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.
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.
The end goal of debates is not to change your opponent’s mind, but to present your ideas and reasoning to the people watching in a convincing way.
I stop when it is clear the other person is arguing in bad faith.
The block button is your strongest weapon against trolls.
It also helps teach you about your own opinions, and helps you learn new things even if the person you’re taking to is a moron (because you have to research stuff to debunk their bs)
Sometimes in public forums my goal is to show the neutral third parties who might stumble upon that thread to see for themselves which view is more reasonable. Bad faith arguments that are common sometimes need to be knocked down whenever and wherever it persists.
The fact I can see your comment makes me think I’m not on your block list yet, and that’s a great thing. Yay!
As far as I know, blocks on Lemmy are one sided. As on, you don’t see stuff from who you blocked, but they can still see your stuff. I’ve definitely gotten comment replies from people I blocked ages ago, I just see it as blocked as long as I’m logged in.
And that’s how it should be. On Reddit you can not reply to people that blocked you, which many people abuse by blocking people they are arguing with so they have the “last word”
Mostly I just like thinking about interesting things and putting those thoughts to paper. But sometimes people online seem to take that as a direct challenge and argue about literally anything. From the definition of a word, to my anecdotal experiences being incorrect (lol). Luckily I’ve only had to block a few people so far, but they’ve been the type where their entire comment history reads like a 4Chan thread.
No u
I would argue that counter-trolling is stronger when successfully executed, but also recognize that it’s not possible to learn this ability from a Jedi
It’s not that deep. /s
Ever convinced anyone with your well presented arguments?
Yes.
If people dont like what they see on the fediverse, thats on them. You can easily block people, communities, instances on your own without cringe feudposting on a daily basis begging the admins to defederate a instance you dont personally agree with.
You could practice blocking people on me if you want. I actually like it when people block me to be honest.
The block button is just how cowards prove that they can’t back their own arguments. Real debates are resolved via TTRPG fist-fights!
Don’t agree with me? Well, I went all-in on charisma, and I’m still recovering from that sandwich I found on a shelf in a haunted shop. So, y’know, go gentle.
Big oof. If you roll anything other than a nat 1, this is definitely gonna be fatal.
no sexy girl it wasn’t worth it
people still blindly support the arab terrorists because they hate jews
Did you just call that commenter, “sexy girl”?
You’re a creepy little fucker, aren’t you
Its my crack I can’t stop coming back to all while hating every second of it
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.
People mostly respond to your presentation and how it makes them feel, not the content of what you are saying. Hence why most people objecting to you won’t even object to what you say, they will object to their interpretation of what you said and how it made them feel.
when a bunch of nerds (complementary) hate misinformation, lies, and ignorance on the internet enough, they all get together and make a wiki. its a beautiful, natural process. not all nerds will contribute to a wiki, but all of us will have some feelings about it.
Did you mean “complimentary”, or were you saying that the bunch of nerds have distinct areas of expertise which, as a whole, complement each other?
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.
you feel gross saying this for a reason
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.
Ew. Using the 3/5s compromise even in a comment section is pretty gross.
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.
It’s my favorite hobby.
At this point, every comment on Lemmy is greeted with angry responses who are willfully choosing to ignore the point I was making and try to fight me.
If I say “I like dogs” someone is going to come along and tell me I’m a jerk for not liking cats even though I didn’t say I don’t like cats. That or someone mansplaining dogs to me.
Calm down Lemmy. Take a breather.
What about birds you heartless monster, you have ruined my day!
It is good fun though… It’s part of the reason I got permabanned from Reddit… That and criticizing Israel and Nazis.
i got banned for posting a picture of my cat sitting on the porch.
it made me a bird mass murderer, or something. ban was for inciting violence.
it was in 2021. then i was unbanned a few months later with a DM begging me to buy IPO stock.
People like being offended and feeling victimized.
It’s a rush and they get addicted to it.
I have a cat and a dog… and a lot of folks will just argue with me on principle or try to make me pick a side. even in real life. or like get in a big stink about if they are purebred or rescue. i have no clue why any of it matters, i guess other than their insecure need to feel validated by getting you to agree with them.
I hate it. It’s so stupid and annoying. You can’t just like things anymore… anything you enjoy has to ‘hurt’ someone else and they have to let you know how wrong and bad you are for enjoying it.
I like Cilantro, and I’ve had internet weirdos tell me that it’s able-ist to enjoy it, because my enjoyment of it is some sort of racism against the people for whom it tastes like soap. Or like commentary made at me in the taco line when I order it how it’s so gross. It’s so ridiculous. I think Pinto beans are disgusting, but I don’t feel offended and hurt that other people enjoy them.
Please give your furry friend a treat from me and tell them I said hi!
Oh, I’m about to argue with one right now you little dumbass
Mostly, yes a lot!
Writing about my thoughts, opinions and positions has helped me understand them even better!
You’re rarely going to change anyone’s position online, as sadly most aren’t arguing in good faith. BUT responding to rebuttals from others and questions (good faith or bad faith) leads to a very cool intellectual exercise where you get to probe your positions from so many different angles.
If things become toxic or brain-rotty, then you can just disengage without explanation! Kinda cool actually!!!
Do you try arguing from a position you don’t belive? It’s useful to have a separate account for this to avoid confusion with profile histories.
Did you know, this is called “trolling”?
If its done to irritate, yes. But it’s standard debating team practice to be given a random topic and have someone else chose if you agree or not.
