Why I don’t argue on the internet

Here the women met them, swords and axes in their hands, and with hideous shrieks of rage tried to drive back fugitives and pursuers alike, the fugitives as traitors, and the pursuers as foes; they mixed themselves up with the combatants, with bare hands tore away the shields of the Romans or grasped their swords, and endured wounds and mutilations…

This quote from Plutarch’s Life of Marius was offered by the internet, with a handful of others, as “proof” that Celtic women were warriors. The other quotes were not cited, and after an admittedly quick search, I couldn’t find a reference — but I did find where they’re making the rounds: website to blog post to social media and back again — so I’ll restrict myself to the one quote.

Thing is, whether or not Celtic women were warriors — I imagine sometimes they were — Plutarch doesn’t actually tell us that. In fact, he tells us the exact opposite!

In the first place, the women in question were Ambrones, a people who came from Jutland, modern-day Denmark, and who are ultimately of uncertain origin. Based on geography alone, they’re more likely Germanic than Celtic, but the latter is certainly possible based on some extant cultural practices. But bits of culture are easily shared, and to just assume the Ambrones were Celts (because you want them to be) is not just shoddy history, it’s irresponsible and anti-intellectual. And it’s important because it tells us a little about the arguer — that they play loose with the facts, for example.

But more to the point, if you read the quote in context, you’re left with a very different impression than was originally proposed:

5 Well, then, the Ambrones became separated by the stream; for they did not all succeed in getting across and forming an array, but upon the foremost of them the Ligurians at once fell with a rush, and the fighting was hand-to‑hand. Then the Romans came to the aid of the Ligurians, and charging down from the heights upon the Barbarians overwhelmed and turned them back. 6 Most of the Ambrones were cut down there in the stream where they were all crowded together, and the river was filled with their blood and their dead bodies; the rest, after the Romans had crossed, did not dare to face about, and the Romans kept slaying them until they came in their flight to their camp and waggons. 7 Here the women met them, swords and axes in their hands, and with hideous shrieks of rage tried to drive back fugitives and pursuers alike, the fugitives as traitors, and the pursuers as foes; they mixed themselves up with the combatants, with bare hands tore away the shields of the Romans or grasped their swords, and endured wounds and mutilations, their fierce spirits unvanquished to the end. So, then, as we are told, the battle at the river was brought on by accident rather than by the intention of the commander.

20 1 After destroying many of the Ambrones the Romans withdrew and night came on; but in spite of so great a success the army did not indulge in paeans of victory, or drinking in the tents, or friendly converse over suppers, or that sweetest of delights for men who have fought and won a battle, sleep…

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/plutarch/lives/marius*.html

(Section 19, paragraph 5)

First, Plutarch draws a distinction between “women” and “combatants.” Second, he tells us it’s only after the Romans crushed the Ambrone line and broke into their camp that they encountered any women. There they did fight, clearly, but not on the battlefield.

At this point, someone will probably mistake me for a “men’s rights activist” or some bullshit. People evaluate arguments not by what you say but toward which extreme you are pointing. They draw a straight line from your words and drop you at whatever pole it hits.

I can’t control what other people do. I can only control myself. And after all is said and done, I don’t want to argue about it. So why share? What’s the point of pointing someone at reasoned criticism if you’re not willing to die defending it, like the Ambrones in the river?

Because I don’t have to be right. Or, more accurately, I don’t have to be seen as being right. I’ve shared another point of view. I referenced my argument. I’ve armed you with facts. I’ll let you die in the river. I have better things to do.

As wonderful as the internet is for connecting people across any distance — I am typing this from Tokyo — it remains quite possibly the worst medium in existence for enlightened discussion. Interpretive dance would fare better, not least because such a difficult and abstract performance would necessarily put the viewer in a contemplative state of mind (or to sleep).

That’s not to say the medium is incapable of reason. Given proper constraints, it tilts that way. The Economist, for example, poses a question every week and invites two experts to give a word-limited argument, as well as an even more limited rebuttal to their opponent. But they are experts. And that’s not the internet. The internet is the comments section.

In practice, people expect that, when you disagree with them, your convincing retort must fit into a single comment (amid a flurry of competing comments) — basically, that any truth in the universe can be pithy and bite-sized, and if not, well, then clearly you’re wrong.

And let me tell you why.

We all know this to be true. And yet on it goes. If the internet — and social media in particular — is such a horrible medium for debate, why do so many people do it? All. The. Time?

Sport. Entertainment. Some folks enjoy the vigor of wrestling. Like politics, arguing is a species of rhetoric where the goal is to capture the appearance of victory. That’s all it can be, in fact. It’s not possible for it to be any more because there is no final arbiter of truth. The only “win” is a facile one.

Internet arguments are to your local intramural league what politics is to Major League Baseball. That is, measured by weight, the bulk of internet discussions have as much to do with truth-seeking as the bulk of politics does with actual, real governance. But it’s fun for some people, it gets the blood up, just as some folks like to spend their Saturdays on the baseball diamond.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. My only real criticism is that some folks seem to think arguing is more than that, that what they are doing is important, rather that just another kind of sport, and that therefore if you decline to argue, as I do, you are automatically of an inferior species.

Steer far from them.

(art by Ron Allouche)