by Zachary Gorsuch
February 16, 2025
In recent years there have been a lot of nets casted by authors, influencers, gurus, pundits, brand ambassadors, and ehem, bloggers that are threaded with a particular fabric of advice designed to help us deal with other people in a certain proactive, contrived way: the art of seducing people, how to get what you want using eye contact, how to win any argument.
This strain of guidance seems applicable in areas such as law, journalism, politics and other professions; but I can’t help but wonder if those are the people responsible for the number of “Likes” displayed on the net-caster’s YouTube channels and social media pages. All of this guidance is beginning to feel more like a social experiment rooted in manipulation than a self-improvement platform.
Winning arguments is particularly puzzling to me: Are you practicing for a high school debate or running for local office? Otherwise, how to get better at shutting someone down seems like a waste of time and in my experience only two things happen before people cave on any topic: 1) shouting 2) personal attacks/insults. So where does this get us? The argument seems derailed at this point and instead becomes a name calling, poopy-faced fiasco; you know, like in the 5th grade or in presidential debates nowadays.
Trivial Pursuit
A while back a friend of mine asked me what I thought about the ad hominem tactic when engaging in a debate or argument with someone (aka gaslighting). This basically involves directly insulting or bringing into question the intelligence of the person with whom you are debating. I asked who this person was and he stated it was his parents (he’s 35, and they’re older than that, for reference). He seemed uncomfortable when I asked him to provide me with an example of the specific nature of these debates, so I changed gears and asked him why he felt like he needed to be better at arguing with his parents?
I mean, shouldn’t he have taken this up when he was a teenager, sneaking out of the house to get boozed up or smoke or go necking with the neighbor girl? His response was still not entirely cogent and he shifted again awkwardly, so I surmised that, regardless of the topic (I still don’t know), the reason he wanted to out-debate his folks was:
“Because they’re fucking wrong! They are idiots who get dumber by the day, which only seems to strengthen their belief in this cockamamie agenda they keep pretending to know everything about!!! They are big, fat, dumb pieces of crap and I want to show them how stupid they are!!!!” I know what he was thinking because I watched a 7-minute internet video on how to read people like a book.
My assumptions may have gotten a little riled up, but in all seriousness, I’ll bet this is pretty close to how a lot of us feel when we casually slip into a heated discussion about anything that might be happening in the world today. And unfortunately, that is often the type of language that ends up slipping from the tongues of people who, in the heat of the moment, seem to care much more for the point they’re trying to deliver than for the human being they’re sending it to. Amazon anyone?
I told my friend I would think about it, but that the idea of debating colloquially and in social situations seemed unnecessary to me. And after further consideration, I was honestly perplexed. Is there anyone attending or keeping score at these matches or is this more like what playing board games used to be, just for fun? If either of these is the case then I have learned to quickly disengage, for in my household growing up, even playing Trivial Pursuit or Pictionary could stoke an adult shouting match worthy of clearing any room.
“It’s 12 degrees outside, I think I’ll just go shoot some hoops in the driveway.” A dear cousin or two would sometimes follow. “Wanna play a game of 21? We’ll get warm faster.” You respond, “Sure. Watch that ice it’s…oo! shit, you ok?” Well, he’s doing better than Uncle Jimmy is at Scrabble.
Hanlon’s Razor
Most annoying people are not out to get us, they’re just distracted, dense, busy, tired, late, cranky, entangled or self-involved; and in conversation they’re simply regurgitating basic themes they swiped through while repetitively scrolling through their phones all morning. When we find ourselves easily frustrated with someone, it is rarely because they are superior, complex creatures who just always seem to know how to best us. In fact, most of the time when we’re having difficulty engaging with somebody it’s because we wind up outwardly descending to their levels of cognitive behavior. Even when we are aware that a higher road exists, we play follow the leader in front of the mirror.
Extending grace to those who lack it is like an art form and it takes a great deal of practice and patience to become effective at it. But it seems like the more common path most people take is one of anger, blaming and shaming, because, well that’s what our adversary is doing so we have to fight fire with fire. A less common path is one that leads to apologizing for something we aren’t necessarily guilty of, but the little peacemaker in us feels the need to concede for the sake of extinguishing that which resembles a dumpster fire. Unless we’re behind the wheel of a car.
