Trying to argue with conservatives.
All that they’re great at is detouring, distancing, playing down, doubling-tripling down, disassociating, strawmen and more illogical fallacies. They can’t take up an honest debate unless there are rules in place that gives them any outs from being pressed when confronted with questions they can’t give truthful answers to.
Presenting facts to conservatives.
Talking with .ml users, turns out you really can’t fix stupid
their brains are so big that anyone who doesn’t agree with them about anything ever is a fascist.
Including other .ml users
the only good revolutionary a traitor to the revolution
Figuring out that you can’t change anyone’s mind by arguing online
The only thing you achieve is a dopamine hit for being right
i’ve changed plenty of people’s minds online… but truth me told it was like 10 years ago before social media rotted their brains and everyone was living in hug boxes. and it was generally among my peer group of 20/early 30 somethings. it wasn’t teenagers or people in their 50s.
i used to be a part of tons of communities on reddit where people actually argued productively. but again, this was a decade ago. world was different, people were different. today people dismiss you based on the slightest disagreement.
hell on this site i have been told i’m a fascist for linking to government data and wikipedia. apparently facts are fascist now.
Arguing with religious people. Especially the ones who ring doorbells
All that they’re great at is detouring, distancing, playing down, doubling-tripling down, disassociating, strawmen and more illogical fallacies.
it’s all they have, facts have an overwhelming liberal bias; science and research keep making them look like fools for their decisions and lifestyles; they’re going to try to repeal the 19th amendment because they’re tired of losing the votes from half the population.
never do they try to fix their problems, address the needs of their base, it’s always doubling down on hating some portion of the population that must be to blame, see POC, transfolk, the dark scourge of ANTIFA etc
Living in modern society.
I do everything I’m supposed to, i jump through hoops all day all week all year, making the responsible and correct decisions, and there is almost no reward. The reward is I get to keep doing it instead of getting to do anything else with my life. The reward is that I get to keep supporting this system that barely supports me, this system i was born into and never agreed to depend on for survival.
Such is the life of a slave i guess
trusting mods of any social media platform to apply rules unilaterally. you’d be better off trusting a bear while being slathered in bacon grease.
If the boss doesn’t like you for whatever reason you’re done.
Just get out of there, fighting their bullshit never works.
I feel this so hard.
99% of all arguments on the internet. Someone is almost always going to engage in some kind of pedantry, butwhatabout, technicality, argumentative fallacy, etc. to try to make themselves right and/or imply the OP was wrong in some way. They are not open to having their mind changed. Especially when it comes to politics, and there’s essentially no hope for religion at all. This generally applies to IRL discussions, too. At least the internet argument you can just walk away, block, or unsubscribe to any replies to the thread.
In the same vein…expecting anyone to change. People have to change themselves, and it’s not up to you. You can’t make it happen except maybe in the most extreme situations, and even then it might be iffy.
And I hate to say it, apologizing on the internet. Once the downvote train starts and shitting on the offender’s posts there’s almost no way out and any apology isn’t worth the effort. I find this kinda hypocritical seeing as there are numerous internet posts about the value of admitting you don’t know something or might have it wrong, and how we shouldn’t shame people for admitting that, yet if someone screws up and apologizes they’re usually hosed. Just reinforces not apologizing.
arguing online isn’t a liberal arts classroom.
why would you expect people to know what argumentative or logical fallacies are? those are rules setup for academic debate. they don’t apply to most arguements outside of the academic setting.
ad hominenems, for example, are totally valid in political/personal conversation. it’s totally valid in life for people to dismiss me and my ideas based on what clothes I’m wearing. It’s not if we are in the context of a debate club.
Trying an argumentative fallacy yourself? A little red herring or straw manning? Nobody said anything about a classroom.
In no way did I suggest the opponent should know what fallacy they are using or that there are rules for the rabble online, the fallacies are mentioned so that you, the reader, would know what people do in an argument that make it not worthwhile, and that the opponent is using them to avoid conceding anything.
One can also infer that using those techniques, even unknowingly, are still common bullshit arguments by an opponent that isn’t discussing in good faith when presented with objective facts. Again, why it’s a lost cause to argue online.
You completely miss my point. It’s not a fallacy if you don’t agree it’s a fallacy.
There is no universal set of rules for argumentation. They are agreements of convention that are context dependent.
