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.
Figuring out that you can’t change anyone’s mind by arguing online
The only thing you achieve is a dopamine hit for being right
i’ve changed plenty of people’s minds online… but truth me told it was like 10 years ago before social media rotted their brains and everyone was living in hug boxes. and it was generally among my peer group of 20/early 30 somethings. it wasn’t teenagers or people in their 50s.
i used to be a part of tons of communities on reddit where people actually argued productively. but again, this was a decade ago. world was different, people were different. today people dismiss you based on the slightest disagreement.
hell on this site i have been told i’m a fascist for linking to government data and wikipedia. apparently facts are fascist now.
Presenting facts to conservatives.
And presenting facts to democrats, right? Both sides have basically the same people in them. Generally stupid people that learn a few things about politics, from the internet, then think they are able to suddenly have realistic opinions about a complex subject decades in the making because they watched a couple documentaries and podcasts (typically a younger crowd regarding)…
Anyway, the 1st step in keeping it real about your political opinions is remember humans make up both sides. Humans… every bit of lovely and stupid, everywhere. You too. 2. Dont be so rigid, get some flex. People switch sides, and switch back, it happens a lot. 3. Keep it real by not following the cult of personality. Its such a major issue with trumpism that all others look completely tame by comparison. 4. 9/10 people dont want you inserting your political commentary into everything, this can be very hard for some people.
Some people claim to vote 1 way but vote another actually, that was me, I wasnt keepin’ it real. Ive actuallyonly ever voted 3rd party, but ive lied to some people to avoid unwanted judgment and issues, yeah sue me.
I dont know… this was a long stupid rant. I saw this cheap shot partisan comment and felt like something should be added.
I might answer by changing the statement like so: presenting “facts” to the other political side feels like a losing battle because we stand diametrically opposed on issues, and the “facts” lead to different conclusions for both group, and neither will change their fundamental stance… hence, a losing battle.
Uhh you talking about yourself? And its pretty hilarious that you are mad about having rules for a debate? You need rules in debated so that no one will try to pull some bs. “Whataboutisms” logical fallacies (like ad hominem or false dichotomies), maintaining relevance to the topic, requiring evidence for claims, ensuring clarity and consistency in definitions and arguments…
I mean were there other specific rules they wanted that would “give them an out”?
“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.
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.
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
how do you know you’re not the evil one?
You’re very perceptive, clearly I could not deceive you. You play mind games well, so you must be Machiavellian. But Machiavelli hated the cynicism of realpolitik, so a fan of his writing clearly cannot be Machiavellian. So I must be the evil one.
So you’ve made up your mind?
I’m just getting started! Your username is funny, so you must have a sense of humour. Funny people tend to lean left, because comedy is an act of empathy! But it references frogs, which became right wing iconography last decade so you clearly are not a leftist!
I’ve decided. I’ll drink from my cup. Oh, look what’s that!
it’s not a mind game dude.
the people you think as evil, don’t think they are evil. they think they are good and you are evil.
if you get away from the stupid bilary of ‘good/evil’ you might better understand that life is more about what goals other people want and what they are willing to do to accomplish them.
You think Trump is evil probably, but for those that support him he is doing justice and truth to the world and fighting for good, because it’s the leftist/liberal forces that are causing evil.
the funny thing about life is most people think you are good… until you disagree with them or try to get in the way of their goals. Then you are evil.
Moral relativism detected - luckily I am already being hilarious. You’ll never catch me slipping, Satan.
who is your authority for morality? God?
I never said I’d discuss that with you, stop acting weird. 😐
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.
deleted by creator
Well I mean it stands to reason you’re most likely arguing with paid actors using Persona Management software to have hundreds of such conversations in unison, so it’s a moot point because they’re being paid to prevent minds from being changed on subject X.
Honestly I feel like AI progression was just a cover for what was originally updated Persona Management where the human has to do even less to keep the consensus cracking and topic dilution ongoing.
Hey everyone look at this guy trying to make others laugh
/s
Ah that sweet sweet attention I would never admit to wanting. Like manna from heaven.
Hahaha!
…;)
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
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.
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.
nobody is gonna convince me of anything now
This is part of the problem. If two people engage in open debate and neither of them can be convinced to change their minds about anything, then what exactly is the point?
I will listen to people and engage with their arguments, and remain openminded to be convinced. Life isn’t that simple and believing you know all the answers is naive.
Problem is I read comments from 3 separate users in the past few days that literally got banned within 24 hours for being a LLM bot lmao (read the modlogs, its getting crazier these days)
I would guess you didn’t live in Gaza, but you still have an idea of what is happening there. Of course if you did live there, it would likely take precedence over what you read about it.
