Dealing with Yosemite Sam

Sam I am


Dealing with Yosemite Sams on the internet (and in real life) happens more often than we think. Yosemite Sams are those people who take a certain approach to discussion: they will rarely make a clear stance indicating who they are and what they stand for and believe- but rather all their efforts go towards attacking and undermining you, your position and your philosophy. As they make no identifying stance and often refuse to state any specifics but rather find themselves perpetually on the edge of vagueness, the actual exchange of ideas is greatly hindered. However, discourse is the farthest thing from Yosemite Sam's mind.

His tactics usually begin with a direct attack of an idea, often using emotional appeals in lieu of reason, and many times casting themselves as the stars of these emotional appeals, setting the discussion up for its next inevitable phase:

All disagreements or refutations of the emotional appeal will inevitably be sen as a personal attack by our Sams. This is, many times, an intentional setup because they believe it gives them sanction to respond in kind.

Upon being refuted out of his emotional corner, the Yosemite Sam proceeds to grab a handful of samples from the Ad Hominem and Poisoning of the Well argument stores, which they will proceed to liberally pepper upon you, while holding a double standard that prohibits anyone else to take the same steps.

Great horny-toadies, what are you doing upside-downy?

A good example of this is a series of online arguments with a rather recurrent person (he turns up more often than cancer). After being refuted he said that no-one had the right to judge anyone because they don't know all of that person's circumstances. A little later he became incensed and said that I possessed "an ugly soul" and that therefore the mysteries of music must be beyond me (by these standards, I guess Wagner must have been a saint in his personal life in order to write what he wrote). The contradictory fact that he had, in fact, judged me made no dent in his psyche- specially since he judged my "soul" which, according to those that believe in such things, is knowable only to that person and their creator. Interestingly enough, upon receiving a judgement on his character, however, he withdrew again into "You don't KNOW ME! How an you judge me?"

And this is where the Dancing Yosemite begins.

Listen, rabbit!! Yosemite Sam NEVER makes a mistake!\

The next step in Yosemite's strategy begins by retreats that are intended to call attention away from his own errors and contradictions. I have a prime example from this discussion:


Nucleardawg: "You have an ugly soul, the mysteries of music are beyond you!"
Me: "I moved people to tears with 'Dies Bildnis' in rehearsal yesterday."
Nucleardawg: "Mozart moved people to tears. Try doing it with VU's "Oh Sweet Nothing"

Here we come across the typical qualitative negation of the Yosemite strategy: he avoids qualitative and categorical judgments so that the specifics of his embarrassment can no longer be applied. For example, his categorical invalidation presupposes that anyone who performs Mozart's music will move people to tears, regardless of their skill level or artistry. Therefore Fritz Wunderlich is on the same level as Mari Lyn and Florence Foster-Jenkins. Furthermore, it also presupposes that the voice of an opera singer is perfectly suited for Rock, and that the sensibilities and stylistic tools you use for classical music will be exactly the same as the ones you use for a Rock Ballad or whatever.

When you deny standards, it is very easy to get away with anything, and that is precisely what Sam does.

Stay Still, Ye Varmint!

Finding himself with the possibility of looking like a fool, he begins to draw lines in the sand and then daring you to cross each and every one of them in succession (hence the name of Yosemite Sam, following that particular Bugs Bunny skit). With each new line, the challenge becomes more ludicrous and unbelievable, at times seeming even surrealistic, something that his avoidance of qualitative judgment allows him to do with ease. However, this is nothing more than an ineffective strategy to divert attention from the fact that the first line was crossed. When pressed on this issue they will dance around it like Ana Pavlova at the Bolshoi.

When faced with the challenge of discussing specific points of what they criticize (i.e. points on epistemology, ethics, etc), they scatter and reach for more vague generalities, shifting from point to point to a new subject or a dimly-related one, all in order to avoid answering that very important question. And there is no reason why they should, considering their aims, since an actual honest answer of the answer would devastate their stance. This can be either intentional in the more malicious mentalities, or completely accidental and indicative of the kind of mind that is incapable of following a plainly-written train of thought (an anti-conceptual mentality).

Great horny toads! Somebody's been getting footy-prints all over my desert!

So, how do you deal with Yosemite Sams? Why, it is elementary: don't talk to them. An exchange of ideas and a serious discussion may occur when both parties use arguments that attempt to be rational, are devoid of emotional appeals, and include specifics in stance, and no matter how much each part may dislike each other or disagree, there is still the possibility of a debate. Debating with Yosemite Sam is impossible because he lacks all substance in his arguments, to be accurate he even lacks arguments themselves as what he uses is nothing more than provocation. You will be more successful in trying to nail fog to the wall than to get anywhere with Yosemite Sam... if anything, the only use you can get from such a person is as a training tool: they are excellent teachers in how people refuse to address specific issues and back away from having to define their stance as anything other than a vague but strident opposition of yours.

Their clumsy steps are a good way to train yourself to eventually see the subtler evasions of more capable, more intelligent individuals who are much less oafish in their attempted tactics. But further than that, Yosemite Sams are nothing more than a waste of time... think of all the fun things you can do in the time you waste with these individuals: you could go see a movie, learn how to draw some cool art, listen to an opera, read a book ... heck, masturbate for all it's worth, or enter a coma. Any of these activities is of greater value than wasting your time with Yosemite Sam. Let Bugs Bunny take care of him, you've got better things to do.