It’s so weird to me that people will respond to something and then get angry that I don’t engage them in debate. People don’t owe you anything.
I fell super hard into this in 2020. I would try so hard to gently explain to people that, yes, COVID is real and that, yes, Donald Trump lied about election interference. There was some post about more people in some county voting than were registered. I literally found the county’s records and showed them that no, there were more people registered than voted and that the post was a lie. You know what they said? “You found that with Google, which is a liberal source.”
It’s not worth it. I don’t engage. I’m a much more stable and happy person because of it.
Actually, debate between hostile strangers online serves an important role in churning up internet drama. This is vital to the continued survival of the popcorn industry.
If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
-Sartre
Two additional sentences at the end of the often posted quote from “Anti-Semite and Jew”. Those two sentences were always included in the quote when I first saw it making it’s round years ago. Now it takes hunting to find the complete quote. Most sites cut it off after “the time for argument is past”. I wonder who would benefit from us forgetting those last two sentences.
Wow thank you for this meme. The comments in the post above this one were absolute dog shit, and I seriously was on the verge of engaging with them. I didn’t engage. Yayyyy
Also, the debate crowd doesn’t actually want to hear you to change their minds if new information is presented, they just want a platform to parrot their bullshit in a way they look legit and smart, and they can’t do that without the debate. So, as usual, don’t feed the troll.
They’re absolutely being disingenuous, but I think it’s important to keep in mind that the purpose of debate is not generally to change the mind of the person you’re debating with. It’s intended to be done with an audience (or judges in a formal competitive debate), and it’s the audience that you’re trying to sway to your side.
Unfortunately, social media is highly influencial of public opinion, so it is a civic responsibility that those with life experience and expertise with things need to engage in. Failure to do so effectively is rolling over for
MAGANazis 2.0.We need to be better at rhetoric and debate. Cicero wrote over 2 millenia ago about the power of eloquence.
"Wisdom without eloquence does too little for the good of communities, but eloquence without wisdom is, in most instances, extremely harmful and never beneficial. If, then, anyone exerts all of his energies in the practice of oratory to the neglect of the highest and most honorable pursuits of reason and moral conduct, he is reared as a citizen useless to himself and harmful to his country; but the person who arms himself with eloquence in such a way that enables him not to assault the interest of his country, but rather assist them, this man, in my opinion, will be a citizen most helpful and most devoted both to his own interests and those of the public.”
In recent years, the unwise have weaponized eloquence. The wise among us have failed spectacularly at understanding the importance and power of persuasion.
Won’t somebody feed the trolls?!
Trolls like you?
Nazis making shit up and moderation failing to silence them is not a question of eloquence. Fuck off with that.
debates fine but you don’t need to finish it or win it. Its a process.
I’ve changed people’s minds with arguments.
Face to face, this is definitely possible. I’ve convinced more than a dozen people that climate change is real, and humans are the primary cause of it in face to face conversation. Online, where tone is easily misinterpreted, everyone is a stranger, and people are more able to rapidly retreat into a bubble of others that agree with them, I think it does a lot less good - but every once in a while, something works a little bit for someone.
More importantly, if we decide that we should all exist in our isolated bubbles of (non)social acceptance, it leads to the rise of extremism in some of those groups, and even the most terrible ideas can be allowed to fester and grow. Pretty much regardless of who you are, or what you believe, you probably have an example or two of such beliefs.
I did that once, afterwards they hated me.
Also don’t forget that a considerable number of the users that would engage in a debate with you are either children or bots.
Or trolls. I swear the internet as a whole forgot that the best way to deal with all of the above (AND idiots!) is to stop engaging.
I blame modern social media. People are too well trained to feed the algo, even here on the fediverse.
The internet would be a different place if you always got to see a picture of who you’re arguing with (people would immediately see that I can’t be wrong)
Yeah it would be a great place for rightoids to hunt queers and attack them on optics
Peaceful arguments is just not a thing online. There is no learning nor seeing the other perspective - Just people being defensive and manipulative.
You win debates for onlookers, you’re not meant to change the perspective of the person you’re debating, you’re meant to make them look like idiots so that any lurkers who quietly agree feel bad and change their viewpoint. The left lost because they weren’t willing to do this hard enough.
The on lookers don’t care. That’s why they are on lookers. The best you might do is prevent someone searching for an ideology blindly adopting some rando’s. Honestly, though, if they are letting rando’s arguing online form their worldview you are far from actually helping them.
It unfortunately also not a thing in real life. Tried to convince my mother’s partner that transphobia and homophobia is bad. Best I could do is to him admit it was not about “protecting the children”.
It never has been and never will be about protecting the children, not with the full roster of diddlers they keep in positions of authority…
If it were constructive it would be called a discussion, not an argument or debate.
It is possible, but especially in the bigger communities its usually just throwing poop at each other(that’s at least my experience).
Yeah I’ve burned a depressing amount of time in conversations that aren’t going somewhere. And yet, I keep finding myself back at that toxic ass watering hole 😔
yes i agree that jd vance should die.
Anything that costs me peace of mind is too expensive for my tastes
This is something I wish I’d learned many years ago
Ah yeah? But what if I call you a big Chicken-Butt?
/s
Love this ❤️
