Dance for Me

Push the right buttons and they will dance for you...

I guess people who take themselves too seriously can't take sarcasm and the "Poe"too well. I was really impressed by how one of my comments resulted in 4 counter comments from the same person. I would call that rolling a margin of success of 5 in my argument roll. Particularly when my opponent accuses me of being "poor user of words". Doest the the fact that he requires 4 post to answer my 1 give any hint to who fails to use his words in efficient economy.

I am reveling and I can't help it. When I get a pedantic armchair philosopher who is as much as a loser as I am, thinking he is better than me or my friends, I get a big kick showing otherwise while exercising some manipulation.

I'm not that good in finishing him off now that he is thoroughly ticked. I don't get that much practice in the winning part, because of my mediocrity.

I like getting them to make ad hominems , attacking me, or accusing me of being unfit to the task of argument while I remain polite, humble, amiable and generous with the flattery for my opponent. It makes them look worse and is really much harder to do. Imagine trying to point out the failed logic of someone in a way that it sounds like I'm agreeing with them. Thats hard, it also means I need to master the concept much better than them as I should be able to approach it with other angles.

The flattery and politeness are all tools of the trade. An opponent who is swayed by flattery holds back, and clearly thinks too much of themselves. Already a strategy is devised by that method, particularly when you to clearly see it is all about making themselves look good at someone else's expense. A more acute opponent will easily see the flattery as obvious sacrasm and will respond much swifter to the challenge.

Taking someone else's ideas and patronizing them only to emphasize its flaws has a short formula to it. Basically, you need to examine and re-frame his premise. Framing is in action where you get the same facts but use language to play on the natural bias of the mind. Re-framing it to point out the draw backs de-emphasized by the Opponent's previous statement and glorifying their choice of words.

There is way no way to effectively screw the Poe. Its like attacking someone who agrees with you. The Poe reminds people of always providing a balanced view of the matter. Attacking him, just serve to undermine the attackers own credibility.

I understand that balanced view, where admitting to the failings and imperfection of one's own proposition is typically out place in a "shouting" match. The question I am lead to ask is: How did it get to be a "intellectual" shouting match, where high-brow intellectual names and concepts are thrown around like ammunition?

Who has time to "weaken" their argument? Showing a balanced may undermine your own arguments, but enhances your credibility. In the end it is decided to who the people will listen to. This is clearly the most credible speaker, regardless of the side they support or if they will accept immediately his ideas. "The battle is won in the hearts and minds of the people..." where did I hear that?

Who will remember what the wordy, pedantic, and elitist opponent trying to say? I already don't.

Playing the Poe means differently now for me and some friends. It used to be about echoing the preposterous statements or claims of a fanatic, typically fundamentalists. Now it is echoing the same none-sense arguments and praising the person who put it out there.

It evolved after realizing that confirmation bias only serves to polarize sides. Playing the Poe is more effective because you serve to undermine the argument from the soft and vulnerable inside, instead of from the hardened outside: where people assume your evil, uneducated, or don't know better for not agreeing with them.

If you can't play the Poe, you are too emotionally engaged to role-play your "poe persona" and must consider the where you are in the argument.