There's a weird dynamic to arguing online, particularly when it comes to political topics. Most of the time, you won't convince your counterpart. Maybe some point sticks with them later and you'll never know, but either way they're not really the target of the arguments. It's the (potential) audience that the argument is supposed to be for: People less emotionally invested in the conflict may take away something useful from the arguments, people on the fence about an issue might come around to your point, and people sharing your opinion will see that they're not alone and feel affirmed.
Essentially, it's a performance on an public stage for the sake of discourse. Phrased strongly, you don't want "the other side" to dominate the public opinion, so you engage them. In the process, you may hone your own arguments, or you may find them wanting, perhaps even see them start to crack.
Online forums definitely have the power to shape discourse. The resurrection of socialism is proof of that. Before the internet, socialism was a dirty word in America, and now any political thread will have socialists in it.
It’s not that one person makes a difference, it’s the constant exposure achieved by many people posting similar arguments.
Sure, it is the internet and not people's personal finances imploding. Its why we definitely didnt see pushes like this in any other time before the internet. Nope not ever. It's by posting to the internet that changes things.
i think that's true in large social media spaces, but not so much in smaller focused forums.
but since the latter doesn't really exist anymore, it is kind of irrelevant.
People mostly respond to your presentation and how it makes them feel, not the content of what you are saying. Hence why most people objecting to you won't even object to what you say, they will object to their interpretation of what you said and how it made them feel.
Absolutely. There’s way too many blithering idiots online. We made the web way too accessible to them back in the ‘90’s.
And if idiots don’t get challenged, you run the risk of them thinking they’re actually right. And that’s very, very dangerous.
I will admit the only reason I attempt to verbally correct them is because I don’t have access to a Reaper drone to shove a Flying Ginsu missile up their ass.
I mean, evidence shows that having their ideas challenged online tends to entrench people in their ideas more so than it convinces them that they're wrong.
So, while I sympathize with your goals, I think your method is having the opposite effect of your intended outcome.
I say this, knowing it's true, and still doing the arguing online thing anyway.
It's not about them it's about the other people that might be influenced by their post.
Online is never an A&B conversation, which is why I usually avoid direct confrontation and just provide well structured, clear information, because I don't really care whether I can convince someone who has made up their mind.
It's about deconstructing the argument with clear digestible information for the dozens of lurkers.
LOL as if. Literally I will see people with logical responses getting ripped apart because the person they are arguing with just sounds more right and or it fits what people wanted to hear in that specific echo chamber.
Say something cause you want to say it, not cause you are giving yourself points on an invisible scoreboard for people that might not exist.
No its related In that, I dont believe the lurkers are appreciating it like you think they are. And that logical responses are often still beaten by emotional forces. And, getting the high of watching a "nerd" get dunked on is likely more of not all of the counter arguments received perspective when commenting against the perceived right take of a community.
If you are commenting, you are doing it for yourself. Inventing an imaginary person that is receiving your argument other than the person you are talking to is silly and delusional in the truest sense of that word.
Imagining their existence without proof is though. Teaching people is different then screaming into a black box and relying on faith that it did.
And here we are back at the emotional response overpowering the logical one. If you want to teach actually do it than hoping you are passively doing it.
I hate saying this, I feel gross saying this, but the internet needs restrictions. I don't know what the solution is. I hate all the ones that are being tried right now like age verification or needing an ID, because they really seem more focused on surveillance than anything else... But... God damn.
The general public should not have unfettered access to the internet. I think we have shown that this technology is too dangerous for humanity as a whole. There's just too many idiots and bad actors. Again, I don't know what the solution is. How do you balance privacy and personal freedom with the dangers that come with giving everyone access to everything? Unfortunately, I don't see a solution that doesn't come off as draconian or controlling in some way, shape, or form.
Maybe it's something like a multi-layer internet, where the first layer anyone can access but is mostly read-only with a few exceptions. If you want to access the second layer which allows you to post, comment, upload, etc., you need a license. The barrier to entry should be small, something on the level of a HAM radio license. A simple class, an easy test, and a small one-time fee and you're good for 10 years. You can even allow access for anyone at a library, university, or business.
It wouldn't fix everything, and deep down I know that if anything like this were tried it would be twisted and warped by the powers that be to become just another form of control, but holy shit we need something or society is going to tear itself apart.
This already exists. News media for instance used to have standards as to who they would hire - like you'd have to spelel properely and everyhting. Then most of the major outlets were bought up by the wealthy and... well, they still exist but people don't bother to read them anymore.
Even now, blogs exist (like Mastodon) but people on "social media" (where we are now) prefer to simply scroll and speak rather than listen.
At this point, every comment on Lemmy is greeted with angry responses who are willfully choosing to ignore the point I was making and try to fight me.
If I say “I like dogs” someone is going to come along and tell me I’m a jerk for not liking cats even though I didn’t say I don’t like cats. That or someone mansplaining dogs to me.
People like being offended and feeling victimized.
It's a rush and they get addicted to it.
I have a cat and a dog... and a lot of folks will just argue with me on principle or try to make me pick a side. even in real life. or like get in a big stink about if they are purebred or rescue. i have no clue why any of it matters, i guess other than their insecure need to feel validated by getting you to agree with them.
I hate it. It's so stupid and annoying. You can't just like things anymore... anything you enjoy has to 'hurt' someone else and they have to let you know how wrong and bad you are for enjoying it.
I like Cilantro, and I've had internet weirdos tell me that it's able-ist to enjoy it, because my enjoyment of it is some sort of racism against the people for whom it tastes like soap. Or like commentary made at me in the taco line when I order it how it's so gross. It's so ridiculous. I think Pinto beans are disgusting, but I don't feel offended and hurt that other people enjoy them.
It is fun arguing with people you disagree with as long as both argues in good faith and has uses good etiquette. Both needs to be open minded to a certain degree.
The goal of a conversation is not to convince, but rather to explore your own and their mind. To grow together. A conversation is not a competition, we should not aim to "win" a conversation.
I agree, yes. I always try to have that conversation, even if the other side seems to be arguing, since at the beginning I am interested in their thoughts and motives, and trying to get them to understand mine. I do enjoy getting people angry though, so at certain point, if they are clearly arguing in bad faith, the calmness becomes a tool, to make them look like morons.
You're never going to win, and that's not even the point. The point is to provide pushback to people who rarely receive it so that everyone else reading the exchange has a chance to see accurate information.
For example, it's staggering how many people insist they want socialism when what they're actually describing is social democracy, yet they have no idea what either term actually means. They'll argue, foaming at the mouth, that humanity's only hope is "socialism," while demonstrating they don't understand the ideology they're advocating for.
The same goes for the abundance of anti-American rhetoric. Some criticism of America is absolutely justified—I have plenty of criticisms of my own country. But it's interesting how many people who endlessly denounce America never mention what country they're from or hold their own country to the same standard.
So no, the point isn't to win the argument. The point is to apply enough pressure that the other person starts making obvious mistakes, exposing the weaknesses in their own position. That's the entertaining part.
We must be on different lemmys because it seems pretty well understood here that the whole point of socialism is that the workers democratically control the means of production, only liberals from the USA act confused about that
Socialism is not "democratic ownership of the means of production." Where did you get that from? What YouTube channels are you watching?
