Trying to argue with conservatives.
All that they’re great at is detouring, distancing, playing down, doubling-tripling down, disassociating, strawmen and more illogical fallacies. They can’t take up an honest debate unless there are rules in place that gives them any outs from being pressed when confronted with questions they can’t give truthful answers to.
Talking with .ml users, turns out you really can’t fix stupid
their brains are so big that anyone who doesn’t agree with them about anything ever is a fascist.
Including other .ml users
the only good revolutionary a traitor to the revolution
Figuring out that you can’t change anyone’s mind by arguing online
The only thing you achieve is a dopamine hit for being right
i’ve changed plenty of people’s minds online… but truth me told it was like 10 years ago before social media rotted their brains and everyone was living in hug boxes. and it was generally among my peer group of 20/early 30 somethings. it wasn’t teenagers or people in their 50s.
i used to be a part of tons of communities on reddit where people actually argued productively. but again, this was a decade ago. world was different, people were different. today people dismiss you based on the slightest disagreement.
hell on this site i have been told i’m a fascist for linking to government data and wikipedia. apparently facts are fascist now.
Arguing with religious people. Especially the ones who ring doorbells
All that they’re great at is detouring, distancing, playing down, doubling-tripling down, disassociating, strawmen and more illogical fallacies.
it’s all they have, facts have an overwhelming liberal bias; science and research keep making them look like fools for their decisions and lifestyles; they’re going to try to repeal the 19th amendment because they’re tired of losing the votes from half the population.
never do they try to fix their problems, address the needs of their base, it’s always doubling down on hating some portion of the population that must be to blame, see POC, transfolk, the dark scourge of ANTIFA etc
Living in modern society.
I do everything I’m supposed to, i jump through hoops all day all week all year, making the responsible and correct decisions, and there is almost no reward. The reward is I get to keep doing it instead of getting to do anything else with my life. The reward is that I get to keep supporting this system that barely supports me, this system i was born into and never agreed to depend on for survival.
Such is the life of a slave i guess
trusting mods of any social media platform to apply rules unilaterally. you’d be better off trusting a bear while being slathered in bacon grease.
If the boss doesn’t like you for whatever reason you’re done.
Just get out of there, fighting their bullshit never works.
I feel this so hard.
99% of all arguments on the internet. Someone is almost always going to engage in some kind of pedantry, butwhatabout, technicality, argumentative fallacy, etc. to try to make themselves right and/or imply the OP was wrong in some way. They are not open to having their mind changed. Especially when it comes to politics, and there’s essentially no hope for religion at all. This generally applies to IRL discussions, too. At least the internet argument you can just walk away, block, or unsubscribe to any replies to the thread.
In the same vein…expecting anyone to change. People have to change themselves, and it’s not up to you. You can’t make it happen except maybe in the most extreme situations, and even then it might be iffy.
And I hate to say it, apologizing on the internet. Once the downvote train starts and shitting on the offender’s posts there’s almost no way out and any apology isn’t worth the effort. I find this kinda hypocritical seeing as there are numerous internet posts about the value of admitting you don’t know something or might have it wrong, and how we shouldn’t shame people for admitting that, yet if someone screws up and apologizes they’re usually hosed. Just reinforces not apologizing.
arguing online isn’t a liberal arts classroom.
why would you expect people to know what argumentative or logical fallacies are? those are rules setup for academic debate. they don’t apply to most arguements outside of the academic setting.
ad hominenems, for example, are totally valid in political/personal conversation. it’s totally valid in life for people to dismiss me and my ideas based on what clothes I’m wearing. It’s not if we are in the context of a debate club.
Trying an argumentative fallacy yourself? A little red herring or straw manning? Nobody said anything about a classroom.
In no way did I suggest the opponent should know what fallacy they are using or that there are rules for the rabble online, the fallacies are mentioned so that you, the reader, would know what people do in an argument that make it not worthwhile, and that the opponent is using them to avoid conceding anything.
One can also infer that using those techniques, even unknowingly, are still common bullshit arguments by an opponent that isn’t discussing in good faith when presented with objective facts. Again, why it’s a lost cause to argue online.
You completely miss my point. It’s not a fallacy if you don’t agree it’s a fallacy.
There is no universal set of rules for argumentation. They are agreements of convention that are context dependent.
Like in philosophy we don’t accept arguments from authority/precendent. But in law argument from authority/precedent is completely valid. It’s almost as if different disciplines have different rules.
But hey, if you want to go try to score points in football by throwing the ball in a basket, and telling everyone else they are fucking idiots for not having a basket on the football pitch… good luck with that.
it’s only a ‘fallacy’ if all participants agree to the rules that declare it as such.
Argument by hyperbole.
and you are just a bad faith actor.
Honestly I’ve had a different experience. I’ve been wrong, as anyone ever has, on the Internet. And usually the person I’m arguing will accept an apology with grace, and will even get upvotes for doing so. But the apology doesn’t need to be accepted, to still be good to do.
Trying to keep my house clean. I have a three year old and a 2 year old. The only time it’s ever truly clean is late at night after they go to bed and I’m exhausted. The minute they get up it’s like a tornado goes through here.
Arguing facts with an idiot, an ignorant person
I think OP already made that point
In my none existing defense: i didnt read the describtion
Hah, I was just joking about the venn diagram overlap between conservatives and your comment
What overlap?
“I was told there would be no fact-checking”
Ironically, that very much won the battle.
Getting involved in a land war in Asia. Also going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Fallen for those blunders more than once!
But if somebody offers you a peanut, you should totally take it.
Unless you have allergies, in which case it could be as deadly as iocaine powder.
Of course it’s a losing battle. Remember what Sartre said:
Never believe that fascists are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The fascists have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Conservatives around the world for the past ~30 years (if not longer) have been slowly adopting fascist methods and talking points. And for the past ~10 years, conservatives and fascists have formed a Venn diagram of a circle.
Trying to explain to renters that despite what the noise bylaws of the city say, those have nothing to do with how much noise they are allowed to make. They are allowed to make a reasonable amount of noise that does not disturb anybody at any time of the day or night.
Trying to apply nuance to a discussion that consists of people that only want to polarize the subject.
I tend to find people who claim this actually just have shit worldviews and don’t like being called out for it. For example, do you agree that ICE is an extralegal occupying paramilitary?
No I don’t. ICE is a valid institution. Immigration laws should be enforced, like any law.
Are you sure it’s your worldview that isn’t shit, since I’m assuming you think ICE should be abolished entirely, and further, that immigration laws should not be enforced/not exist? or maybe we should go further and claim national borders/nation states are evil and shouldn’t exist?
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or if you’re legitimately responding to a complaint about polarizing escalation replacing conversation by escalating and polarizing the conversation.
doubt they are being sarcastic. they are just morally grandstanding, because anyone who disagrees with their extremist viewpoint is morally bankrupt human being, because they believe their views are the most moral ever and any ‘decent’ person must agree with their very moral viewpoint or not be moral.
very common mentality on lemmy.