Like in philosophy we don’t accept arguments from authority/precendent. But in law argument from authority/precedent is completely valid. It’s almost as if different disciplines have different rules.
But hey, if you want to go try to score points in football by throwing the ball in a basket, and telling everyone else they are fucking idiots for not having a basket on the football pitch… good luck with that.
it’s only a ‘fallacy’ if all participants agree to the rules that declare it as such.
Argument by hyperbole.
and you are just a bad faith actor.
Brutha I didn’t change the subject and argue points my opponent wasn’t trying to make in order to make myself right about something. You are literally an example of what I was talking about.
Honestly I’ve had a different experience. I’ve been wrong, as anyone ever has, on the Internet. And usually the person I’m arguing will accept an apology with grace, and will even get upvotes for doing so. But the apology doesn’t need to be accepted, to still be good to do.
“I was told there would be no fact-checking”
Ironically, that very much won the battle.
Trying to keep my house clean. I have a three year old and a 2 year old. The only time it’s ever truly clean is late at night after they go to bed and I’m exhausted. The minute they get up it’s like a tornado goes through here.
Arguing facts with an idiot, an ignorant person
I think OP already made that point
In my none existing defense: i didnt read the describtion
Hah, I was just joking about the venn diagram overlap between conservatives and your comment
What overlap?
Of course it’s a losing battle. Remember what Sartre said:
Never believe that fascists are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The fascists have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Conservatives around the world for the past ~30 years (if not longer) have been slowly adopting fascist methods and talking points. And for the past ~10 years, conservatives and fascists have formed a Venn diagram of a circle.
Getting involved in a land war in Asia. Also going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Fallen for those blunders more than once!
But if somebody offers you a peanut, you should totally take it.
Unless you have allergies, in which case it could be as deadly as iocaine powder.
Really trying to change anyone’s mind online. I’ve just given up trying to debate evil, I just try to make people laugh at them now.
how do you know you’re not the evil one?
You’re very perceptive, clearly I could not deceive you. You play mind games well, so you must be Machiavellian. But Machiavelli hated the cynicism of realpolitik, so a fan of his writing clearly cannot be Machiavellian. So I must be the evil one.
So you’ve made up your mind?
I’m just getting started! Your username is funny, so you must have a sense of humour. Funny people tend to lean left, because comedy is an act of empathy! But it references frogs, which became right wing iconography last decade so you clearly are not a leftist!
I’ve decided. I’ll drink from my cup. Oh, look what’s that!
it’s not a mind game dude.
the people you think as evil, don’t think they are evil. they think they are good and you are evil.
if you get away from the stupid bilary of ‘good/evil’ you might better understand that life is more about what goals other people want and what they are willing to do to accomplish them.
You think Trump is evil probably, but for those that support him he is doing justice and truth to the world and fighting for good, because it’s the leftist/liberal forces that are causing evil.
the funny thing about life is most people think you are good… until you disagree with them or try to get in the way of their goals. Then you are evil.
Moral relativism detected - luckily I am already being hilarious. You’ll never catch me slipping, Satan.
who is your authority for morality? God?
I never said I’d discuss that with you, stop acting weird. 😐
true i’ve had discourse about communism and israel on here and people are not discussing anything
just stating their beliefs over and over
Lot of agendaposters online these days. It’s the easiest way to do that job I guess
I used to think peoples minds can be changed on internet, but your comment made see that i was wrong.
No you didn’t!
Fuck you he fucking did. You’re like Hitler or something
If I’m Hitler then you’re about to be Poland, you utter bastard! Get over here! Where’s my Scorpion… Thing… One sec
Yeah, everything OP says about arguing with conservatives applies to arguing with any other group with entrenched views. The problem is that each of those groups will insist that their own views aren’t “entrenched”, they’re just reasonable.
Social media is largely designed to group people together into like-minded communities, so you find this everywhere. Here in the Fediverse too, though of course we here in the Fediverse will insist that contrary to all those other social media platforms we’re open and diverse and not susceptible to that sort of thing.
Personally, I’ve found that one can overcome the sense of futility by reframing the debate. When I debate with someone online it’s not to change their views, because that’s basically impossible (it rarely happens but I don’t count on it). Instead, the point of debate is to try to win over the casual onlookers who aren’t participating directly. They aren’t likely to have as much of a dog in the fight and so are more amenable to having those “huh, I hadn’t thought of it that way” reactions.