Sure, but if you’re doing it online and trying to hide that you’re doing it, I’m gonna say 90% of the time or more, the intention is to irritate.
If all accounts are anonymous then there’s not any hiding.
The amount of irritation/trolling depends on how personal the comments get, not the username that is making them.
Sockpuppeting an argument with yourself is just masturbation though.
Sockpuppeting an argument with yourself is just masturbation though.
I would disagree. How else is one supposed to understand the limitations of a statement? The completeness of a position? Areas for further study? A confidence rating of sorts in a position?
This mental masturbation exercise can be done in the privacy of your own home.
No need to show off over multiple accounts on a public forum.
Although, ironically, I am enjoying the suspicion I’m creating about you being my sock puppet.
No. Not unless the other party clearly knows that I’m arguing for a position that isn’t mine. Haven’t really had the opportunity to do that on Lemmy.
That being said, I do most of the counter argument stuff with myself to arrive at a given position. Or, read other people’s debates on the matter.
A well chosen username can indicate that. But i don’t think it should be too obvious otherwise you don’t get honest debate.
Pro tip: Never open your inbox.
Not as powerful as you but I’m working on it
That’s a strong magic right there.
It’s a hobby.
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
It is fun arguing with people you disagree with as long as both argues in good faith and has uses good etiquette. Both needs to be open minded to a certain degree.
The goal of a conversation is not to convince, but rather to explore your own and their mind. To grow together. A conversation is not a competition, we should not aim to “win” a conversation.
No it isn’t. I win!
I agree, yes. I always try to have that conversation, even if the other side seems to be arguing, since at the beginning I am interested in their thoughts and motives, and trying to get them to understand mine. I do enjoy getting people angry though, so at certain point, if they are clearly arguing in bad faith, the calmness becomes a tool, to make them look like morons.
I agree with you.
Oh no, is this an echochamber now?
/s people!
I disagree. This is not an echo chamber.
Horray!
You’re never going to win, and that’s not even the point. The point is to provide pushback to people who rarely receive it so that everyone else reading the exchange has a chance to see accurate information.
For example, it’s staggering how many people insist they want socialism when what they’re actually describing is social democracy, yet they have no idea what either term actually means. They’ll argue, foaming at the mouth, that humanity’s only hope is “socialism,” while demonstrating they don’t understand the ideology they’re advocating for.
The same goes for the abundance of anti-American rhetoric. Some criticism of America is absolutely justified—I have plenty of criticisms of my own country. But it’s interesting how many people who endlessly denounce America never mention what country they’re from or hold their own country to the same standard.
So no, the point isn’t to win the argument. The point is to apply enough pressure that the other person starts making obvious mistakes, exposing the weaknesses in their own position. That’s the entertaining part.
We must be on different lemmys because it seems pretty well understood here that the whole point of socialism is that the workers democratically control the means of production, only liberals from the USA act confused about that
So no. This is exactly what I’m talking about.
Socialism is not “democratic ownership of the means of production.” Where did you get that from? What YouTube channels are you watching?
Socialism is social or public ownership of the means of production. Democracy is a method of governance, not an economic system. The two are not synonymous.
In fact, there are companies right here in the United States that are run democratically. They’re called worker cooperatives. The employees collectively own the company, elect management, vote on major decisions, and often have much smaller pay gaps between executives and line workers. They’re successful examples of democratic workplaces operating within a capitalist economy.
Socialism, by contrast, is an economic system in which the means of production are owned socially rather than privately. That ownership can take different forms, including state ownership or worker ownership, depending on the model.
Capitalism is the opposite: the means of production are privately owned, and profits accrue primarily to the owners or shareholders.
And thanks for proving my point. What liberals have to do with any of this, I have no idea. You pulled that completely out of your ass because you heard it on conservative talk radio or somewhere similar.
It’s badly phrased but I think that “workers democratically control the means of production” translates to “workers own the means of production”.
So I think you are ranting over nothing.
As for worker co-ops in capitalist countries I would argue that those are indeed bubbles of socialism within a broader capitalist system. Just like you can have communes inside a capitalist country. Have you heard of socialist market economy or economic democracy?
No, I’m objecting because you’re collapsing multiple distinct concepts into the word “socialism.”
A worker co-op is a company where the employees collectively own that particular business. That does not mean the economy is socialist. It is still operating in a market economy, competing with privately owned firms, buying and selling goods, and responding to prices. That’s capitalism permitting an alternative ownership structure.
Socialism, in the classical sense, is public or social ownership of the means of production across the economy. How that ownership is administered, through the state, municipalities, public trusts, or some other institution, is a separate question. “Workers democratically control the means of production” is one proposed implementation, not the definition itself.
That’s why economic democracy, market socialism, worker co-ops, and socialism are related but distinct concepts. You’re treating them as interchangeable.
Ironically, this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. People hear the word “socialism” and start attaching every form of worker participation, workplace democracy, or cooperative ownership to it, even when those things can and do exist inside capitalist economies.
And the reason I’m ranting is because you are the exact thing I was talking about in my original comment.
This thread is a whole lot of words for “I am full of myself and dumb”.
This is a good bit of projection if I’ve ever seen it.
If this is your takeaway, my confidence in our people has dropped a few more notches.
“Waaahhhhh, this thread is a little too intellectual for my tastes, which must mean you’re all the dumb ones, not me, surely!”