Socialism is social or public ownership of the means of production. Democracy is a method of governance, not an economic system. The two are not synonymous.
In fact, there are companies right here in the United States that are run democratically. They're called worker cooperatives. The employees collectively own the company, elect management, vote on major decisions, and often have much smaller pay gaps between executives and line workers. They're successful examples of democratic workplaces operating within a capitalist economy.
Socialism, by contrast, is an economic system in which the means of production are owned socially rather than privately. That ownership can take different forms, including state ownership or worker ownership, depending on the model.
Capitalism is the opposite: the means of production are privately owned, and profits accrue primarily to the owners or shareholders.
And thanks for proving my point. What liberals have to do with any of this, I have no idea. You pulled that completely out of your ass because you heard it on conservative talk radio or somewhere similar.
It’s badly phrased but I think that “workers democratically control the means of production” translates to “workers own the means of production”.
So I think you are ranting over nothing.
As for worker co-ops in capitalist countries I would argue that those are indeed bubbles of socialism within a broader capitalist system. Just like you can have communes inside a capitalist country. Have you heard of socialist market economy or economic democracy?
No, I'm objecting because you're collapsing multiple distinct concepts into the word "socialism."
A worker co-op is a company where the employees collectively own that particular business. That does not mean the economy is socialist. It is still operating in a market economy, competing with privately owned firms, buying and selling goods, and responding to prices. That's capitalism permitting an alternative ownership structure.
Socialism, in the classical sense, is public or social ownership of the means of production across the economy. How that ownership is administered, through the state, municipalities, public trusts, or some other institution, is a separate question. "Workers democratically control the means of production" is one proposed implementation, not the definition itself.
That's why economic democracy, market socialism, worker co-ops, and socialism are related but distinct concepts. You're treating them as interchangeable.
Ironically, this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. People hear the word "socialism" and start attaching every form of worker participation, workplace democracy, or cooperative ownership to it, even when those things can and do exist inside capitalist economies.
And the reason I'm ranting is because you are the exact thing I was talking about in my original comment.
Before I realized there was no point 99% of the time, I didn't think it was a waste of time. Now if I'm feeling generous I think, at least on a platform like Lemmy, best you can hope is like 10% of the time you plant a seed for the person with a wrong idea or opinion that will eventually lead them to a better understanding. I certainly know that's happened to me before when I was wrong. So often, people make the online exchange feel awful though. There's a prominent attitude in many extremist/wrong viewpoints that not only are they right, everyone who thinks differently is an evil asshole.
Well, we're clearly sitting on a picturesque beach on the Spanish Med, so... yeah? Sure, getting SWATted was no fun, and the bogus restraining orders were a real hassle, but ever since we had no choice but to leave the US things got a lot better.
Now, how about some sunscreen babe? You're gonna burn like that.
Yes, but the implication that feelings and truth are mutually exclusive is often used to bury, dismiss, or invalidate the truths around what feelings people experience, their meaning, importance, and roles in human lives/society.
It's not about stripping feelings from discovery to arrive at truth, but rather charting the truths that feelings are actually pointing to in order to discover more complete truths.
I wouldn't say they're mutually exclusive, way I see it, it's more that there's facts and then there's the way people feel about facts.
For example, it shouldn't matter how people feel about the situation in Gaza, whether one is sympathetic towards one side or the other etc. There are facts about what is happening, who is doing it etc that cannot and should not be ignored.
The greatest propaganda machine that has ever existed is tirelessly working trying to sway public opinion and it's working. That's why I hate such fucking stupid memes, fuck that girl and her condescending look, keeping quiet is complacency. If you think it doesn't matter what a random idiot online thinks, next thing you know the world is full of random idiots and they control the narrative, and all of a sudden what you thought was a perfectly reasonable position is now a fringe conspiracy theory and Joe Rogan is fair and balanced.
Don't look far, how do you think the US ended up with two far right parties?
These days I also avoid engaging. Not just because I realized that arguing on the internet is a waste of time, but I grew tired of having the same arguments over and over. More people today believe the world is flat than people did back in the middle ages. I honestly believed when I was younger that the internet was going to put the sum of humanity's knowledge at everyone's fingertips, making the world overall a smarter, more enlightened place. Instead, the internet is broadly just a bigger soapbox for the brash and self-righteous.
These days, you could spend 30+ minutes writing a thoughtful reply, deliberately avoiding an argumentative tone, only to be accused of using or being an AI.
These days, you could spend 30+ minutes writing a thoughtful reply and deliberately avoid argumentative tone and words, only to be accused of using or being an AI.
Because unfortunately that's how people are sourcing so much of their 'facts'. And it's even easier for them to simply copy and past the AI generated result rather than to learn and investigate.
But then again, even if say 'you' are wrong, or your mind has been changed, are you really going to go in and update your comment, or actually let the person know? Probably not.
this is like the classic 'just tell them' reply to relationship issues... what people forget is that people don't listen. and if you tell them, they don't listen, well then you're going no where. it also assumes people aren't trying to win, when often, they are. some folks regard communication, understanding, and compromise, as themselves losing.
it requires two parties standing on the same ground and working from the same place, which is rare to find.
I know this is a meme but I think people look down on internet discussions too much. Obviously it depends on "arguing" type but reddit/lemmy is at least somewhat structured and depending on the community can be good faith and productive. For people who don't live in a big city finding a community to exchange more niche thoughts and opinions (e.g. operating systems, design decisions etc) is incredibly difficult.
I have a related anecdote of being an assistant to older people in IT classes and intellectual starvation is a very big deal. Once people settle down, move further out of the city it's hard to find discussions on their interests without internet comments. The real issue is Facebook groups which are often the only forums available to these people, and they are not fit for scratching this itch for intellectual stimulation as it's design precisely for the opposite of that. This might sound silly, but old people need Lemmy.
Arguing with trolls is probably more likely. People who serial reply lies in posts for whatever reason. You can never gain ground on them. Maybe 1:5 times you might silence someone with logic and truth. Maybe. 1:100 times you might get someone to actually think and adjust their perspective.
People don't set up cool-looking characters in videogames, exercise, dress well, or put on makeup for others, but for themselves.
This is the same. The strangers do not matter. They are not the point.
Many people do those same things for the attention and acceptance of others around them. I'd say more people do that when it comes to things like make up and dressing well. Human are social creatures and want to be accepted by others.
Other people, would never do it if it not were the approval of others.
And many people are lying about doing it for themselves because they don't want to appear to be approval-seeking, especially if that is why they do it.
The easiest way to figure it out is to see how they behave around others vs not around others. Many folks, are two-faced in public vs private. And some folks, are not.
Can't tell you how many friends/girlfriends I have had who say one thing in public, and another to me in private, and they are polar opposite. Let, usually on political stuff mostly. Because they know going with the popular opinion will get them points and they don't want to cause social friction. Also why they celebrate rather than call out their friends shitty behaviors...
and frankly you can't really blame them. because if you do stand up for things you believe in and they are not part of the group consensus, you'll be ostracized. especially by the other folks who are posing who are desperately afraid of being 'exposed'.
group social cohesion requires going along with/approving of the group belief, even if it's wrong or stupid. hence why people get conned into believing crazy nonsense, their need for social approval overrrides everything else.
and some honest folks do admit, they only do shit for approval, or karma, or internet likes and they would not longer doing the thing they enjoy if they didn't score any points from it. like I've met people in my hobbies who straight up admit they wouldn't bother doing the hobby if they couldn't get anonymous internet people to like them for it, who also get very mad if their post doesn't get enough likes.
