I know this is a meme but I think people look down on internet discussions too much. Obviously it depends on “arguing” type but reddit/lemmy is at least somewhat structured and depending on the community can be good faith and productive. For people who don’t live in a big city finding a community to exchange more niche thoughts and opinions (e.g. operating systems, design decisions etc) is incredibly difficult.
I have a related anecdote of being an assistant to older people in IT classes and intellectual starvation is a very big deal. Once people settle down, move further out of the city it’s hard to find discussions on their interests without internet comments. The real issue is Facebook groups which are often the only forums available to these people, and they are not fit for scratching this itch for intellectual stimulation as it’s design precisely for the opposite of that. This might sound silly, but old people need Lemmy.
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)
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!
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
Ever convinced anyone with your well presented arguments?
Yes.
It’s not that deep. /s
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
I don’t have any friends still alive to argue with so I gotta fuss at sonsabitches I don’t know!
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.
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.
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.
I can answer with confidence: sometimes!
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.
congratulations.
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.
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.
It was the arguing that taught me when not to argue.
If you think you can get beyond pleasure without going through it, we are definitely on different trips. - Zen Without Zen Masters
I won, so yeah. 😤
