Losers are still losers even if they are correct

In a somewhat recent conversation, I made a claim that was scoffed at, relating to the intrusiveness of government. I had claimed that the government was intrusive, citing a recent example, and the person I was having the discussion with retorted they didn't feel government was intrusive, because the laws that were the subject of my example hadn't yet been passed into law during the anecdotal experiences of my friend.

I then stupidly tried to play along by taking blame for not being sufficiently pedantic, thinking that the conversation was still about the laws, and that perhaps my "good faith" effort would be rewarded by returning to actually discussing the topic of government intrusiveness in earnest.

As you may guess, that delusional thinking was instead rewarded by a response of "HAHA I win."

This abruptly ended the conversation I had thought we were having because, instead of returning to the topic, the topic shifted to whether they had "won". I was trying to explain why even their evidence is only significant because it proved my point, but that simply didn't matter. They had declared themselves the winner, and anything I did which did not recognize that they had won was simply evidence I was a poor loser.

One of the big learning experiences for me in my failure to understand what had happened is that I need to stop being dumb enough to think that anyone else still wants to discuss a topic in earnest when it has been demonstrated that they're wrong about something. It doesn't matter if they're an intellectual or not, the narcissistic tendencies are there, and the conversation is then no longer about the topic, but on how they aren't wrong, or you are wrong too, and giving up any ground at that point is viewed as a victory for them, because they simply don't care about truth, but about saving face.

Their focus is no longer on actually being correct, but in getting you to lose or surrender in some fashion or another, because if they get you to stop fighting on even just a little, they can win the battle and then go on to win the war, because they're obviously the ones with the greater resolve and commitment to what they believe.

Liberals have been doing this to conservatives for years in the public forum, and just like I did actually lose the real conversation, so have conservatives and for the same reasons.

When folks mentally shift from "I am correct" to "how can I not be wrong", their methods also shift and change tangibly, and slow folks like me need to do a lot better job of recognizing that for what it is and not just ignore it in hopes that ignoring the shift will somehow make it go away, or even worse, that trying to play along with it will cause the other person to reciprocate in any fashion at all and "behave better".

An example of this in the public sphere is with the label "racist". Similar to declaring oneself a winner, declaring someone else as racist only works if people are willing to play along with it, if the "racist" label has some sort of value. For conservatives, even on topics where liberals were obviously wrong, the fear of being called a "racist" caused them to shy away from attacking back appropriately. Liberals declared themselves a winner, that anyone who disagreed was racist, and conservatives were so scared of being called racist that they retreated to trying to secure better terms for their surrender.

When folks shift from the topic itself to trying to debate around the topic to undermine their opposition, that needs to be treated like escalation, an act of aggression. If it started a knife fight, they've now pulled out a gun, and the only way to dissuade this type of behavior is to pull an even bigger gun, and then use it. Positive reinforcement is a wonderful ideal, but humanity has shown time and again that positive reinforcement is nowhere near as effective as negative reinforcement. We're that stubborn and arrogant, and by default interpret positive reinforcement as a concession, as an admission that someone has lost and is now merely trying to negotiate the terms of their surrender to us.

Instead, what is needed to hit back harder, to demonstrate explicitly why it is in their best interests to surrender, and why there is no need for concession at all.

So, in the discussion beforehand that inspired this post, I should have nuked my friend from orbit. I should have gone all-out in denigrating his character, his intelligence, all of that, to do my best to attach all sorts of negative stimulus to dissuade the pathetic behavior from ever showing up again. That's the only way I wouldn't have actually lost. I thought that playing along would work, and it didn't, and I am a loser for having thought so.

Sure, after an assault like I should have given, he may never want to broach a topic of that nature ever again, or may never want to talk to me again either, but if the alternative is childish antics, what exactly am I missing out on? If what's on the other side of a bridge is a complete waste of my time, what favor do I do myself in encouraging bad behavior by trying to negotiate and compromise with it? Why should I be worried about burning a bridge to nowhere?

Nobody cares about my patience or persistence if I am wasting it on people who are never going to change, never going to care, never going to be interested in anything other than satisfying themselves. It doesn't matter if I am correct if I act like I am not.

While a loser now, if I learn from this I may one day be upgraded to a recovering loser. I can stop being quite so dumb, being quite so deluded, the next time a discussion takes a shift right in front of me. I can do a better job of partaking in the actual discussion, not the one I think is happening, and perhaps one day I can even be a winner, and not just of a battle, but of the war that such battle is just a subset of.

Till then, I must start by realizing that being correct, and acting like I know I am correct, are not the same thing, and develop better habits so that when faced with a challenge, I can step up to it confidently, instead of playing a passive-aggressive game historically reserved for the weak and impotent.

"Being correct" is the last bastion of the loser, unable to then actually do anything about "being correct", so if you find yourself retreating to that position, finding contentment in "at least I was correct", beware the possibility you just might be a loser too. There's hope, but not if you're busy participating in imaginary conversations where you're really a winner every time. It takes an honest evaluation of where you really are, with all your imperfections and failures, to know where to grow, and to stop being a loser.