Yea, me too. This is what I do in my educational (f)art project. I'm a fartist, obviously, and I am one big, cohesive piece of fart. It all adds up to something, believe it or not!
My favorite place to go to argue with people is the minutephysics' portal paradox videos. People are extremely firm in their conclusions (me included). That makes it an interesting place for practicing on making fair, understandable arguments against people who are firmly locked on the opposite side.
It's a relief to have those heated arguments without having it about something that directly involves people's lives.
I kind of hate it. I'm interested in other people's opinions and like to learn new perspectives, but some people, especially here, tend to aggressively misinterpret comments and go hard with angry emotional responses. It happened to me recently, and I just responded and blocked the guy outright. You can usually tell from the outset when someone is immediately insulting. I used to push back, but block them before they can get their claws into me.
btw did you know i am the supreme being of all logical argument? sorry to inform you, but your existence is a logical fallacy, and mine is the one that holds all logical thought ever together. just like Loki in that tv show, the universe of all realities hinges on my internet comments.
I think debating for fun has killed our ability to communicate as a species. Pushback becomes an ignorable stress since it comes with no real consequence. And it makes every conversation an chance to argue your point as if it must be a part of your identity to be protected at all cost.
I really dislike angry conversation without purpose.
yeah. fuck ukraine.
but modern russia - isnt it just another capitalist state at this point?
so whats even the point ? who is even fighting for global justice these days and not just for personal wealth.
I always argue with people online and passively try to get in fights like it's my job or some shit. I fucking hate being a cop, I tell ya. I'm actually one of the most agreeable people you would ever meet, but nah. Gotta seperate the wheat from the weeds. It's important to see who would stab me in my ribcage whilst on display as a security detail!
I tell people this rather overtly and they still project hate and discriminate against me because I'm schizoaffective and autistic and the cop thing works because I'm so weird that the average person can't believe I am what I say I am. It's funny and sad at the same time, because everything goes in your permanent record in the NSA, and those fuckers know who I am. They even talk to me sometimes, in a variety of covert ways!
And most people heard me say I'm schizowhatever and they do a retard and don't realize that one can be both schizoaffective and a cop, and those traits play off each other for a nice dazzle camouflage effect. Cuz I just gotta say that I wish that woman in the picture was my sister, cuz I would be giving her footrubs with my tongue instead of skillfully righting educational propaganda on the internet, and poof! Now no dummy with an age under 26 CAN believe I'm a cop, cuz they never experienced one of us in the wild before or wrote them off as a troll, too.
I would argue that counter-trolling is stronger when successfully executed, but also recognize that it's not possible to learn this ability from a Jedi
The block button is just how cowards prove that they can't back their own arguments. Real debates are resolved via TTRPG fist-fights!
Don't agree with me? Well, I went all-in on charisma, and I'm still recovering from that sandwich I found on a shelf in a haunted shop. So, y'know, go gentle.
It also helps teach you about your own opinions, and helps you learn new things even if the person you're taking to is a moron (because you have to research stuff to debunk their bs)
Sometimes in public forums my goal is to show the neutral third parties who might stumble upon that thread to see for themselves which view is more reasonable. Bad faith arguments that are common sometimes need to be knocked down whenever and wherever it persists.
As far as I know, blocks on Lemmy are one sided. As on, you don't see stuff from who you blocked, but they can still see your stuff. I've definitely gotten comment replies from people I blocked ages ago, I just see it as blocked as long as I'm logged in.
And that's how it should be. On Reddit you can not reply to people that blocked you, which many people abuse by blocking people they are arguing with so they have the "last word"
Mostly I just like thinking about interesting things and putting those thoughts to paper. But sometimes people online seem to take that as a direct challenge and argue about literally anything. From the definition of a word, to my anecdotal experiences being incorrect (lol). Luckily I've only had to block a few people so far, but they've been the type where their entire comment history reads like a 4Chan thread.
If people dont like what they see on the fediverse, thats on them. You can easily block people, communities, instances on your own without cringe feudposting on a daily basis begging the admins to defederate a instance you dont personally agree with.
You could practice blocking people on me if you want. I actually like it when people block me to be honest.
when a bunch of nerds (complementary) hate misinformation, lies, and ignorance on the internet enough, they all get together and make a wiki. its a beautiful, natural process. not all nerds will contribute to a wiki, but all of us will have some feelings about it.
Writing about my thoughts, opinions and positions has helped me understand them even better!
You're rarely going to change anyone's position online, as sadly most aren't arguing in good faith. BUT responding to rebuttals from others and questions (good faith or bad faith) leads to a very cool intellectual exercise where you get to probe your positions from so many different angles.
If things become toxic or brain-rotty, then you can just disengage without explanation! Kinda cool actually!!!
Sockpuppeting an argument with yourself is just masturbation though.
I would disagree. How else is one supposed to understand the limitations of a statement? The completeness of a position? Areas for further study? A confidence rating of sorts in a position?
Generally speaking, I don't argue with strangers on the internet with the goal of changing their minds or "educating" them. I mean, I do start with that intention...who doesn't? But by the time I am finished, I realize that I'm just clarifying my own thoughts and positions in my mind.
I don’t start with that goal because I assume people won’t change a stance because some online stranger said something. So I just get out my frustrations on idiots this way. Trying to stop, though. My time is worth more.
Ideas that aren't on the insane end of the spectrum tend to not be labeled conspiracy theories. Which ones deserve such better treatment, out of curiosity?
I don't know anything about the first or last items in this list, but I don't see anything else crazy on there. "Conspiracy theory" strictly would refer to any of your list when unproven, however if you look at the use of that term in reality, it's far more often used to describe an apeshit theory like the us government planning 9/11 or the earth being flat. Something like those, you need to ignore several obvious basic arguments against them to even entertain them.
Edit: rereading your original comment, it sounds like we are both saying the same thing really.
Just because we dont have the means to stop it doesnt mean it isnt advantageous to call it out when you see it.
Now, dont get full of yourself and think you're the next coming of christ but much of the online propaganda we see can be dispelled in a couple of sentences.
If only I could know that the ones I am arguing are actual humans not just bots. In the former my arguing could be fruitful and turn them to not vote any longer for the right extremist party in my country.
Either I change their mind, change my own, or provide thought-provoking content for the lurkers. Absolute worst case scenario I get to try out some creative insults. I feel great.
Winning in my case tends to involve shutting down reactive idiots who are spouting bullshit by replying to them with enough sources and facts to the point where they start deleting their own replies and blocking me to get away because they now look like fucking morons.
It can be very satisfying but sometimes they're also a mod or try to dox me, and that is not so fun.
God no. In retrospect, it's hundreds to thousands of hours of my time I could have just blocked them and been helpful to others or enriched myself. If someone really wants to argue bullshit on the internet, they're doing nothing but wasting what time humanit has left here.
What is the Venn diagram of "People who can't stop arguing in online forums" and "People who have become addicted to obsequious, flattering LLM chats?"
Is there any overlap? Is it perfect overlap? Is it some boring in-between answer?
