a matter of opinión or fact.
I would like to object to the Bingo card’s free space being occupied by a generic white male. I think I am outraged. (You can tell that guy from the 1950s is laughing the laugh of the hegemonically advantaged.)
The context for this is selective application of burdens and standards of proof to dismiss the assertions of the marginalized about their own lived experience.
Really, most of these need some familiarity with the context to full;y make sense.
Yeah, they’re not good actually. Several of them are synonyms of each other. A few are contradictory. Some represent options people here have spent a long time arguing in favour of (@3). And they’ve all been framed to sound content free, but in a context where there is content, some of them may be locally relevant and appropriate.
Y’all might be taking this a bit too seriously.
Indeed.
The point is not that every utterance of every one of those phrases is always derailment. It’s just a gag, not a philosophical treatise.
I found “If You Won’t Educate Me How Can I Learn” to be a little unlike the others, since it appears to express some openness to change. But, yeah, I kind of got the point (roughly, it’s not my job to educate you) and I see it is explained in detail here. http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-education/
I’m not sure it needs to derail things. You could acknowledge that the speaker has conceded their ignorance (good), jumped to incorrect conclusion about who bears the onus of education (not so good), and may be better served by gaining education elsewhere before pursuing the topic further.
Or you could go Lucy van Pelt: I’ll educate you in five easy steps.
I’ve had a few conversations where I’ve sincerely used a variant of “If you won’t educate me, how can I learn?” in attempts to get a topic back on the rails. I ask for an explanation about a claim or how a person arrived at it. They go on and on about how stupid and inferior I am for not getting it instead of actually explaining the topic being discussed. So I ask, “How can I understand your position if you won’t explain yourself?”
#10
So, a re-rail?
My initial reaction was that the entire second row is basically a How To Guide for responding to MRAs.
Brony
ahhh, you fell for it.
It’s a derailment because the context when it’s used is when somebody stumbles into an advanced level discussion and demands that the people in that discussion stop whatever they’re doing to educate them.
@ Bronze Dog
People are allowed to have conversations that are beyond your level of familiarity with a topic and they aren’t obligated to stop their conversation to bring you up to speed. What you’re describing sounds like exactly why that’s a bingo square in the first place. If you really want to learn, ask politely if someone could point you to some further reading instead of demanding that the people trying to have a conversation explain it all to you.
Well, yeah, I got it (as noted in the rest of my comment).
Paul BC
Uhm, I’m very sorry for misnaming you.
My apologies
Bronze Dog #10
But again, there is an incorrect assumption of onus. Depending on the discussion, the answer may be “Do the required homework first and then come back.” This sounds rude, and may just be bluster, but there are other cases in which it is impossible to have a fruitful discussion without shared background knowledge.
Potentially a great tme-saver for trolls & sealions. Instead of typing out the whole sentence, they can just say “I4” or “G3” or whatever.
Re: 14, 17
The problem wasn’t that I lacked detailed knowledge of a living science or how an overwhelming consensus formed. In those situations, I generally know when I’m outside my element. The event I’m describing was in threads about divergent pseudoscience like astrology, parapsychology, or religion when some believer engaged a skeptical forum to post ideas that are incoherent, naive, or poorly communicated. So, I seek clarification. Whenever I try to do my homework in such a topic, I’m accused of cherry picking the worst examples or knowingly seeking out the hucksters instead of the real psychics/astrologers/theologians. If they claim to come in to enlighten us ignorant non-believers, it only seems appropriate I focus on getting them to actually say something meaningful instead of making insinuations about my personal life or gloating about their innate superiority.
Bronze Dog #19
In that case, “How can I understand your position if you won’t explain yourself?” may be a little disingenuous, and you might really mean something like “After making a good faith effort to understand what you are saying, I am pretty sure it is complete nonsense. Your move.”
I suppose “You’re just looking for something to be offended by.” encompasses the “professional victimhood” charge often levied?
The only one on the bingo chart I would object to is “I haven’t had it easy either”… even though I would never consider using such dismissive phrasing. I just wish there was a equivalently brief (yet unambiguous) way of saying, “I may not share your pain in this area, or even understand it, but there are areas of pain in my history that allow me to commiserate. We should work together on finding ways to Stop Being Cruel.”
#22 Alexander
Human language. Brief, unambiguous: pick one.
@ Bronze Dog
In that case you’re not even talking about what the bingo card is referring to.
Huh. I demand that we discuss my bingo card.
Speaking of derailing, there are some anti-vaxers on alternet like aphoenix444 who need a dose of reality. Can someone help me, please?
http://www.alternet.org/comments/why-psychiatry-holds-enormous-power-society-despite-losing-scientific-credibility#disqus_thread
Re: Seven of Mine @24: Hence I referred to it as a reversal of the card’s version when I brought it up.
I think from now on, every time I encounter someone using this kind of arguing style on the internet, I am gonna reflexively picture that face in the Free Space there.
@7, chigau
Now there’s a quote to put in one of those bingo squares.
@29 brianpansky
In a different context, sure, in this one, nope. Chigau’s comment is not even derailing a conversation, it’s just pointing out that first of all, this is an in-joke, and second of all, they are all very much context specific and judging their merit outside of that context is absurd.
Actually…
brianpansky got it.
It was kinda a meta joke…
never mind
What’s wrong with derailing? META SPLOSION!
I’ve actually used a large number of those in a legitimate way. Well, I thought I was being legit, I wasn’t consciously trying to deceive anyone and… I’m part of the problem aren’t I?