submitted 3 months ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] lugal@sopuli.xyz 0 points 3 months ago

Remindes me of the tweet that said something like "My favorite moment on the internet was when someone said, they believe that people will changed their mind when given evidence. Then I linked TWO SOURCES that said otherwise and they were like I still believe it."

Or when a hexbearian explained to me that hexbear isn't toxic at all, it's just when people refuse to read sources but than it's their fault for not engaging with the material. Later they refused to open my sources.

[-] pumpkinseedoil@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

Good that they didn't change their mind. If they had, you'd have been in trouble because your sources said otherwise.

[-] splonglo@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

The person you're talking to is unlikely to be pursuaded but there's usually silent, invisible lurkers who can be.

I know I've changed my mind on things because of arguments I've read on the internet.

It is proven that people do double down on their views when confronted with opposing evidence, but IMO this is more about the psychology of trust and confrontation between individuals, rather than proof of the futility of argument as a concept. Hell, Vsauce made a video called 'The Future of Reasoning', where he makes the case that argument might have been selected for as an essential part of human psychology and necessary for our survivial.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Fallofturkey@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Gabagool was the most important story arc in the Sopranos, change my view.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

Was gabagool behind the camera in the final scene?

[-] Fallofturkey@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

That is one of my favorite theories. Meadow walks in and frisbee throws a full stack of gabagool to Tony. It's covers the camera, and that was the last of the film for the day. They liked it so much they kept it.

[-] son_named_bort@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

No they don't

[-] VaalaVasaVarde@sopuli.xyz 0 points 3 months ago

Well actually they do.

According to this trusted source.

[-] son_named_bort@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Your facts are meaningless to me, a guy with an opinion.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 months ago

I'm not reading that.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

👋 Me. I clicked it.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] pancakes@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

That sounds like the words of someone who quits right before they change the other person's mind

[-] ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Hey, i think that lady by the license plate stand was talking to you...

[-] lowleveldata@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago

People don't change their mind so easily...

[-] kionite231@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago

I do, I really do. If the argument is logical and coherent.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Me too. I want someone to tell me when I’m wrong. What’s wrong with us?

[-] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Sir, this is the internet, nobody is allowed to quit

[-] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago

One of the most refreshing things I've seen since joining Lemmy is people actually apologizing in comment threads like this.

[-] ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

I'm sorry to hear that! Don't worry, it'll get better as more people join, just you wait!

[-] menemen@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

My most popular Twitter comment is me admitting that I was wrong. I became somewhat of a short time celebrity for that one day (in my language).

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] MrMobius@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

Wether it's on the internet or at a bar counter, I like to engage in debate to better myself. If your goal is to turn every fanatic that crosses your path, you're gonna be depressed real soon.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago

If your goal in an argument is to change the other person's mind, then changing your mind (by taking in new information, learning, and understanding a different point of view) is seen as losing. That's a terrible way to look at what is ultimately personal growth.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago

As I've just said in two other comments, "changing someone's mind" is just a return to barbarism and Middle Ages. When a few literate theology doctors would publicly "defeat" their opponents, the barely literate mass of their audience (monks, nobles and such) would watch and approve, and the illiterate mass would kinda get that those pesky heretics\infidels got totally owned by facts and logic.

So any person arguing with that emotion and visible goal should just be left to eat other such ignorami. Nobody worth arguing with has those.

[-] Legendsofanus@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

Love this, thank you.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

There's no hope in changing the mind of every fanatic you come across.

But we generally don't have internet debates in DMs, we do it in public forums. The goal isn't to sway the fanatics, it's to publicly quash their arguments. To sway curious onlookers away from fanaticism before they become fanatics themselves.

[-] Bigoldmustard@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago

People in real life: it’s obvious you can’t kill an idea or win an argument by calling names.

People online: if I don’t call this person a pedophile because we disagree on the level of funding forestry services receive, LITERALLY EVERYONE who reads their comment will start thinking like them. I will kill their idea with my anxiety.

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You aren't going to kill an idea with name calling online either. You'll, hopefully, be rightfully called out for using pointless ad hominem attacks and be shot down on the spot, pushing people to the fanatic you're arguing against.

Unless we're talking about Twitter, then yeah, louder idiot wins.

[-] Bigoldmustard@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago

When was the last time you spoke to a person face to face?