Well, I love arguing in online forums, but I find obsequious, flattering LLM chats to be extremely frustrating. Every once in a while I'll try to use an LLM as a sounding board for a thought process I'm exploring, and I have to give up because instead of actually pushing back on anything it just tells me how smart I am for my genius argument. Like yes obviously I know that but it isn't helpful. Even when I try to refine it to be actually adversarial, it doesn't last long.
So the boring answer is that it's definitely not a perfect overlap.
I wonder if this is the human hive mind just reacting to itself?
I think we're in this proto-unified consciousness where we're adapting before eventually we get bored of arguing and all land on the same page.
Humans are gonna human. Think about it, every country started out as little groups of people, then villages, towns, cities, counties, states, countries, treaties and then continents. Within that, every single stage had a period where they'd fight amongst themselves.
I guess where just in the place now, but on a globally conscious level.
We're about to achieve world peace, I think after the next war, once we realise we're all the same, and technology continues to mitigate language barriers, it's done.
I think things are slowly trending toward what you describe, but I don't see war being over for a long time. Especially if global warming causes famine and such
mostly posted by the same handful of accounts. who are farming for engagement and clicks.
it is best to avoid it, or block the people who post it.
you can't convince someone who posts ragebait it isn't ragebait, because they believe it's legitimate, because in their mental world... well everything is ragebait. and their post history almost always... shows a nothing but ragebait posts and angry hostile comments pushing simplistic narratives where they are the sole force for good in the world.
232 replies
Of course it was.
They were wrong. How are they going to know they are wrong if no one tells them?
The ones who know they're wrong bother me even more.
To be fair, when you try it in person, they're all "Who are you? How did you get in my house? I'm calling the cops!", then it's no fun at all.
There's a weird dynamic to arguing online, particularly when it comes to political topics. Most of the time, you won't convince your counterpart. Maybe some point sticks with them later and you'll never know, but either way they're not really the target of the arguments. It's the (potential) audience that the argument is supposed to be for: People less emotionally invested in the conflict may take away something useful from the arguments, people on the fence about an issue might come around to your point, and people sharing your opinion will see that they're not alone and feel affirmed.
Essentially, it's a performance on an public stage for the sake of discourse. Phrased strongly, you don't want "the other side" to dominate the public opinion, so you engage them. In the process, you may hone your own arguments, or you may find them wanting, perhaps even see them start to crack.
I used to enjoy it a while back, now not so much. As long as people understand this is not how you change the world, you are doing this for yourself.
Online forums definitely have the power to shape discourse. The resurrection of socialism is proof of that. Before the internet, socialism was a dirty word in America, and now any political thread will have socialists in it.
It’s not that one person makes a difference, it’s the constant exposure achieved by many people posting similar arguments.
Sure, it is the internet and not people's personal finances imploding. Its why we definitely didnt see pushes like this in any other time before the internet. Nope not ever. It's by posting to the internet that changes things.
i think that's true in large social media spaces, but not so much in smaller focused forums.
but since the latter doesn't really exist anymore, it is kind of irrelevant.
People mostly respond to your presentation and how it makes them feel, not the content of what you are saying. Hence why most people objecting to you won't even object to what you say, they will object to their interpretation of what you said and how it made them feel.
Its my crack I can't stop coming back to all while hating every second of it
Absolutely. There’s way too many blithering idiots online. We made the web way too accessible to them back in the ‘90’s.
And if idiots don’t get challenged, you run the risk of them thinking they’re actually right. And that’s very, very dangerous.
I will admit the only reason I attempt to verbally correct them is because I don’t have access to a Reaper drone to shove a Flying Ginsu missile up their ass.
I mean, evidence shows that having their ideas challenged online tends to entrench people in their ideas more so than it convinces them that they're wrong.
So, while I sympathize with your goals, I think your method is having the opposite effect of your intended outcome.
I say this, knowing it's true, and still doing the arguing online thing anyway.
It's not about them it's about the other people that might be influenced by their post.
Online is never an A&B conversation, which is why I usually avoid direct confrontation and just provide well structured, clear information, because I don't really care whether I can convince someone who has made up their mind.
It's about deconstructing the argument with clear digestible information for the dozens of lurkers.
LOL as if. Literally I will see people with logical responses getting ripped apart because the person they are arguing with just sounds more right and or it fits what people wanted to hear in that specific echo chamber.
Say something cause you want to say it, not cause you are giving yourself points on an invisible scoreboard for people that might not exist.
I think you may want to reread what I wrote because this is barely related. Feels more like something happened and you're just looking for a vent.
No its related In that, I dont believe the lurkers are appreciating it like you think they are. And that logical responses are often still beaten by emotional forces. And, getting the high of watching a "nerd" get dunked on is likely more of not all of the counter arguments received perspective when commenting against the perceived right take of a community.
If you are commenting, you are doing it for yourself. Inventing an imaginary person that is receiving your argument other than the person you are talking to is silly and delusional in the truest sense of that word.
I don't think it's delusional to want to teach people things. When you respectfully deconstruct someone's half truths it can help people understand.
This is not to say that you should take everything seriously or that every person is worth engaging with of course you still have to be selective.
Imagining their existence without proof is though. Teaching people is different then screaming into a black box and relying on faith that it did.
And here we are back at the emotional response overpowering the logical one. If you want to teach actually do it than hoping you are passively doing it.
Evidence isn't what bullies and bigots rely on. It's their feelings of superiority and their justification of violence.
hence why they will never argue with evidence or facts. They will just insult and harass and threaten.
and if you use the evidence of their own words against them... well get ready to get reported to the mods.
What evidence? You didn't pull this out of your ass, did you?
I kinda wish I was
I don't believe it!
::: spoiler spoiler Get the joke? :::
I hate saying this, I feel gross saying this, but the internet needs restrictions. I don't know what the solution is. I hate all the ones that are being tried right now like age verification or needing an ID, because they really seem more focused on surveillance than anything else... But... God damn.
The general public should not have unfettered access to the internet. I think we have shown that this technology is too dangerous for humanity as a whole. There's just too many idiots and bad actors. Again, I don't know what the solution is. How do you balance privacy and personal freedom with the dangers that come with giving everyone access to everything? Unfortunately, I don't see a solution that doesn't come off as draconian or controlling in some way, shape, or form.
Maybe it's something like a multi-layer internet, where the first layer anyone can access but is mostly read-only with a few exceptions. If you want to access the second layer which allows you to post, comment, upload, etc., you need a license. The barrier to entry should be small, something on the level of a HAM radio license. A simple class, an easy test, and a small one-time fee and you're good for 10 years. You can even allow access for anyone at a library, university, or business.
It wouldn't fix everything, and deep down I know that if anything like this were tried it would be twisted and warped by the powers that be to become just another form of control, but holy shit we need something or society is going to tear itself apart.
This already exists. News media for instance used to have standards as to who they would hire - like you'd have to spelel properely and everyhting. Then most of the major outlets were bought up by the wealthy and... well, they still exist but people don't bother to read them anymore.
Even now, blogs exist (like Mastodon) but people on "social media" (where we are now) prefer to simply scroll and speak rather than listen.
