Blogging, as a practice, exists as a one-person discourse. It can turn into a two (or more) person discussion with comments, but in many cases a blog post is written, posted, and then never directly modified after that. Depending on the nature of a particular blog, it can end up as a stand-alone piece of writing, in which case it can be seen as similar to a book or other published work. Other blogs, of course, directly encourage comments and discussion. The writer can decide whether or not to allow comments, whether to filter the comments (such as by deleting spam, flaming, or other negative posts), and whether to reply to them. Thus a blogger has full control over whether their post remains a one-person discourse or a ‘conversation.’
As we learned, there is a difference between whether a discussion is considered a conversation or an argument. Thus a blog post (and the resulting commentary) can also be considered either a conversation or an argument. In this case, I consider this blog post to be an argument. I am making a point (that this blog post is an argument), I am offering evidence to support my point (by describing the ways in which it is an argument), and I am attempting to persuade any readers to accept my point of view.
(The fact that it’s an argument about whether it’s an argument is rather meta.)
Obviously, this particular blog post is likely to generate responses (since they’re required for class participation anyway). Regardless of the nature of the responses, I feel confident that I can continue to apply the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor to this blog post by claiming THIS BLOG POST IS WAR.
You might be inclined to disagree with this statement (which, if you do, automatically makes me win, since you’d be arguing). If you disagree with me that THIS BLOG POST IS WAR, we would have opposing viewpoints, and I would be trying to convince you that mine is correct. Even if you choose not to voice your disagreement, the THIS BLOG POST IS WAR metaphor still applies; I could claim victory without resistance, which is what happens in war when one side surrenders, and surrender is one of the valid conclusions to the WAR metaphor.
There is, however, another possible perspective. You could claim that by agreeing with me, this would be only a conversation (not an argument) since there needs to be conflict in order for it to be an argument. However, if you take this perspective, there are only two possible outcomes, both of which would lead to your defeat.
1. You disagree with me and claim that this is only a conversation, at which point you are making an argument against my point, and have thus been drawn into my argument. We would then be on opposing sides trying to convince each other, and thus the WAR metaphor will have been satisfied.
2. You can decide to agree with me in order to keep it as a conversation. However, by agreeing with me, you will be taking the stance that THIS BLOG POST IS WAR. My goal, as stated above, is “attempting to persuade any readers to accept my point of view.” If you agree with my point of view, I have accomplished my goal, and thus achieved victory without a fight. Thus, even if you attempt to hold only a conversation instead of an argument, you have played into my hands, and thus I prove my point that THIS BLOG POST IS WAR.
Perhaps this is why the WAR metaphor is so prevalent in our society (such as the WAR on drugs, the WAR on poverty, and so forth). While there are some people who like to claim “it takes two to argue,” I’ve demonstrated here that this simply isn’t the case. If one person attempts to argue, and the other refuses, they are playing into the metaphorical concept of WAR as already discussed. This concept extends into the WAR metaphor further by the idea that one side in a conflict can choose to surrender without a fight; they are still considered ‘conquered’ even if they never attempted to put up any resistance.