My Ivy League education

did teach me one thing: the difference between disproving and disapproving. One of my philosophy profs pointed out that in argument, most humans' use of language is not really different from apes grunting in approval or disapproval. No content, only reaction.

I have discovered that conversations, and especially arguments, are very often not about what they are apparently supposed to be about.

I had a confrere in the Dominicans who was quite self-satisfied and haughty but really pretty dumb --he was a laybrother who was taking advantage of the postVatican II egalitarian fad to get educated.
I used to take delectatio morosa in trying to get him to enunciate an idea rather than just emote with words. Practically impossible. He'd come back from a movie and say it was good. "What was good about it?" "I liked it. It was enjoyable." "What particularly made in enjoyable?" "It was good." And so on.

It was not until his brother came on a visit, however, that I realized that I had misjudged and underestimated the man. Compared to his Neanderthal sibling, he was an evolutionary leap, a wonder of nature.

But I digress.

It is common as air to read commentors supposedly take down their interlocutors' opinions by saying, "That's racist" or "You're an anti-Semite" or "bigoted" or "discriminatory" or "hateful" or "insulting" or "offensive". Et cetera. But none of that is an argument. None of it touches on the truth or falsity of the proposition, factually or logically. It's just grunting, poop-flinging ape-talk.