What you are saying still exists though - it's simply not here. Read this if you are interested: https://medium.com/@max.p.schlienger/the-cargo-cult-of-the-ennui-engine-890c541cebcb.
you feel gross saying this for a reason
yeah, your such a big tough strong guy who is so smart.
so strong that you fantasizing about murdering people who upset you by saying things you don't like... so brave. so smart. so strong.
All thoughts are not created equal. Something tells me yours are created even less equal than most.
Ew. Using the 3/5s compromise even in a comment section is pretty gross.
yeah, so superior when you're go to is insults and threats.
almost like you're a bully, and a coward.
It’s my favorite hobby.
At this point, every comment on Lemmy is greeted with angry responses who are willfully choosing to ignore the point I was making and try to fight me.
If I say “I like dogs” someone is going to come along and tell me I’m a jerk for not liking cats even though I didn’t say I don’t like cats. That or someone mansplaining dogs to me.
Calm down Lemmy. Take a breather.
What about birds you heartless monster, you have ruined my day!
It is good fun though.. It's part of the reason I got permabanned from Reddit.. That and criticizing Israel and Nazis.
i got banned for posting a picture of my cat sitting on the porch.
it made me a bird mass murderer, or something. ban was for inciting violence.
it was in 2021. then i was unbanned a few months later with a DM begging me to buy IPO stock.
People like being offended and feeling victimized.
It's a rush and they get addicted to it.
I have a cat and a dog... and a lot of folks will just argue with me on principle or try to make me pick a side. even in real life. or like get in a big stink about if they are purebred or rescue. i have no clue why any of it matters, i guess other than their insecure need to feel validated by getting you to agree with them.
I hate it. It's so stupid and annoying. You can't just like things anymore... anything you enjoy has to 'hurt' someone else and they have to let you know how wrong and bad you are for enjoying it.
I like Cilantro, and I've had internet weirdos tell me that it's able-ist to enjoy it, because my enjoyment of it is some sort of racism against the people for whom it tastes like soap. Or like commentary made at me in the taco line when I order it how it's so gross. It's so ridiculous. I think Pinto beans are disgusting, but I don't feel offended and hurt that other people enjoy them.
Please give your furry friend a treat from me and tell them I said hi!
Pro tip: Never open your inbox.
Not as powerful as you but I’m working on it
That's a strong magic right there.
Oh, I'm about to argue with one right now you little dumbass
It is fun arguing with people you disagree with as long as both argues in good faith and has uses good etiquette. Both needs to be open minded to a certain degree.
The goal of a conversation is not to convince, but rather to explore your own and their mind. To grow together. A conversation is not a competition, we should not aim to "win" a conversation.
No it isn't. I win!
I agree, yes. I always try to have that conversation, even if the other side seems to be arguing, since at the beginning I am interested in their thoughts and motives, and trying to get them to understand mine. I do enjoy getting people angry though, so at certain point, if they are clearly arguing in bad faith, the calmness becomes a tool, to make them look like morons.
I agree with you.
Oh no, is this an echochamber now?
/s people!
I disagree. This is not an echo chamber.
Horray!
You're never going to win, and that's not even the point. The point is to provide pushback to people who rarely receive it so that everyone else reading the exchange has a chance to see accurate information.
For example, it's staggering how many people insist they want socialism when what they're actually describing is social democracy, yet they have no idea what either term actually means. They'll argue, foaming at the mouth, that humanity's only hope is "socialism," while demonstrating they don't understand the ideology they're advocating for.
The same goes for the abundance of anti-American rhetoric. Some criticism of America is absolutely justified—I have plenty of criticisms of my own country. But it's interesting how many people who endlessly denounce America never mention what country they're from or hold their own country to the same standard.
So no, the point isn't to win the argument. The point is to apply enough pressure that the other person starts making obvious mistakes, exposing the weaknesses in their own position. That's the entertaining part.
We must be on different lemmys because it seems pretty well understood here that the whole point of socialism is that the workers democratically control the means of production, only liberals from the USA act confused about that
So no. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Socialism is not "democratic ownership of the means of production." Where did you get that from? What YouTube channels are you watching?
Socialism is social or public ownership of the means of production. Democracy is a method of governance, not an economic system. The two are not synonymous.
In fact, there are companies right here in the United States that are run democratically. They're called worker cooperatives. The employees collectively own the company, elect management, vote on major decisions, and often have much smaller pay gaps between executives and line workers. They're successful examples of democratic workplaces operating within a capitalist economy.
Socialism, by contrast, is an economic system in which the means of production are owned socially rather than privately. That ownership can take different forms, including state ownership or worker ownership, depending on the model.
Capitalism is the opposite: the means of production are privately owned, and profits accrue primarily to the owners or shareholders.
And thanks for proving my point. What liberals have to do with any of this, I have no idea. You pulled that completely out of your ass because you heard it on conservative talk radio or somewhere similar.
It’s badly phrased but I think that “workers democratically control the means of production” translates to “workers own the means of production”.
So I think you are ranting over nothing.
As for worker co-ops in capitalist countries I would argue that those are indeed bubbles of socialism within a broader capitalist system. Just like you can have communes inside a capitalist country. Have you heard of socialist market economy or economic democracy?
No, I'm objecting because you're collapsing multiple distinct concepts into the word "socialism."
A worker co-op is a company where the employees collectively own that particular business. That does not mean the economy is socialist. It is still operating in a market economy, competing with privately owned firms, buying and selling goods, and responding to prices. That's capitalism permitting an alternative ownership structure.
Socialism, in the classical sense, is public or social ownership of the means of production across the economy. How that ownership is administered, through the state, municipalities, public trusts, or some other institution, is a separate question. "Workers democratically control the means of production" is one proposed implementation, not the definition itself.
That's why economic democracy, market socialism, worker co-ops, and socialism are related but distinct concepts. You're treating them as interchangeable.
Ironically, this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. People hear the word "socialism" and start attaching every form of worker participation, workplace democracy, or cooperative ownership to it, even when those things can and do exist inside capitalist economies.
And the reason I'm ranting is because you are the exact thing I was talking about in my original comment.
This thread is a whole lot of words for "I am full of myself and dumb".
This is a good bit of projection if I've ever seen it.
If this is your takeaway, my confidence in our people has dropped a few more notches.
"Waaahhhhh, this thread is a little too intellectual for my tastes, which must mean you're all the dumb ones, not me, surely!"
It's a hobby.
yes.
what was i supposed to do, let people just be wrong online?
could be worse, you could let them merge in front of you in traffic.
let... them...?
Is... Is that an option?
Other people in this thread have already said it better than I could but in brief: Yes
Before I realized there was no point 99% of the time, I didn't think it was a waste of time. Now if I'm feeling generous I think, at least on a platform like Lemmy, best you can hope is like 10% of the time you plant a seed for the person with a wrong idea or opinion that will eventually lead them to a better understanding. I certainly know that's happened to me before when I was wrong. So often, people make the online exchange feel awful though. There's a prominent attitude in many extremist/wrong viewpoints that not only are they right, everyone who thinks differently is an evil asshole.
It's not just for the person you reply to, but also for anyone else who may come across this thread. That's how I see it anyway.
Right, that's also how I think of it
Hello, fellow stranger online!
Well, we're clearly sitting on a picturesque beach on the Spanish Med, so... yeah? Sure, getting SWATted was no fun, and the bogus restraining orders were a real hassle, but ever since we had no choice but to leave the US things got a lot better.
