Yeah, everytime Kenny the fascist comes to tell me the woah’s of the world from his perspective. They get one conversation when I establish their position. The second convo is to establish my own. The third and subsequent conversations are purposefully hostile.
You have to maintain hygiene when dealing with these creatures.
There are some people who have just been filled with so much wrong information over the course of their life that it’s impossible to reach them. Anything you say to them will have a keyword that puts their guard up, any fact you share would be fake news. It’s like their brains have been encrypted with the propaganda and hate. It’s pavlovian. I try to recognize it in myself and maintain an open mind but it’s hard.
Now imagine that they’re your parents.
It’s fucking awful.
I don’t have to
Now imagine it’s your children too.
Very true. And we have to remember that our own views are informed by years of study/observation in areas other people will not have paid any attention to. So often it would take a book worth of real life examples to give someone the same background experience, and they would have to read that book carefully over many months for those examples to sink in, and still then they might think those are cherry-picked examples, whereas you came across them organically.
It hurts man. Especially knowing that the road I took has crumbled behind me, like in those old Looney Tunes cartoons where someone redraws the road lines to lead people off a cliff. Everything at a user level online feels like an infomercial. All of it has that veneer of being fake and cheap, trying to sell you something while pretending not to.
I know what you mean. But it doesn’t have to be that way if enough people walk away and decide to do something positive instead.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
That fact that there is a term for it is just as depressing.
One thing I always hated about microblogs and their character limits was that it was just enough characters to spout stupid bullshit but never enough to explain to why it’s wrong.
And you can’t just be like “Ok I have master’s degree in this specific subject” because then the response is inevitably some form of “ok then please provide sources which would allow me to condense 6 years of your education into something I can refute in 6 minutes, and refusing to do so will out you as a liar.”
Why interact on an even playing field? Just make like 15 accounts and convince them they have a neurological disorder like a normal human being.
Every argument on lemmy right there.
Well then they have a PhD of course. In polar bears.
If you’re explaining, you’re loosing.
Introduction to elementary debate, 17th addition. page 1.
That’s fucking idiotic. It’s basically formalizing the whole “Whoever talks loudest and proudest wins” instead of “Whoever has the most valid and factual argument wins”
It’s unfortunately just how things work. Facts only matter to people who care about the truth, and a lot of people don’t.
Facts also only work when people believe them. Yes sometimes you have situations where so much evidence is presented and people jump through hoops to avoid the best fitting solution, such as with the flat earthers. But many times people have been convinced to reject sources and methods or to prioritize one source or method above all others, or they are convinced that their preconceived biases are common sense and take that as a valid source.
Someone who was raised on right wing media is going to have a hard time ever seeing Wikipedia for what it is, a genuine attempt at a neutral and fact based information aggregator and summarizer, because it disagrees with the sources they trust and those sources say not to trust it. Sure it cites its sources in a way fox doesn’t, but those sources are often academic and also are likely in that person’s zone of disregard.
So how do you change that person’s mind? You begin breaking their trust in the right wing media (the right will do the same tactic, latching on to every loss of credibility in academia of liberal institutions). This can be intellectual by having them observe the ways in which their trusted institutions lie to them or changing their mind about something, or it can be emotional by swaying them through rhetoric or interpersonal connections. Asking sincere questions that put the gaps in the lies in focus is a particularly effective technique. But ultimately it’s about changing what they see as trustworthy and as a source of truth.
I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, but I’m also not entirely sure what you’re getting at.
What I was talking about:
If you look at the way that conservatives tend to argue online these days, or at the very least the 15-minutes of fame anti-woke-types on youtube and such, there has been a sizeable shift away from truth-seeking as a concept.
The goal with these conservatives is to get in, take a few pot shots, irritate the other person to farm clippable moments, and get out. It’s not uncommon to see one of these people withdraw an argument you’ve beaten, and then ten minutes later give the exact same argument, no amendments.
Their tactics have moved beyond “believing in things.” At least on the surface.
And MAGA is not their media figures, of course, but they do learn what works from them.
But anyway, I want to reiterate, I don’t disagree with you, I just like talking.
I’m more talking about real life people that you may struggle to convince because you’re operating on different paradigms of where truth comes from and what it might be. Some of these people are seeking truth, they just think they already have it and you’re the one blinded by ideology.
I think I kind of understand where we’re talking past each other.
I’m holding a higher standard for what “truth seeking” means, and I would not describe what I see most conservative people doing, even the offline ones, as truth seeking.
I agree that a conservative watching Fox news believes they are consuming the truth, but I don’t think that this is the same as being a truth-seeking person.
I think that the modern, offline conservative is more accepting (just more) of inconsistencies in their worldview than they were, like, 20 years ago. There used to be more cultural emphasis on consistency as a virtue, and less distrust of smart people as a category, and those were things you could more easily leverage against a person.
But as you say, the old tactics still work, it just depends on who you’re talking to and when and how. The first step in any rhetorical battle is identifying who you’re talking to.
Well if the value of a belief is in its ability to predict the future and people are believing stuff that explains but cannot predict anything, then we can simply figure out a way to set ourselves up for success based on solid beliefs that accurately predict the future while they take increasing doses of cope.
