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.

  • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

      • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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!

        • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.worldbanned_from_community_badge
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.

    • jimmy90@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      true i’ve had discourse about communism and israel on here and people are not discussing anything

      just stating their beliefs over and over

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.”

      • Qwel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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

            • 𝄞 Inkstain (they/them)𓆩 𓆪@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              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

              • Qwel@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                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”