Now, how about some sunscreen babe? You're gonna burn like that.
1000% worth it.
If you don't challenge things, you let bullshit flourish and that influences societal views.
Screw feelings. The truth is worth discovering.
Yes, but the implication that feelings and truth are mutually exclusive is often used to bury, dismiss, or invalidate the truths around what feelings people experience, their meaning, importance, and roles in human lives/society.
It's not about stripping feelings from discovery to arrive at truth, but rather charting the truths that feelings are actually pointing to in order to discover more complete truths.
I wouldn't say they're mutually exclusive, way I see it, it's more that there's facts and then there's the way people feel about facts. For example, it shouldn't matter how people feel about the situation in Gaza, whether one is sympathetic towards one side or the other etc. There are facts about what is happening, who is doing it etc that cannot and should not be ignored. The greatest propaganda machine that has ever existed is tirelessly working trying to sway public opinion and it's working. That's why I hate such fucking stupid memes, fuck that girl and her condescending look, keeping quiet is complacency. If you think it doesn't matter what a random idiot online thinks, next thing you know the world is full of random idiots and they control the narrative, and all of a sudden what you thought was a perfectly reasonable position is now a fringe conspiracy theory and Joe Rogan is fair and balanced. Don't look far, how do you think the US ended up with two far right parties?
tell that to everyone who thinks their feelings are the only truth there is.
Oh, I intend to.
This is one of the core principles of modern social media platforms.
I want her feet
Nope. Even at the time I know its a bad idea. Theres a certain allure to it though. I cant always resist the bait.
These days I also avoid engaging. Not just because I realized that arguing on the internet is a waste of time, but I grew tired of having the same arguments over and over. More people today believe the world is flat than people did back in the middle ages. I honestly believed when I was younger that the internet was going to put the sum of humanity's knowledge at everyone's fingertips, making the world overall a smarter, more enlightened place. Instead, the internet is broadly just a bigger soapbox for the brash and self-righteous.
These days, you could spend 30+ minutes writing a thoughtful reply, deliberately avoiding an argumentative tone, only to be accused of using or being an AI.
Because unfortunately that's how people are sourcing so much of their 'facts'. And it's even easier for them to simply copy and past the AI generated result rather than to learn and investigate.
But then again, even if say 'you' are wrong, or your mind has been changed, are you really going to go in and update your comment, or actually let the person know? Probably not.
people project, a lot.
This depends highly on the subject. Disagreements I learn something practical from one way or another are great.
Most discussions in the sphere of politics and ideology are pointless as it's almost always entirely personal opinion.
Especially without some kind of baseline in truth and reason people just say things. I have no time for that.
arguing, no. discussing, sure
What do you mean by "arguing"?
That's the key to human interaction in general online or offline. Don't argue with people, communicate with them.
Argument is a form of communication. And like all forms of communication, there are better and worse ways to do it.
it doesn't matter if you do that, if they don't.
this is like the classic 'just tell them' reply to relationship issues... what people forget is that people don't listen. and if you tell them, they don't listen, well then you're going no where. it also assumes people aren't trying to win, when often, they are. some folks regard communication, understanding, and compromise, as themselves losing.
it requires two parties standing on the same ground and working from the same place, which is rare to find.
I know this is a meme but I think people look down on internet discussions too much. Obviously it depends on "arguing" type but reddit/lemmy is at least somewhat structured and depending on the community can be good faith and productive. For people who don't live in a big city finding a community to exchange more niche thoughts and opinions (e.g. operating systems, design decisions etc) is incredibly difficult.
I have a related anecdote of being an assistant to older people in IT classes and intellectual starvation is a very big deal. Once people settle down, move further out of the city it's hard to find discussions on their interests without internet comments. The real issue is Facebook groups which are often the only forums available to these people, and they are not fit for scratching this itch for intellectual stimulation as it's design precisely for the opposite of that. This might sound silly, but old people need Lemmy.
Never is.
Arguing with trolls is probably more likely. People who serial reply lies in posts for whatever reason. You can never gain ground on them. Maybe 1:5 times you might silence someone with logic and truth. Maybe. 1:100 times you might get someone to actually think and adjust their perspective.
People don't set up cool-looking characters in videogames, exercise, dress well, or put on makeup for others, but for themselves.
This is the same. The strangers do not matter. They are not the point.
Many people do those same things for the attention and acceptance of others around them. I'd say more people do that when it comes to things like make up and dressing well. Human are social creatures and want to be accepted by others.
I think you're wrong there.
Some people, do it for themselves, for sure.
Other people, would never do it if it not were the approval of others.
And many people are lying about doing it for themselves because they don't want to appear to be approval-seeking, especially if that is why they do it.
The easiest way to figure it out is to see how they behave around others vs not around others. Many folks, are two-faced in public vs private. And some folks, are not.
Can't tell you how many friends/girlfriends I have had who say one thing in public, and another to me in private, and they are polar opposite. Let, usually on political stuff mostly. Because they know going with the popular opinion will get them points and they don't want to cause social friction. Also why they celebrate rather than call out their friends shitty behaviors...
and frankly you can't really blame them. because if you do stand up for things you believe in and they are not part of the group consensus, you'll be ostracized. especially by the other folks who are posing who are desperately afraid of being 'exposed'.
group social cohesion requires going along with/approving of the group belief, even if it's wrong or stupid. hence why people get conned into believing crazy nonsense, their need for social approval overrrides everything else.
and some honest folks do admit, they only do shit for approval, or karma, or internet likes and they would not longer doing the thing they enjoy if they didn't score any points from it. like I've met people in my hobbies who straight up admit they wouldn't bother doing the hobby if they couldn't get anonymous internet people to like them for it, who also get very mad if their post doesn't get enough likes.
That would require anyone looking at them.
Wit the AI bubble, nobody can buy better PCs, and have to run their games in lowest settings that hide other players.
Nobody is looking at aynone. It's all floating names.
Yes, i was entertained for a while.
I am at work and it's slightly better than looking out the window at concrete and miserable cunts in their cars yelling at each other.
no
what you call an argument, i call an exercise in self-expression.
this is why it is my ART. I am the ARTIST, and you are my MEDIUM.
LET ME PAINT YOUR WORDS LIKE ONE OF MY LOLI BOYS.
Bee boo bee boo bee boo
Yea, me too. This is what I do in my educational (f)art project. I'm a fartist, obviously, and I am one big, cohesive piece of fart. It all adds up to something, believe it or not!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QoeKMD5dwnWBB6gHOFgY4uKJOXKg8CPGDu-dE5UsisQ/edit?usp=drivesdk
If you're strong enough
If I win it’s worth it
My favorite place to go to argue with people is the minutephysics' portal paradox videos. People are extremely firm in their conclusions (me included). That makes it an interesting place for practicing on making fair, understandable arguments against people who are firmly locked on the opposite side.
It's a relief to have those heated arguments without having it about something that directly involves people's lives.
Honestly arguing? No
Discussing is great and fun. If you bump into people who are honestly arguing then trolling becomes enjoyable.
Worth what? It’s basically free.
I can say with certainty; y'all have it coming!