You don’t actually need to take decisions about Gaza, so you could just ignore it. But you will need to take a decision about a cancer you’ve never lived before, and you will need to to use other people’s experiences about it to make that decision.
You are currently living by the “don’t put your fingers in the socket” rule, and you (likely) never tried it. You (likely) don’t understand why, or how bad it would actually be, but you’re following it, and it is a good thing for everyone involved.
Using other people’s expressed experience is absolutely necessary for your everyday life, and you will do it even if you don’t want to. Figuring out exactly how to deal with the mistakes and contradictions and lies gets complicated, and is a fundamental subject in science
The comment I replied to:
Really trying to change anyone’s mind online
Key word: “online”
If I met them in person, I’d be more inclined to listen to them.
Oh, why so? Less likely to be a bot?
I think it’s just easier to be honest and not lie to someone to their face in real life. The ability to have your facial expressions be read and having to respond in a timely manner or admit you’re not sure is much more likely to make people argue in an honest manner
People not having as much time to “decide” to go for bad faith is interesting
I wonder if someone made an actual list of observed differences in behavior IRL and online, with the same discussion as input.
I guess people would tend to simply refuse to interact with the discussion, but they would have the same things to say, right? Like, they don’t have different opinions online and IRL. If you were giving people as much time and “confidentiality” to think and express their thoughts (which are generally seen as good things), it should look similar. Basically I think the online assholes would also be IRL assholes if you let them talk in similar conditions.
Anyways, there are differences, but I don’t see any causes for “don’t ever listen to anything due to this”
I disagree.
Okay, ready? Everyone point at them and laugh.
Good, that was our goal all along!
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”. :)
Of course it’s a losing battle. Remember what Sartre said:
Never believe that fascists are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The fascists have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Conservatives around the world for the past ~30 years (if not longer) have been slowly adopting fascist methods and talking points. And for the past ~10 years, conservatives and fascists have formed a Venn diagram of a circle.
Arguing in general is pointless.
Thats not to say that having a discussion about how to do something isn’t useful, of course it is. But beliefs, ideals? People dont get those from arguments. Refine them, maybe, but its extremely rare that someone changes their mind after defending their POV.
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 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.
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.
Getting involved in a land war in Asia. Also going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Fallen for those blunders more than once!
But if somebody offers you a peanut, you should totally take it.
Unless you have allergies, in which case it could be as deadly as iocaine powder.
If the boss doesn’t like you for whatever reason you’re done.
Just get out of there, fighting their bullshit never works.
I feel this so hard.
Trying to apply nuance to a discussion that consists of people that only want to polarize the subject.
I tend to find people who claim this actually just have shit worldviews and don’t like being called out for it. For example, do you agree that ICE is an extralegal occupying paramilitary?
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or if you’re legitimately responding to a complaint about polarizing escalation replacing conversation by escalating and polarizing the conversation.
doubt they are being sarcastic. they are just morally grandstanding, because anyone who disagrees with their extremist viewpoint is morally bankrupt human being, because they believe their views are the most moral ever and any ‘decent’ person must agree with their very moral viewpoint or not be moral.
very common mentality on lemmy.
I honestly wonder if people like that are just bots because they only ever argue in bad faith regardless of how tone deaf or obviously wrong they are.
No I don’t. ICE is a valid institution. Immigration laws should be enforced, like any law.
Are you sure it’s your worldview that isn’t shit, since I’m assuming you think ICE should be abolished entirely, and further, that immigration laws should not be enforced/not exist? or maybe we should go further and claim national borders/nation states are evil and shouldn’t exist?
Trying to pick up my cat. She won’t let me. I just want to hold her. 🥺
My cat was like that until he got old. He slowly became a cuddler and more loving and closeness increased all the time. It was wonderful
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.
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
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.
Talking with .ml users, turns out you really can’t fix stupid
their brains are so big that anyone who doesn’t agree with them about anything ever is a fascist.
Including other .ml users
the only good revolutionary a traitor to the revolution
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
Trying to fight the “ghosts” of my past. These ghosts that haunts me and give me depression and CPTSD.
I sometimes just revisit happy memories and just try to keep that image of the loving mother in my head, and try to ignore the bad things. Using good memoires to hide away the trauma, to cover up the darkest memories.
Doesn’t work well. No matter how much I try to remember the happiness… the moments of me crying, being scared, inside what’s supposed to be my own home, supposed to be a safe space, yet those memoies keep coming back, seeping in to my head as I daydream and fantasize in nostalgia… of just being a normal kid and loved by parents… and not have a hostile older brother always fighting with me…
this “battle” still ongoing… :/
Arguing with religious people. As my grandfather said, “you cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.”
