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 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.
Sure, it is the internet and not people’s personal finances imploding. Its why we definitely didnt see pushes like this in any other time before the internet. Nope not ever. It’s by posting to the internet that changes things.
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.
I don’t want to be on my death bed wishing I had argued more, so I’m doing what I can while I’m young and ornery
I don’t have any friends still alive to argue with so I gotta fuss at sonsabitches I don’t know!
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.
I can answer with confidence: sometimes!
Yes, and if you don’t agree you can debate me!
I can not!
Yes, you can!
I cannot debate you, and I will not debate this point.
but you just did?
No I didn’t.
This isn’t an argument, it’s just contradiction.
Yes it isn’t.
Is it the 5 minute argument?
Hello, I’d like to have an argument
OK. Do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
One pound for the five minute argument please.
Laughs in does not read replies
Same. If they’re dumb it’s not worth the effort.
This is me. Currently at 522 unread. We move ever forward we don’t revisit garbage.
You just won $23.437.932. Please reply to let us know where to transfer your winnings.
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.
Pro tip: Never open your inbox.
That’s a strong magic right there.
Not as powerful as you but I’m working on it
Generally speaking, I don’t argue with strangers on the internet with the goal of changing their minds or “educating” them. I mean, I do start with that intention…who doesn’t? But by the time I am finished, I realize that I’m just clarifying my own thoughts and positions in my mind.
I just find it entertaining
Username checks out.
I don’t start with that goal because I assume people won’t change a stance because some online stranger said something. So I just get out my frustrations on idiots this way. Trying to stop, though. My time is worth more.
yes.
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.
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.
LOL as if. Literally I will see people with logical responses getting ripped apart because the person they are arguing with just sounds more right and or it fits what people wanted to hear in that specific echo chamber.
Say something cause you want to say it, not cause you are giving yourself points on an invisible scoreboard for people that might not exist.
I think you may want to reread what I wrote because this is barely related. Feels more like something happened and you’re just looking for a vent.
No its related In that, I dont believe the lurkers are appreciating it like you think they are. And that logical responses are often still beaten by emotional forces. And, getting the high of watching a “nerd” get dunked on is likely more of not all of the counter arguments received perspective when commenting against the perceived right take of a community.
If you are commenting, you are doing it for yourself. Inventing an imaginary person that is receiving your argument other than the person you are talking to is silly and delusional in the truest sense of that word.
I don’t think it’s delusional to want to teach people things. When you respectfully deconstruct someone’s half truths it can help people understand.
This is not to say that you should take everything seriously or that every person is worth engaging with of course you still have to be selective.
Imagining their existence without proof is though. Teaching people is different then screaming into a black box and relying on faith that it did.
And here we are back at the emotional response overpowering the logical one. If you want to teach actually do it than hoping you are passively doing it.
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.
What evidence? You didn’t pull this out of your ass, did you?
I don’t believe it!
spoiler
Get the joke?
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.
This already exists. News media for instance used to have standards as to who they would hire - like you’d have to spelel properely and everyhting. Then most of the major outlets were bought up by the wealthy and… well, they still exist but people don’t bother to read them anymore.
Even now, blogs exist (like Mastodon) but people on “social media” (where we are now) prefer to simply scroll and speak rather than listen.
What you are saying still exists though - it’s simply not here. Read this if you are interested: https://medium.com/@max.p.schlienger/the-cargo-cult-of-the-ennui-engine-890c541cebcb.
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.
yeah, so superior when you’re go to is insults and threats.
yeah, your such a big tough strong guy who is so smart.
Ew. Using the 3/5s compromise even in a comment section is pretty gross.
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.