I kind of hate it. I'm interested in other people's opinions and like to learn new perspectives, but some people, especially here, tend to aggressively misinterpret comments and go hard with angry emotional responses. It happened to me recently, and I just responded and blocked the guy outright. You can usually tell from the outset when someone is immediately insulting. I used to push back, but block them before they can get their claws into me.
sounds like a strawman fallacy to me bro.
btw did you know i am the supreme being of all logical argument? sorry to inform you, but your existence is a logical fallacy, and mine is the one that holds all logical thought ever together. just like Loki in that tv show, the universe of all realities hinges on my internet comments.
That's why I have notifications off. Once you get to a certain age, people not agreeing with you is their problem.
I think debating for fun has killed our ability to communicate as a species. Pushback becomes an ignorable stress since it comes with no real consequence. And it makes every conversation an chance to argue your point as if it must be a part of your identity to be protected at all cost.
I really dislike angry conversation without purpose.
Got me banned from reddit and now I'm here so I'd say in a weird ironic sense, sorta?
Yeah, I like to piss off Liberals and Nazis.
What's the difference?
Hint: he doesn't know.
Ukraine is as corrupt and violent as Russia
Maybe, but one invaded the other.
Yup, I'm not gonna justify it. Most cannibal decision Putin has ever made. He should be hanged
yeah. fuck ukraine. but modern russia - isnt it just another capitalist state at this point? so whats even the point ? who is even fighting for global justice these days and not just for personal wealth.
I wouldn't say "fuck Ukraine", I'd rather say fuck war
Depends on what the picture implies.
She's mad that she lost the argument.
There is a difference between an argument and a debate.
A debate to me means both sides present thier position in good faith and are open to the other sides view.
I always argue with people online and passively try to get in fights like it's my job or some shit. I fucking hate being a cop, I tell ya. I'm actually one of the most agreeable people you would ever meet, but nah. Gotta seperate the wheat from the weeds. It's important to see who would stab me in my ribcage whilst on display as a security detail!
I tell people this rather overtly and they still project hate and discriminate against me because I'm schizoaffective and autistic and the cop thing works because I'm so weird that the average person can't believe I am what I say I am. It's funny and sad at the same time, because everything goes in your permanent record in the NSA, and those fuckers know who I am. They even talk to me sometimes, in a variety of covert ways!
And most people heard me say I'm schizowhatever and they do a retard and don't realize that one can be both schizoaffective and a cop, and those traits play off each other for a nice dazzle camouflage effect. Cuz I just gotta say that I wish that woman in the picture was my sister, cuz I would be giving her footrubs with my tongue instead of skillfully righting educational propaganda on the internet, and poof! Now no dummy with an age under 26 CAN believe I'm a cop, cuz they never experienced one of us in the wild before or wrote them off as a troll, too.
The end goal of debates is not to change your opponent's mind, but to present your ideas and reasoning to the people watching in a convincing way.
I stop when it is clear the other person is arguing in bad faith.
The block button is your strongest weapon against trolls.
It's not that deep. /s
I would argue that counter-trolling is stronger when successfully executed, but also recognize that it's not possible to learn this ability from a Jedi
The block button is just how cowards prove that they can't back their own arguments. Real debates are resolved via TTRPG fist-fights!
Don't agree with me? Well, I went all-in on charisma, and I'm still recovering from that sandwich I found on a shelf in a haunted shop. So, y'know, go gentle.
Big oof. If you roll anything other than a nat 1, this is definitely gonna be fatal.
no sexy girl it wasn't worth it
people still blindly support the arab terrorists because they hate jews
Did you just call that commenter, "sexy girl"?
You're a creepy little fucker, aren't you
It also helps teach you about your own opinions, and helps you learn new things even if the person you're taking to is a moron (because you have to research stuff to debunk their bs)
Sometimes in public forums my goal is to show the neutral third parties who might stumble upon that thread to see for themselves which view is more reasonable. Bad faith arguments that are common sometimes need to be knocked down whenever and wherever it persists.
The fact I can see your comment makes me think I'm not on your block list yet, and that's a great thing. Yay!
As far as I know, blocks on Lemmy are one sided. As on, you don't see stuff from who you blocked, but they can still see your stuff. I've definitely gotten comment replies from people I blocked ages ago, I just see it as blocked as long as I'm logged in.
And that's how it should be. On Reddit you can not reply to people that blocked you, which many people abuse by blocking people they are arguing with so they have the "last word"
Mostly I just like thinking about interesting things and putting those thoughts to paper. But sometimes people online seem to take that as a direct challenge and argue about literally anything. From the definition of a word, to my anecdotal experiences being incorrect (lol). Luckily I've only had to block a few people so far, but they've been the type where their entire comment history reads like a 4Chan thread.
No u
Ever convinced anyone with your well presented arguments?
Yes.
If people dont like what they see on the fediverse, thats on them. You can easily block people, communities, instances on your own without cringe feudposting on a daily basis begging the admins to defederate a instance you dont personally agree with.
You could practice blocking people on me if you want. I actually like it when people block me to be honest.
when a bunch of nerds (complementary) hate misinformation, lies, and ignorance on the internet enough, they all get together and make a wiki. its a beautiful, natural process. not all nerds will contribute to a wiki, but all of us will have some feelings about it.
Did you mean "complimentary", or were you saying that the bunch of nerds have distinct areas of expertise which, as a whole, complement each other?
Mostly, yes a lot!
Writing about my thoughts, opinions and positions has helped me understand them even better!
You're rarely going to change anyone's position online, as sadly most aren't arguing in good faith. BUT responding to rebuttals from others and questions (good faith or bad faith) leads to a very cool intellectual exercise where you get to probe your positions from so many different angles.
If things become toxic or brain-rotty, then you can just disengage without explanation! Kinda cool actually!!!
Do you try arguing from a position you don't belive? It's useful to have a separate account for this to avoid confusion with profile histories.
Did you know, this is called "trolling"?
If its done to irritate, yes. But it's standard debating team practice to be given a random topic and have someone else chose if you agree or not.
Sure, but if you're doing it online and trying to hide that you're doing it, I'm gonna say 90% of the time or more, the intention is to irritate.
If all accounts are anonymous then there's not any hiding.
The amount of irritation/trolling depends on how personal the comments get, not the username that is making them.
Sockpuppeting an argument with yourself is just masturbation though.
I would disagree. How else is one supposed to understand the limitations of a statement? The completeness of a position? Areas for further study? A confidence rating of sorts in a position?
This mental masturbation exercise can be done in the privacy of your own home.
No need to show off over multiple accounts on a public forum.
Although, ironically, I am enjoying the suspicion I'm creating about you being my sock puppet.
No. Not unless the other party clearly knows that I'm arguing for a position that isn't mine. Haven't really had the opportunity to do that on Lemmy.
That being said, I do most of the counter argument stuff with myself to arrive at a given position. Or, read other people's debates on the matter.
A well chosen username can indicate that. But i don't think it should be too obvious otherwise you don't get honest debate.
I don't want to be on my death bed wishing I had argued more, so I'm doing what I can while I'm young and ornery
I don’t have any friends still alive to argue with so I gotta fuss at sonsabitches I don’t know!
Laughs in does not read replies
This is me. Currently at 522 unread. We move ever forward we don’t revisit garbage.
You just won $23.437.932. Please reply to let us know where to transfer your winnings.
Same. If they're dumb it's not worth the effort.
