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.
Hello, fellow stranger online!
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.
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.
What evidence? You didn’t pull this out of your ass, did you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
yeah, so superior when you’re go to is insults and threats.
almost like you’re a bully, and a coward.
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?
It’s a hobby.
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 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.
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.
Pro tip: Never open your inbox.
Not as powerful as you but I’m working on it
That’s a strong magic right there.
yes.
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.
tell that to everyone who thinks their feelings are the only truth there is.
Oh, I intend to.
I want her feet
Other people in this thread have already said it better than I could but in brief: Yes
Was it worth it?
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.
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.
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
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.
It’s not that deep. /s
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.
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
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
Ever convinced anyone with your well presented arguments?
Yes.
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.
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.