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Wait...do people still do that? I shouldn't have said either lol. I dunno, the whole comment was really just a dig at Twitter.

load more comments (14 replies)

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago

The goal isn’t to sway the fanatics, it’s to publicly quash their arguments. To sway curious onlookers away from fanaticism before they become fanatics themselves.

As I've said in another comment, this is return to Middle Ages. Debating skills have not much in common with reasoning skills.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Nor are they mutually exclusive. A competent debater can intertwine rhetoric with logic to make a compelling argument for a well-reasoned position.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago

For my argument it's sufficient that they are very much not the same.

This is similar to saying that a big company leading in some area can be benevolent and do good things. Yes, it can, like DEC, Sun, at some point even IBM. Doesn't prove the statement that every social institution and mechanism out there must be replaced by markets.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

You're the only one making that argument, and it doesn't follow from my initial point. I'm not even really sure what point you're trying to make.

How does anything you're saying negate the fact that people make bad but persuasive points online, and gullible people fall for that persuasion? Or that those gullible people lack the entrenchment of the bad actors, and can be redirected from those bad points to better ones if persuasive arguments are presented directly in response to the bad ones?

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago

he goal isn’t to sway the fanatics, it’s to publicly quash their arguments. To sway curious onlookers away from fanaticism before they become fanatics themselves.

Friendly reminder that the above is what I answered first.

Sorry, but this is a load of bollocks. It's you putting yourself above some "gullible people" and still using debate skills to deceive them, just in some "good" direction. Maybe you are really right, but they believe you for the wrong reasons, and the process itself doesn't reinforce that you are right in any way.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If they're already going to believe the wrong things for the wrong reasons, why not present the right things for the wrong reasons? Those who need the right reasons to change their mind are beyond the scope of this approach.

This is outreach to the gullible for harm reduction when they might otherwise filter themselves into a dangerous pipeline. This isn't using debate skills to deceive, it's using them to counter those who do use their debate skills to deceive. Even if the content may possibly be wrong, by presenting it in contrast to preceding content it necessarily widens the debate-space from an unopposed confident statement to a dialogue that the onlooker can take into consideration while making their own decision.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago

it necessarily widens the debate-space from an unopposed confident statement to a dialogue that the onlooker can take into consideration while making their own decision.

That part would be right if we weren't talking about social media, which are designed to neuter this effect.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

All the better to counter-act that neutralizing force at every potent opportunity.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago

That would be try to attract people outside of social media, not try to divert them inside social media where you'll waste energy

[-] Thunderbird4@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

People always forget about the lurkers. Most people with less-informed, more impressionable views on a given topic aren’t posting and debating, they’re reading and learning (despite the unfortunate exceptions). Seeing some wacko extremist nonsense or voter suppression tactic go unchallenged by a more reasonable argument may be enough to sway a not-yet-fanatic in the wrong direction.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago

But - debates don't better yourself. Only your debating skills in particular get better. It's a return to Middle Ages with theologists publicly "defeating" heretic and Jewish and Muslim philosophy.

And "turn" is an interesting word, making the association even stronger.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago

If you're debating in good faith you are bettering yourself by improving your understanding of a different view point, and letting your own views be challenged so you can reassess if you still hold them.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago

So who debates in good faith and how often?

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

The last few years had made me lose all respect for debates as a field of study. Remembering shit like logos and pathos and all that nonsense for nothing.

[-] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

Nuh-uh, not me. I stop long before they change their mind.

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago

Wait, you mean internet arguments aren't a game of chicken where the winner is whoever gets the last reply?

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Sidhean@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Oh goodness, I should hope not! I love arguing on the internet, and I would hate to think that I'm actually changing peoples minds.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

I know this is just a joke, but I'm reading a book on quitting right now and one of the points she is driving home is that if you quit at the right time, it tends to feel too early to quit.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] splonglo@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

The trick is to argue with the voices in your own head and simply project them on to other people's comments.

[-] shneancy@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

i cannot express how much i hate that, why must people keep imagining points and opinions i never said or made

load more comments

this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024

1 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26483 readers

289 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!

Rules:

1. Be Respectful

Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...

2. No Illegal Content

Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...

3. No Spam

Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...

4. No Porn/Explicit

Content

-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...

5. No Enciting Harassment,

Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts

-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...

6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.

Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)

Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world

LillianVS@lemmy.world

WiildFiire@lemmy.world

Decoy321@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world