I literally had to cite the page number from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 Public Law 117-328 that covered how the $800M that Trump keeps telling everyone FEMA spent on migrants was a completely different fund than the disaster relief fund that FEMA uses for hurricanes. Which the DRF was established originally as it’s own fund in the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 Public Law 100-707
It’s page 4,730 where that item is located for anyone wondering.
I fucking hate what online interactions have become. I think I’ve easily read over 200,000 pages of government legislation, federal regulation, and legal proceedings since June because of the lies one orange shit stain keeps telling. I really do hope that the Republicans can move past that fucker, it was a lot easier to talk politics.
Yeah, I decided this a couple years ago unless someone seems unusually reasonable. No source will ever be good enough. The block button is the best way forward for most people who ask for a source. Because you can tell most people think asking for one is “winning” as soon as it’s asked
This is false actually. Any claim can be dismissed and evidence doesn’t matter because nobody cares. The best way to convince people of things is with cheap psychological parlor tricks
Lets not forget that it’s about more than just that person. It’s about the massive pile of data on the internet that will be read in the future and trawled for chatbot training.
Because they want to exhaust the person engaging in a good faith discussion. It’s far more labor intensive to have to look for, find, verify for contextual correctness, quote and link said sources, then argue why one’s position is factually correct.
And all the other person has to do is cite some patently false bullshit in 5 seconds and disregard the argument.
It all boils down to bad faith. They don’t care what argument you make, you’ll never sway them. They’re not interested in the debate with you as much as as they are just getting their bullshit out there for randos to read. Like you say, while you’re finding sources and making sure everyone agrees on terminology they’ve already said 3 more things that are completely wrong.
what do any of us do when logical, good faith arguments fail and the future of the world depends on convincing idiots that the sky is blue? serious question.
Use illogical, bad faith arguments to trick them into believing that the sky is blue, of course. People fall for horrible stupid dumb propaganda, it’s the nature of humanity. Only like 5% of people are really gonna bother to go actually read studies and shit, I don’t even really do that, I just look at the abstracts and then hope that the scientists didn’t fuck up and run the study wrong or engage in p-hacking or something. I couldn’t afford to go to college and take a statistics course, and my only form of education beyond that is watching 3brown1blue videos at 2x speed interspersed with useless escapist brainrot.
Everyone wants to believe that humans are some highly logical computer creatures that can just be convinced if we get hit with enough rigorous logical argumentation. We’re really not. You can make something much more convincing to someone if you validate their ego, or if you incentivize someone into believing a certain kind of truth as a result of their survival in a certain context, right.
Even if we were purely logical beings, that wouldn’t even really solve the problem, because we’re all exposed to vastly different information landscapes, i.e. every MAGA guy you run into has probably be tweaking out to AM radio for 8 contiguous hours at their job, or socializing with a bunch of insularly sexist, homophobic, or racist good old boys in an echo chamber for most hours of the day, or whatever else, right. So, what hope can you have to change their minds over the course of a 1 or 2 hour conversation? If even that. And double this for everyone out there that spends their time listening to NPR, or has milder takes about things, or even just spends their time passively absorbing whatever propaganda floats at them through pop culture and escapist media consumption.
some of us make good pets, some of us make good masters, the main problem I’m having right now is that it lacks the kind of erotic kind of framing that I tend to prefer
Well that’s why the point of arguing with other people isn’t really to convince them, but just to make yourself smarter and more informed by reading 200,000 pages of government legislation for fun, like it’s just another tuesday. Light work for a person like you
I literally had to cite the page number from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 Public Law 117-328 that covered how the $800M that Trump keeps telling everyone FEMA spent on migrants was a completely different fund than the disaster relief fund that FEMA uses for hurricanes. Which the DRF was established originally as it’s own fund in the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 Public Law 100-707
It’s page 4,730 where that item is located for anyone wondering.
I fucking hate what online interactions have become. I think I’ve easily read over 200,000 pages of government legislation, federal regulation, and legal proceedings since June because of the lies one orange shit stain keeps telling. I really do hope that the Republicans can move past that fucker, it was a lot easier to talk politics.
MrFilmKritic on Twitter has the answer for you.
Yeah, I decided this a couple years ago unless someone seems unusually reasonable. No source will ever be good enough. The block button is the best way forward for most people who ask for a source. Because you can tell most people think asking for one is “winning” as soon as it’s asked
a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
This is false actually. Any claim can be dismissed and evidence doesn’t matter because nobody cares. The best way to convince people of things is with cheap psychological parlor tricks
black pilled as fuck
Prove it.
you see that you just did, right? it’s tautological.
Yes, my friend, I did see.
Lets not forget that it’s about more than just that person. It’s about the massive pile of data on the internet that will be read in the future and trawled for chatbot training.
I bet they saw the source and said “oh, yes, thank you for the source, I have updated my opinion based on this new information.”
Because they want to exhaust the person engaging in a good faith discussion. It’s far more labor intensive to have to look for, find, verify for contextual correctness, quote and link said sources, then argue why one’s position is factually correct.
And all the other person has to do is cite some patently false bullshit in 5 seconds and disregard the argument.
Aka, “Why Don’t You Respond to Criticism?”
It all boils down to bad faith. They don’t care what argument you make, you’ll never sway them. They’re not interested in the debate with you as much as as they are just getting their bullshit out there for randos to read. Like you say, while you’re finding sources and making sure everyone agrees on terminology they’ve already said 3 more things that are completely wrong.
Ding ding ding. I actively refuse to do homework from randos on the internet.
what do any of us do when logical, good faith arguments fail and the future of the world depends on convincing idiots that the sky is blue? serious question.
Use illogical, bad faith arguments to trick them into believing that the sky is blue, of course. People fall for horrible stupid dumb propaganda, it’s the nature of humanity. Only like 5% of people are really gonna bother to go actually read studies and shit, I don’t even really do that, I just look at the abstracts and then hope that the scientists didn’t fuck up and run the study wrong or engage in p-hacking or something. I couldn’t afford to go to college and take a statistics course, and my only form of education beyond that is watching 3brown1blue videos at 2x speed interspersed with useless escapist brainrot.
Everyone wants to believe that humans are some highly logical computer creatures that can just be convinced if we get hit with enough rigorous logical argumentation. We’re really not. You can make something much more convincing to someone if you validate their ego, or if you incentivize someone into believing a certain kind of truth as a result of their survival in a certain context, right. Even if we were purely logical beings, that wouldn’t even really solve the problem, because we’re all exposed to vastly different information landscapes, i.e. every MAGA guy you run into has probably be tweaking out to AM radio for 8 contiguous hours at their job, or socializing with a bunch of insularly sexist, homophobic, or racist good old boys in an echo chamber for most hours of the day, or whatever else, right. So, what hope can you have to change their minds over the course of a 1 or 2 hour conversation? If even that. And double this for everyone out there that spends their time listening to NPR, or has milder takes about things, or even just spends their time passively absorbing whatever propaganda floats at them through pop culture and escapist media consumption.
it’s almost like we’d make better pets than masters.
some of us make good pets, some of us make good masters, the main problem I’m having right now is that it lacks the kind of erotic kind of framing that I tend to prefer
Well that’s why the point of arguing with other people isn’t really to convince them, but just to make yourself smarter and more informed by reading 200,000 pages of government legislation for fun, like it’s just another tuesday. Light work for a person like you