I currently have two drafts saved on my WordPress blog, one of which I started today, and the other I last worked on some months ago, that are disturbingly similar. I couldn't help but notice that the topic I discuss in both is identical, but the writing style is quite different, owing to the differing approach I took the second time round. The older post I made when in a bit of a mood, so it is quite hostile in tone (though not as inflammatory as I could make it), whereas the newer one is strictly factual, and thus much more neutral. I find myself in a bit of a pickle when it comes to how I should deal with these two posts; I like to think that the more hostile posts are more entertaining, since I tend to lay the sarcasm on rather thick. Unfortunately, I have noticed that, when I try to be strictly factual, I tend to come across as blunt, and I end up pissing off even more people. Granted, I have never once tried to use my rhetoric to actually convince anyone to change their mind, because I gave up trying to do that long ago. People typically change of their own volition, not because of someone else's creative epistemology (at the very least, it certainly has never worked on me). Besides, being sweet and pleasant has never been my style.
So, what do you think? Should I dial up the sarcasm and try to entertain, or should I try to remain neutral and risk coming across as both blunt and boring? Below are some excerpts of the drafts I am referring to, in case you wish to examine the differences for yourself. The differences are quite subtle, since these particular excerpts concern the exact same thing, whereas the remainder of each post is a summary of my pretext for writing them in the first place.
Oh, one last thing, a note to the moderators: I'm not trying to ask a loaded question here, despite how biased my writing samples undoubtedly appear. In fact, feel free to tell me that I have no idea what I'm talking about in either case, if you like! On the other hand, if either @lucylin or @fiberfrau would like to know where I'm going with these lines of thought, we can continue this conversation in the comments section of another post; the more, the merrier!
Old Approach (sarcastic, but also instructional):
Most people do not think critically about their own beliefs. However, most people, I like to think, are intellectually honest enough to realise that, when reality disagrees with their ideas, then reality is right, and they must re-evaluate their position. This is such a basic premise that religions typically teach their adherents "not to test the deity - if it is in the scriptures, it is already true," as a means of stifling dissent before it can even occur. This method of indoctrination has been around for at least three thousand years (based on the age of Rabbinic Judaism), and is still used today. However, should an adherent of the faith accidentally come across an instance of reality disagreeing with their holy dogma, they must choose whether to believe their own lying eyes, or the infallible words that they've heard their entire lives. I must commend the mental fortitude of those who choose to believe an abstract idea over objective reality, for they are worthy opponents. Prior to figuring out how to identify them, I also found these people utterly infuriating in internet conversations. Now, I shall share that process.
When a person makes an inane claim, they will frequently include some fact to support it. This fact is either a bullseye painted round an arrow (a.k.a. cherry-picked), or simply false. No-one likes to be wrong, but correcting a factual inaccuracy is not an attack on the person making it, nor on the idea that they are defending. When confronted with a fact that conflicts with one's argument, one has several options, key among them: not respond at all, concede the error and re-assess one's position, try to argue against the inconvenient fact, or (and this is the most frustrating to deal with) ignore the fact while responding to the critic. If the response displays intellectual dishonesty, then you are probably not dealing with someone who is merely ignorant or brainwashed - you are probably dealing with an ideologue. In order to find out, you should press them: address further factual errors, and don't let them get away with dodging questions or criticisms.
Ideologues act like narcissists, by which I mean that they will never concede error (unless they see some strategic advantage to it, such as trying to convince spectators that they are intellectually honest), and are sore losers. Think of it this way: ideologues are narcissists by proxy, for rather than believing themselves infallible, they believe their idea to be infallible. I know that my audience consists of largely secular (though not necessarily atheist) individuals, and you may recognise a lot of what I have been saying so far as perfectly applicable to religious zealots and apologists. However, religious beliefs are not the only ones that are defended in the manner that I have just described. While what I have termed the "ideological method," is more popularly known as the "creationist method," it could just as easily be called the "socialist method" as well.
New Approach (strictly factual):
There are many common addictions that are well-documented, and they produce easily observable activity in the brain. Studies have repeatedly shown that the same areas of the brain are active when an individual is consuming drugs, engaging in sexual intercourse, having a spiritual experience, or seeing their content go viral on social media. In every single case, this positive feedback is a large influx of dopamine. Deprive any individual of their favourite substance, sexual partner, religion, or social media account, and the result will be the same - the tell-tale symptoms of withdrawal. The same is true of those who are in love with an idea, i.e. ideologues.
You may have seen me use the phrase "ideological method" in the past. The ideological method is a system of apologetics designed to support an idea that cannot stand on its own merit; it is, in essence, the opposite of the scientific method. At a time when the greatest opponent to science was Christianity, the apologetics were known as the "creationist method," though the same exact types of fallacious arguments can be used to support nearly any ideology that comes into conflict with science. Calling such apologetics "creationist" is to ignore every conflict between ideology and science other than creationism versus the Theory of Evolution. All ideologues do exactly as creationists do: they start with a conclusion, then look for evidence that supports it, twisting, dismissing, or outright ignoring any data that is inconvenient to their idea. This is the logical fallacy known as cherry-picking, or as I like to call it, "painting bulls-eyes round arrows." This is not the only logical fallacy that the ideological method uses; all of them are employed at one stage of debate or another, usually ending with ad hominem fallacies and even attacks, as a quote commonly attributed to Socrates goes, "when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
It is quite common for ideologues to be narcissists, as narcissists are usually obsessed with always being right. To use the scientific method is to accept the possibility that you may be wrong, and may have to change your mind; your own idea may prove to be inferior to someone else's. To use the ideological method, on the other hand, is to never have to admit to any failings, and to trivialise or simply ignore any mistakes. I would posit that narcissists only ever admit to the tiniest of mistakes for the purpose of feigning humility. The self-flagellation, both literal and metaphorical, that religious zealots frequently engage in, is the reason that religion is sometimes said to be "arrogance masquerading as humility." To this, I say "there is no greater hypocrisy than to gloat about being humble." I have, believe it or not, met someone who once boasted to me that he was "very talented and humble." Such praise, of course, doesn't work unless it comes from someone else.