When we’re commuting or traveling around in our vehicles, the people who piss us off are never issued an apology because there is only one universal symbol that gets used in a moving car and it’s a single digit extended from the hand that’s not clutching the steering wheel. We also know that the person who rode our bumper, honked and then flipped us the bird on our way to work this morning does not know us, nor do they wish to personally attack us, with a few exceptions: I once pulled up behind a line of cars while getting off the highway and watched a civilian man holster his gun while climbing back into his truck after threatening the driver in front of him at a stop light in rural Missouri, for instance.
Well shucks, that could have just been a good ole’ fashioned father-son mixup, but in most cases, by the time we arrive at our destination and maybe shared our little road rage mini-saga with a few co-workers, it’s forgotten and we go about our day. In doing so, we inadvertently give the angry bird-flipper grace, while sparing our families with yet another traffic tale at the dinner table.
In a personal relationship with someone, we’re unable to view them merely as traffic offenders because, unlike that motorist who cut us off, we are likely going to see them again and again. That is, if we choose to. There’s no way I would suggest to my friend or anyone who was not in physical or emotional danger, that they cut off communication with their parents. But boundaries, distance, and respect for one’s personal space and privacy are important to establish in many relationships where the blade of Hanlon is not too sharp to bear.
Knives Down
Despite the level of intolerance we may feel toward interacting with a mother-in-law, a rival sibling or a selfish friend, we seem to exert a great deal of energy tolerating and accepting their emotional proximity to us, not to mention the personal impact it has on us. Regardless of whether we can’t or won’t escape from these people, many of us employ softer tactics, such as saying sorry when you’re not really sorry, as mentioned earlier.
Another way of showing our love is by changing the subject when a shrill voice inquires : “So, tell me again why you’re still dating that what’s her face? You know that hussy, Megan?” While this is hardly a debatable topic, let’s hope nobody is saying, “Sorry mama, I won’t see her no more” like Norman Bates just before they go stabbing somebody in the shower.
And for those who don’t go storming out of the kitchen or turn the tables by threatening to stab mama, we might implement the Red Herring Fallacy: “Um, her name is Michelle, but hey mom, how is retirement going? Are you still meeting up with the gals every Tuesday for your knitting group?”
Don’t be surprised if this actually works, because most difficult people are self-absorbed and, despite a bewitched need for confrontation, will often jump at the opportunity to discuss the subject of themselves. Also don’t be surprised if she replies that her knitting group was “just a bunch of dumb old hags” and that she doesn’t need to be involved in “some chatty little stitch and bitch racket”. Knives down.
Hi, My Name Is…
Changing the subject can be a useful device, but quite often it becomes a foolish way of dealing with fools. When people are drunk, ill-informed, obnoxious, pushy or just plain mouthy, I don’t bite. And while it may be awkward when I excuse myself for ‘just a minute’ out of the blue, it’s far less painful than sitting there pretending that this would-be conversation carries any sort of weight in the universe.
I do believe that there are times when truths just need to be said and heard, but if you couldn’t tell at this point, I’m not much for casual debating. I’m not declaring that we should all sit around and talk about the things we agree on, as that too can lead to trouble. What I am suggesting, however, is that we assess the level of significance that these disagreements hold and that there are likely far more productive ways in which we can utilize our time and energy, either together or respectively.
Still feel like dissension goes with the territory? Then do it right: sit everyone in the family down in the living room, “here you go Aunt Millie, we’ll give you a front row seat”, assign a panel of judges and perform an actual debate using questions from the audience and a “no personal attacks” rule.
Or better yet, put together an all-insults rapping battle like Eminem did in that one movie 8 Mile. And make sure you stream it on the old Facebook page, with the event titled: The Eminem Ad Hominem Phenomenon. If you have to, then do it- it might just be the best thing the internet has ever seen.
Or, if we feel we must engage, we could practice giving grace to those who need it most. It requires a lot more effort, but in reality, it’s the better move; even if it’s way less hysterical.