There is an intellectual deficiency masquerading as an argument. I first noticed it in the past presidential debate when used against GOP candidates challenging the moderators’ biased behavior, and more recently in the Munk debate, where it was quickly grasped as a way to summarily dismiss Dr. Peterson’s arguments. It goes something along this line: You’re complaining.
It is often phrased in a more convoluted manner, but said with such disdain as to imply that a complaint, in any context, should be dismissed. Parallels are drawn to some group—in the Munk debate the comparison was with “snowflake” students—whose complaints are generally viewed as unfounded.
I don’t like to use the word stupid. Okay, yes I do, but generally I refrain from such vulgarity in the pursuit of an ideal turn of phrase. This argument is dumbfoundingly stupid. One hardly knows how to respond. What recourse, if not complaint, can one address grievances? Should one say, “You’re stepping on my toe,” it would either be a great fool, or more likely a bully, that would respond with the observance that a complaint is a complaint.
This is a shortcut bypassing true argument. Instead of showing that the complaint is ungrounded by recourse of reason, this sidesteps the issue by assuming all complaint baseless. All, that is, except for the complaint regarding the complaint, for to complain that one’s opponent is complaining is a complaint.
Seeing as this level of stupidity cannot stand alone, some small redress is made, some excuse as to why this complaint should be dismissed. During the recent primaries, the reason was that other countries—the conditions of the job itself—weren’t going to be fair either. A marvelous way to validate one’s own abuses. Forgetting that the offending behavior was challenged not as being generally unfair, but unfair on the level of preferential treatment towards the Democrats, the argument against the complaint merely added up to a dismissal of complaints.
So too, I see the dismissal of Dr. Peterson. He “complains,” arguing his points that freedom of speech, and the foundational individualism of western culture, is endangered, and his detractors have resoundingly concluded that this is complaint, equating his reasoning with whining.
Could we all stop complaining about complaining and address each other’s arguments hereon?
(Learn more of my thoughts on the Munk debate in my post: Jeeves to the Rescue.)
Funny pics:
Tale Told 