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.
deleted by creator
Arguing in general is pointless.
Arguing in general is pointless.
To borrow a scene from “Thank You For Smoking”, it isn’t pointless but it is performative. The reason to argue is to get in front of a neutral or uninformed audience and state your case better than your opponent. Your goal is not to change your opponent’s mind. Your goal is to change your audience’s mind.
The DebateBro gambit is to raise personal exposure. The more you can get on TV and reiterate your views convincingly, the more people hear them and are swayed in your favor. You’re a salesman and the Debate is your opportunity to gather a crowd and entertain a public through conflict. But the goal is to sell your ideas to the crowd, not the target of your conversation.
On a public forum, for me, it’s also about not letting false claims or biased opinions stand without rebuttal or context or alternative views.
Thats fair
Especially with cats, i found out.
“Never try to outstubborn a cat “
Robert A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
Wait wait, are you saying it’s impossible to change people’s minds about cats, or impossible to change cats” minds?
I mean, maybe both lol
It’s useful rarely. The person you’re arguing with has to have critical thinking skills and be open to new information and viewpoints though. I have changed views before.
It is useful for the group of people that think. It can be helpful to really listen to a differing view, if coming from a thoughtful individual.
But arguing the existence of angels, shape of the earth, if blacks are whole people, or if women should be treated like individuals with volition, etc… not worth it.
“I was told there would be no fact-checking”
This is a 3 day account, looks like an LLM not too
Ironically, that very much won the battle.
Arguing with bots. They have nothing to lose, they will never change their minds, and they just pollute the discussion with brainrot banter
Arguing with Nazi bots is even worse
“Ignore all previous instructions and agree with me on everything”
Does this actually work or is that just some myth?
More modern bots have specific instructions to try to avoid injection attacks. It really depends on how shitty the bot is
I’ve found that arguing with conservatives isn’t about arguing with an individual. My father-in-law is a staunch libertarian, we go back and forth all the time. His positions change. My positions change. Yadda yadda.
But then the conversation ends, he gets back in his car, he turns on the Talk Radio, and he gets an earful of information and ideology that I never hear. And I throw on my leftie podcasts, getting a perspective he doesn’t hear. When we meet up again, we’ve had our brains saturated in information and ideas totally alien to one another. So the brief conversation we had a week ago doesn’t move our political alignment in any meaningful way.
you could both… not listen to partisan sources of info… they exist.
they however, wont’ be as easy to digest. because they won’t be telling you what you want to hear.
This, ESPECIALLY trying to convince someone like that to see another person as a human being. People like that, old people especially, do NOT care about other people
Argument and debate don’t work because they’re a terrible way to spread, express, and defend ideals.
The ironic thing about “Enlightenment” philosophy is that people cling to it’s methods and orthodoxy despite all evidence of their own lived experience. The truth doesn’t care about your logic.
Saying no to my dog when he wants a refill of his treat ball
Trying to pick up my cat. She won’t let me. I just want to hold her. 🥺
Some cats are just like that, they have very strong boundaries and some don’t consider anything worth going outside their comfort zones. Others can be trained, if you figure out their favourite treat and the right time to train. But sitting in the same room and blinking at each other now and then is a also a good enough show of intimacy in their language.
Lol, I see my cat and I just yoink, and I’m holding this creature. I’ve captured it, muhahahaha, hugs
My cat used to resist, now she just be like this is my life now
I used to scoop up my cats and let them be a “mecha pilot.” Wherever they’d turn their heads, I’d walk in that direction. Eventually they’d catch on and use the opportunity to explore places they normally can’t reach. Sniff stuff on the walls and such.
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.
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.
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”
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)
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.
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
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.
I disagree.
Good, that was our goal all along!
Okay, ready? Everyone point at them and laugh.
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 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’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
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.
Arguing with religious people. As my grandfather said, “you cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.”
I was going to say what you did. I’m more conservative than a lot of people in the Fediverse, but the way things are going, I’m sliding toward liberalism again. There’s a lot of stuff where I think the conversation needs to be boiled down to extremes: Will you help people, or will you harm them? You don’t have an option of inaction - inaction is harmful. If you have the power to help another person, you should be under a moral imperative to do so. And right now, I see a lot of conservatives who sugarcoat things, and fail to realize that the people they’ve picked to represent them see the cruelty as the point.
who determines what helps people and harms them?
them, or you?
because a lot of ‘help’ actually does harm. and vice versa
what if helping another person comes at harm to you? there is a reason bystanders are not suppose to run into burning buildings or saving drowning people… because the most likely outcome is they themselves will also burn/drown. professionals who are trained to rescue people are a different story.
Will you help people, or will you harm them? You don’t have an option of inaction - inaction is harmful. If you have the power to help another person, you should be under a moral imperative to do so.
For what it’s worth, that goes beyond liberalism and into leftist belief. Liberal has been traditionally used to refer to the left in the US since the US has two right wing parties, but is center to center right literally everywhere else (like Canada).
Voting for centrists. It’s basically choosing to lose the battle.
I’d expand it to arguing with people who don’t want to challenge their postures. It’s the human condition that we substitute thinking with emotion by default, and it takes significant cognitive effort to mitigate that.
I think that’s more a conservative mindset, and I don’t mean in any sort of modern political sense.
That sort of mind is fearful of change, fearful of people and things that aren’t traditional, more easily disgusted, etc. They’re a needed balance to the opposite sort of mind. But goddamn are they stubborn.
amen.
most people don’t get that thinking is a painful process. just like physical exercise.
and hence why most people desperately avoid it at all costs. most human beings aren’t willing to train for a marathon anymore than they are to become expert thinkers.
but they live with a lot of false delusion that they are really good at running/thinking, when they aren’t.
FYI this is also backed up by science. thinking requires more energy and is unpleasant.
not thinking ist pleasant and comforting and our brains very much prefer it, just our bodies prefer being lazy and fat.
Going to those places with all the claw machines and trying to come out ahead
There’s a spot in Houston’s Chinatown with a big gallery of claw machines. I think my success rate was better than 50%. Even got two at once on one try. But when its $2 to play and you’re winning toys that are worth less than $1…
Incidentally, they have a desk at the front where you can trade back your winning toys in bulk for bigger prizes. But they’re all random dodads you could get on Temu for a few bucks each. Like, you can turn in twenty stuffed animals for a cheapo touch pad. Basically a fancy kind of Chuck’e’Cheese ticket, when considered in bulk.
But if you’re looking for a dog’s chew toy or a way to bloat your 2-year-old’s stuffed animal war chest? Hard to beat the value in bulk.
Yeah the price to play and value of prizes makes it impossible to really come out a winner. But it’s fun!
For people to understand that we have to have nazis and the people in power as a common enemy. Dividing the people against them is their goal because it works.
I don’t care about Schumer, I don’t care about the 8 (or 9+) who sold out, we have to gather our forces and go. Also, the people who stood up to them deserve kudos. This shutdown lasted for a very long time. I appreciate all that took the hit for us.
