Wednesday 16 May 2012

"If you don't like it, leave!"

Firstly - a big apology for not doing very much posting at all. Secondly - I don't think this blog will update particularly frequently, just to warn you.

This one is really quite common and also something that pisses me off...well...quite a lot, let's put it that way. Group you're part of is doing something really stupid? "If you don't like it, leave!" Disagree with something? "If you don't like it, leave!" Be at all critical of anything? "If you don't like it, leave!"

Now, this "argument" (I will not dignify it by leaving the quotation marks out) is full of bullshit and seems to be mainly used by people who can't defend their position. (I hope this isn't ad hominem - it does seem to me that this argument is only used by people who can't think of something better, though.) Let me attempt to explain why.

Leaving is not always an option. This one should be obvious and presumably isn't - that or we're getting into the territory of intentional intellectual dishonesty, which makes me frankly a bit upset and uncomfortable. Not everyone has the option to up sticks and leave whenever they please, hence sometimes people need to change a situation rather than leave it entirely. It may be impossible to leave; leaving may not be allowed at all, the person may not have the means to leave or to support themselves if they do leave, or there may simply be no place to leave for.

Leaving implies that they have a problem with most if not all of the principles and methods, while they may only want to change some. Nothing is immutable and nothing is perfect; few things are wholly imperfect either. It is perfectly possible to have a problem with the way some things are done but like or be able to tolerate the rest, and therefore only want to change it rather than overhaul the whole system.

There are probably more problems with it out there, but those are the main two that I could think of - oh, and there's another one two: by using this argument, you introduce elements to your opponent's argument that might not actually exist. In other words, you've disregarded their argument in favour of one you made up and attributed to them, meaning you need to work on your comprehension skills, your intellectual honesty, or both. It also presents a false dichotomy of sorts - you accept the current situation just as it is or you leave it, with nothing in between. This is nothing short of lazy thinking and lazy debating, too, intended to shut up your opponent...and, of course, it fails miserably because of the glaring holes in the "argument".

And finally, a plea to everyone planning on using this before I explained why not to: please think harder. It does not take as much effort as you seem to think it does.