The one nice thing about the Fediverse over Reddit in this regard, IMO, is the fact that we can see both the upvote and downvote count. So even if a comment of mine is being hammered with 93 downvotes I can still see that there were 18 upvotes and think to myself “at least a few people got what I was saying here.”
I’m sorry, the notion that the Fediverse has diversity of thought is actually laughable. Not just about politics.
A very specific type of person goes here.
deleted by creator
I’ve had my share of boos and hisses in my time as a jokey internet commenter. When I really bomb, knowing a few people laughed is a consolation. Reddit is just so alienating now
My mind has been changed at times, from online discussions. At least adding to my considerations and thoughts.
I hope I’m not considered evil though, maybe this comment was directed only at that kind of subset.
You don’t sound evil, do we know each other? Lmfao don’t worry about it
No, we don’t. Just a cheeky reply because your comment broadly said “anyone online”. :)
Well I mean it stands to reason you’re most likely arguing with paid actors using Persona Management software to have hundreds of such conversations in unison, so it’s a moot point because they’re being paid to prevent minds from being changed on subject X.
Honestly I feel like AI progression was just a cover for what was originally updated Persona Management where the human has to do even less to keep the consensus cracking and topic dilution ongoing.
Hey everyone look at this guy trying to make others laugh
/s
Ah that sweet sweet attention I would never admit to wanting. Like manna from heaven.
Hahaha!
…;)
Tbf, nobody is gonna convince me of anything now. Most of my beliefs are formed independent of the internet. From logics and some empathy.
None of the bigoted xenophobic shit aint ever gonna sway me. Nor the tankie stuff.
Lived experiences is more powerful than some texts on a screen.
nobody is gonna convince me of anything now
This is part of the problem. If two people engage in open debate and neither of them can be convinced to change their minds about anything, then what exactly is the point?
I will listen to people and engage with their arguments, and remain openminded to be convinced. Life isn’t that simple and believing you know all the answers is naive.
Problem is I read comments from 3 separate users in the past few days that literally got banned within 24 hours for being a LLM bot lmao (read the modlogs, its getting crazier these days)
I would guess you didn’t live in Gaza, but you still have an idea of what is happening there. Of course if you did live there, it would likely take precedence over what you read about it.
You don’t actually need to take decisions about Gaza, so you could just ignore it. But you will need to take a decision about a cancer you’ve never lived before, and you will need to to use other people’s experiences about it to make that decision.
You are currently living by the “don’t put your fingers in the socket” rule, and you (likely) never tried it. You (likely) don’t understand why, or how bad it would actually be, but you’re following it, and it is a good thing for everyone involved.
Using other people’s expressed experience is absolutely necessary for your everyday life, and you will do it even if you don’t want to. Figuring out exactly how to deal with the mistakes and contradictions and lies gets complicated, and is a fundamental subject in science
The comment I replied to:
Really trying to change anyone’s mind online
Key word: “online”
If I met them in person, I’d be more inclined to listen to them.
Oh, why so? Less likely to be a bot?
I think it’s just easier to be honest and not lie to someone to their face in real life. The ability to have your facial expressions be read and having to respond in a timely manner or admit you’re not sure is much more likely to make people argue in an honest manner
People not having as much time to “decide” to go for bad faith is interesting
I wonder if someone made an actual list of observed differences in behavior IRL and online, with the same discussion as input.
I guess people would tend to simply refuse to interact with the discussion, but they would have the same things to say, right? Like, they don’t have different opinions online and IRL. If you were giving people as much time and “confidentiality” to think and express their thoughts (which are generally seen as good things), it should look similar. Basically I think the online assholes would also be IRL assholes if you let them talk in similar conditions.
Anyways, there are differences, but I don’t see any causes for “don’t ever listen to anything due to this”
Everyone has a latitude of openness to new beliefs. They can be narrow, but it’s important to be mindful. Being entirely immovable is not only impossible, but maladaptive
That said, it’s a rare thing when a single argument is able to shift a person’s opinion. Opinions form over time and change over time, nobody ever reads just one manifesto and goes “oh, I guess I’m a communist now.”
That could be a bird’s-eye view of social judgment theory, basically the idea that successive pitches to a person’s latitude of non-commitment are the mechanism by which firm stances can change over time.
I disagree.
Okay, ready? Everyone point at them and laugh.
Good, that was our goal all along!
