@AmazingAtheist @JaclynGlenn: Harsh Cases of the #Interruption-Virus (#Interrupt-itis?) @CopelandMinistries @FoxNews

'Back in MY dayyyyyyyy' (okay, before my day; but 'days I learned about in elementary- middle- & high-school'), people listened to another person's full-'argument' (their book's full chapter, or at-least the full paragraph ... if not the entire Bible) before they made their counter-argument.

But 'the people mentioned in the post-title' (and doubtless many other 'commentators' before them—just the above few came to mind) feel the need to insert their 'bits of snark' before an annoying statement is completed ... so that the original conclusion doesn't stand on solid ground because the 'snark-sters' set-about smashing it while the original writer/speaker was establishing it—mixing-up the freshly laid cement before it can harden and the original argument can build to its main point.

That form of interruption is more like 'an external manifestation' of the internal "interruptions" that always popped up in our minds before we had the power to 'stop them and start our rejection of their argument before it was our turn' ... I know sometimes I–when listening to some Bible-preacher make some statement based more on 'the ideal conditions Our Father God started-with' than on 'the world as it actually is'–will often take 'that disagreement' as an excuse to 'let my mind wander'

... 'interrupting them' without letting them know that "they lost me."

For instance: when Brother Copeland announces that 'he doesn't watch the news or the latest movies or T.V.-shows,' my mind takes "the idea that Our Father God is (at this moment) 'I Am' and not 'I Was' nor 'I Will Be' (the two time-periods that most Bible-preachers concerned themselves-with)" as an excuse to 'block out' whatever Brother Copeland thinks we need to hear.

'That word' (below-hyperlinked to some findings of interruption-science) is built on Foundations that also serve as the steady base of today's lexicon ...

---

The word “Interrupt” carries the scent of “Between (Inter-) + to Break (Rupture, Corrupt).”

---

But aren't there times (or 'weren't there times "back then"') when it's good to interrupt out loud? Yes!

There are 'big debates' like the recent Democratic Election 2020 Debate, where there were TWELVE candidates to hear-from. CNN needed THREE moderators there to make sure that candidates stopped talking so the other candidates (including at-least one I hadn't heard-of before) could work-in at least a sentence-or-two.

That night I was talking for a speech-pathology class (along with a panel of the professors other past/present patients), and I used another form of 'good interruption'—I might compare it to 'scripted interruption,' but it's more "ad-libbed" than that.

The 'interruption' (more like a "segue") happened when I was explaining to the class that a crucial part of every patient's recovery is "practice on their own time." And I think I had made that point, but ... it's more in my nature to 'pass the relay-bar' than to 'end anything.' So–after I made my point–I think I started giving examples of it (reading all the time (road-signs, food-labels, etc.), singing songs that played frequently on the radio, etc.), and finally came to my last example where I gave the professor 'the cue' that it's a good time to interrupt: 

I repeated, "... talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and ..." she took the cue.

That's a lot like–in the theatre, where I usually play 'a hick in the main-character's community (of mostly hicks)'–interruptions that are "written into the script"–usually one character will be belly-achin` about some bad situation, and another character will cut them off in order to  bring back peace' (usually in some form of "Quit yer belly-achin`!")

And of course you want to interrupt when someone's arguement is leading you to a false conclusion (e.g. giving you false hope of 'some afterlife paradise you'll go to if you believe some guy died to wash your sins away with His blood'). Where 'the v-loggers in the subject-line' get it wrong: they 'interrupt,' make their counter-argument, and then (rather than ending the video right there) let the speaker continue unchanged.

You're supposed to stop the video and/or walk away after the first big disagreement with the speaker. (Or–if they're not 'a salesperson needing to make some money off of people who might "agree"'–at least stop the conversation and switch topics).