I’m not really sure why, but I’m always wildly drawn into watching feuds ensue between two members of the same circle. Maybe it’s my unhealthy fascination with seeing someone beat down into submission… or maybe I just enjoy the role of being commentator and gossip-hound of the events. I can’t change who I am, so with that being said:
I’ve witnessed two of these so-called “feuds” between bloggers in the past weeks – both of which were highly entertaining in their own right and drew some great comment discussion in the process.
Extreme John vs. iWoodpecker
The more recent proceeding occurred when Allan at iWoodpecker accused Extreme John, the extroverted and colorful personality at ExtremeJohn.com of anywhere from topic pilfering to downright plagiarism of a recently written post of his. Now, this is one of the highest allegations you can make towards someone in the writing profession so, as you can probably guess, it caused a proverbial shit storm in it’s wake that bled over to public posts on the issue made by both parties:
Extreme John: 10 Reasons I Wouldn’t Copy Your Article
iWoodpecker: Why I Blamed John in Stealing My Idea
Extreme John: Cheddar Bob The Blogger
Wassup Blog vs. Darren Rowse (among others)
Earlier this month though, a more notable case of personal attacks (or at least a questioning of one’s ideology) took place when Sire of Wassup Blog published a post explaining why he no longer links to the likes of ProBlogger and John Chow. The gist of the matter was his issue with A-list bloggers lack of effort in commenting on other blogs within their niche… or these “rockstars” even giving recognition of others who comment by visiting their blogs in return.
Of course, as with any public “e-penis” fight, comments from onlookers came in immediately. Even David Risley was dragged into the discussion somehow and inspired a video post on his part on the issue when comments begin to hurt your blogging. One of the “called out” parties showed up soon afterwards when Darren Rowse of ProBlogger.net confronted the issue head on and explained his side on this alleged claim of hypocrisy on his part.
I won’t get into the exact details and eventual resolution to both conflicts. I’ll save that for you to read yourself… but if you’re the type that loves car wrecks and skateboarding bloopers, I definitely suggest you check out the posts – especially the bevy of comments that ensued between all parties involved in the process.
What can we learn from these two examples?
It’s no surprise at all, but if we kept a “scorecard” in both instances, the bigger fish ended up trumping the smaller minnow by a fairly large margin. Why was that the case though? Was it because the winning party was essentially correct or was it going to be perceived that way regardless of the facts?
Feuds and battles like these have been going on for eons between warring sides of an issue or struggles for power within a specific circle. In almost all situations, the small fry always loses. This is because the “minnow” is lacking in one very important attribute that makes for a successful persuasion. Trust.
When someone has more attained influence and authority on a matter, their words automatically will carry more weight no matter how convincing the other side can be in refuting their arguments. Breaking this established trust the bigger fish has with those you’re looking to dissuade is an uphill battle, at best. Sometimes even cold hard facts and direct evidence won’t even persuade loyalists who believe the person they trust can do no wrong. If that’s the case, what options does the small fry have to have any chance of coming out ahead?
- Question the intent of the bigger fish.
Argue the fact that your opponent is arguing! The intent of another party is very easy to attack because proof is nearly impossible to achieve. Although it’s a fairly ineffective method of persuading other, pointing out that your opponent feels the need to refute a statement you made shows that there is some insecurity that onlookers will believe it to be true. This, in and of itself, brings to light that there is a possibility your argument is valid. If it was so outrageous, your opponent would never participate in a debate at all as there would be no need to convince others such radical claims were false. It would be easily apparent.
- State arguments in terms of a utopia.
One of my favorite methods of attack, get your opponent to actually *agree* with you openly and outright. Of course, the only way possible is to state your argument in the environment of a utopia that may or may not be achievable in any fashion.
“I think we were right to go to war against Iraq.”
“But you believe that war is inherently a bad thing, right?”
“Yes, of course.”
“So then you’d rather wars not happen at all… which includes us being in Iraq.”
- Fight with sheer unmatched quantity.
If you can’t make one single convincing argument, then why not make 100 of them? Make so many that your opponent will eventually agree with one of them which you can then leverage to refute a future statement of theirs. Or even better, maybe they’ll just succumb to the onslaught and concede!
The last option a small fry has may actually be the best course of action. Don’t make the argument to begin with. There are probably better avenues to build your influence than fighting a battle that is nearly impossible to win. This is especially true in a situation where there’s little to gain upon winning and a lot to lose if you come out scathed. Sure, you may get some short-term traffic, comments & gossip for “calling out” one of the bigger fish, but will it be good promotion for yourself?
Think about this next time you want to stir up controversy by way of a personal attack. It may be you who ends up getting pwned in the process!