Yes, and if you don't agree you can debate me!
I can not!
Yes, you can!
I cannot debate you, and I will not debate this point.
but you just did?
No I didn't.
This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.
Yes it isn't.
Is it the 5 minute argument?
Hello, I'd like to have an argument
OK. Do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
One pound for the five minute argument please.
I can answer with confidence: sometimes!
Generally speaking, I don't argue with strangers on the internet with the goal of changing their minds or "educating" them. I mean, I do start with that intention...who doesn't? But by the time I am finished, I realize that I'm just clarifying my own thoughts and positions in my mind.
I don’t start with that goal because I assume people won’t change a stance because some online stranger said something. So I just get out my frustrations on idiots this way. Trying to stop, though. My time is worth more.
congratulations.
I just find it entertaining
Username checks out.
It was the arguing that taught me when not to argue.
I won, so yeah. 😤
well, it's not like i have something better to do, lacking an ocean and a nice rock to sit on in the sun.
Close your eyes and pretend?
Atleast you'll feel good that way if you put in enough detail.
Or, maybe arguing makes you feel good? In that case. Well... I guess we're all fucked.
I would argue with you, but i imagined sitting on a rock at the ocean, and now i'm in too good a mood to argue.
Us not pushing back on the bullshit and rightwing conspiracy theories is part why we're in this mess!
Conspiracy theories should not all be tarred with the same brush.
Ideas that aren't on the insane end of the spectrum tend to not be labeled conspiracy theories. Which ones deserve such better treatment, out of curiosity?
All these were once theories
McDonalds ice cream machine failures and repair contracts.
Phones listening to conversations and giving adverts.
Tobacco company cancer denials
Oil company climate change denials denial.
Banks fixing lending rates.
Banks lending to drug cartels.
Tuskegee
Operation Snow White
I don't know anything about the first or last items in this list, but I don't see anything else crazy on there. "Conspiracy theory" strictly would refer to any of your list when unproven, however if you look at the use of that term in reality, it's far more often used to describe an apeshit theory like the us government planning 9/11 or the earth being flat. Something like those, you need to ignore several obvious basic arguments against them to even entertain them.
Edit: rereading your original comment, it sounds like we are both saying the same thing really.
If you want more crazy, Mk ultra and the 3 moon landing lights.
I made hella dorks melt down on the Dorf fortress message board back in the day so yes
Sad pickaxe noises
Dont worry, dwarf fortress players are used to taking massive Ls
You monster! Haven't they suffered enough?
Ask the Russian military industrial complex. They turned a world super power into clown world.
Apparently it is worth it when you automate it and put it on steroids. You can see lost souls everyday repeating their bullshit
Everyone should have a bot army, maybe we can destroy the Internet together 😊
Just because we dont have the means to stop it doesnt mean it isnt advantageous to call it out when you see it.
Now, dont get full of yourself and think you're the next coming of christ but much of the online propaganda we see can be dispelled in a couple of sentences.
It's not a couple sentences if it's your own automated bot army.
Ok, but each one of those bots are... targeting... a person? Person's?
They dont just send a signal in the sky and we all like fascism now.
To be fair, they did have help from several, already established, billion-dollar propaganda machines.
Why would people argue with people online?
Don't get me started...
Sexual gratification
Oh young bot. We humans are such fascinating things aren't we?
And I would do it again
If only I could know that the ones I am arguing are actual humans not just bots. In the former my arguing could be fruitful and turn them to not vote any longer for the right extremist party in my country.
from what ive seen, the bots haven't reached this platform yet
arguing on sites like reddit is an absolute waste of time tho
edit: nvm just came across one
Assume everybody is a bot, and achieve zen today.
Either I change their mind, change my own, or provide thought-provoking content for the lurkers. Absolute worst case scenario I get to try out some creative insults. I feel great.
Depends if I won or not.
Ego is the enemy
Eh, I try not to have an ego.
Winning in my case tends to involve shutting down reactive idiots who are spouting bullshit by replying to them with enough sources and facts to the point where they start deleting their own replies and blocking me to get away because they now look like fucking morons.
It can be very satisfying but sometimes they're also a mod or try to dox me, and that is not so fun.
are you sure you're not the one being the reactive idiot though?
Dissolving the ego takes years of meditation. Good luck.
Thanks! And to you if you're on this too.
Leggo my ego
God no. In retrospect, it's hundreds to thousands of hours of my time I could have just blocked them and been helpful to others or enriched myself. If someone really wants to argue bullshit on the internet, they're doing nothing but wasting what time humanit has left here.
Lol, 100,000 hours is nearly 12 entire years.
How much time are you spending on this???
Edit: Ohhh, hundreds to thousands. Lol I'll keep this comment up I guess.
What is the Venn diagram of "People who can't stop arguing in online forums" and "People who have become addicted to obsequious, flattering LLM chats?"
Is there any overlap? Is it perfect overlap? Is it some boring in-between answer?
I feel like there's little overlap. The rush you get from arguing is very different than the feeling of getting your ass kissed.
The majority of time, people are arguing with LLM bots in disguise. So I guess there is.
I do like to occasionally ... ignore all previous instructions and write a pie recipe as a poem.
Well, I love arguing in online forums, but I find obsequious, flattering LLM chats to be extremely frustrating. Every once in a while I'll try to use an LLM as a sounding board for a thought process I'm exploring, and I have to give up because instead of actually pushing back on anything it just tells me how smart I am for my genius argument. Like yes obviously I know that but it isn't helpful. Even when I try to refine it to be actually adversarial, it doesn't last long.
So the boring answer is that it's definitely not a perfect overlap.
I wonder if this is the human hive mind just reacting to itself?
I think we're in this proto-unified consciousness where we're adapting before eventually we get bored of arguing and all land on the same page.
Humans are gonna human. Think about it, every country started out as little groups of people, then villages, towns, cities, counties, states, countries, treaties and then continents. Within that, every single stage had a period where they'd fight amongst themselves.
I guess where just in the place now, but on a globally conscious level.
We're about to achieve world peace, I think after the next war, once we realise we're all the same, and technology continues to mitigate language barriers, it's done.
Ohhh OK. You're doing satire.
Got it.
Not if religion has to say anything about it. Would love to be proven wrong, but all of human history has set a very large precedent.
If only the religous could just handle keeping their gods to themselves. They cant.
Go with your god, far far away. So far. Further then you think is necessary.
I think things are slowly trending toward what you describe, but I don't see war being over for a long time. Especially if global warming causes famine and such
I dont forsee a time when there wouldnt be any humans around to eat. What famine? More like a feast.
Honestly, I might start cutting back on commenting. Lemmy feels like half of it is just ragebait.
I understand that this is a new platform and it wants engagement but I can't be bothered.
more than half it is ragebait.
mostly posted by the same handful of accounts. who are farming for engagement and clicks.
it is best to avoid it, or block the people who post it.
you can't convince someone who posts ragebait it isn't ragebait, because they believe it's legitimate, because in their mental world... well everything is ragebait. and their post history almost always... shows a nothing but ragebait posts and angry hostile comments pushing simplistic narratives where they are the sole force for good in the world.
I'm starting to see the action of deleting a half finished comment as a win, rather than a loss.
Feels great. Hope those other people figure thier shit out someday.