I know it is not that easy but I try to live by that principle. I cannot refute someone’s belief that the entire universe started existence 10 minutes ago and everything from memories to tangible goods are simply created from nothing. I can however say that predicts nothing therefore I won’t engage.
That’s all well and good, but by and large policy defines the human experience. So while they may not be able to change the laws of nature, the laws of humans are wide open to them.
set ourselves up for success […] while they take increasing doses of cope.
This is all well and good, but they also vote. Their cope will drown us in the Atlantic.
This is fine, though, because there are different ways of convincing people. Some people are moved by facts, and some people by narratives. And some people by power; the stupidest of the three, but what can you do.
A user with the name ProbablyBaysean commenting on a thread about epistemology is peak. What are the odds?
Probably good odds that there is a pun in there somewhere.🙃
Yup, we all go through the shock you’re experiencing, but if you want to influence people who are hostile to your position you need to learn debate and rhetoric.
And it’s not about who’s loudest but who’s most convincing. And for opinions that facts and logic didn’t get you into, facts and logic (alone) won’t get you out of. You need to speak to people’s emotions.
That’s why it’s spiralled into a meme war. The problem is, the fronts are all quiet, and every side is only memeing internally.
Some sides send trolls to fracture the other sides from within. Other sides just tear themselves apart because performative virtue signalling is more important to them than progress. Still others are just echo chambers that huff each other’s fumes to reinforce their own delusions.
There’s no good-faith discussion being had. Most people aren’t capable of holding one, so it isn’t worth trying to engage.
Maybe we need specialized “information operations” cells which infiltrate right-wing spaces and spread deradicalization propaganda (like “follow the white rabbit”), but I feel like that would require more coordination and organization than the left is capable of…
People don’t give a shit about facts dude
that’s because neurotypicals don’t actually care about logic and data, they only care about your seeming proud and self-confident because that makes you appear as a might-be feudal lord in their eyes and they love that shit.
That’s precisely what paves the way for the kakistocracy we’re living through now.
George Will on Donald Trump and Twitter.
“It’s perfect for him, because he can encapsulate everything he knows into 140 characters.”
i wonder how intentional it was.
more argument = more engagement = more ad watching = more money
I doubt they thought that far ahead, at least when Twitter was starting. Smartphones didn’t really exist back then, except maybe some BlackBerrys and Palm Pilot-type phones. The 140 character limit on Twitter was so the tweets could fit in a standard 160 character SMS message. It operated basically entirely over SMS; I’m not sure they even had a web version in the early days. I still remember getting messages on my flip phone from 40404, the number they used. Once I was in the Oregon desert on vacation for a week without signal and when I got back to a signal my phone kept buzzing for 20 minutes as all the tweets I’d missed were delivered. No algorithm back then, you got everything from people you followed, and no advertising either.
I mean, the character limit was there originally because twitter’s gimmick originally was that you’d post via SMS, which has its own char limit. They’ve raised the limit even before the musk takeover, so I’m inclined to believe twitter motivates ragebait in other ways.
In my wise old age I don’t waste time on fools. I no longer have the patience. I used to try to talk them out of whatever stupidity they’re peddling and it was rarely successful. Not worth the effort.
So often it’s me typing out a big old comment. Realizing I can preempt some nuance to help the conversation. Thinking of a dozen more little nitpicks that might happen and realizing it’s just not worth it and it’s really the idiocy of the argument that’s making it so hard to explain myself.
You encountered Brandolini’s Law aka the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: it takes an order of magnitude more effort to debunk bullshit than it takes to produce it.
Exactly that, one bullshit goes into circulation, it spreads everywhere strengthening its flawed position. And just like it was said, facts dont even matter at that point - requiring a novel approach to disprove it.
Hi, are you me?
No they are me
I have heard the way to do it, is to take their crazy and take it WAY past their line until they back off themselves.
Moron: “There are only two genders!”
Normal: “Right?!”
Moron: “Ma-”
Normal: “Trans and supergay”.No comment on the contents of my example. It’s the only comic strip I remember at the moment.
7/10 ppl online.
But w lemme its still 7/10…but there’s obly like 10 users so I can handle it.
I met a guy in a sauna the other day who started preaching to me and saying that he doesn’t believe in science because it contradicts the bible story of creation.
I just had nothing to say to this man. His perception of reality is so far off base that I cannot comprehend his thought processes.
Do you think he understands everyone else’s though processes? Presumably if you were surrounded by guys like him then you would be able to comprehend the way they think.
Maybe the temperature of the sauna was a little too high? /s
I went to a catholic school in my country. We got teach biology, evolution, genetics and we also got sexual education including abortion (the practice was illegal at the time). One of the first things that i remember from our teology classes was that “we shouldn’t take what is written in the bible in a literal sense and that it was written to a particular volk in a particular time by men”… and the example the Father used was specifically the Genesis, meaning “earth was not created in 6 days”.
I read stories of those lunatics, i mean, those who trully are in a crusade against reality. Are those more common over the equator or something?
did you ask him why he thinks that the bible is true?
“Because it is the word of god”
“Ok, and you know that because…?”
"The Bible says so.’
“And why do you think the Bible is true?”
Rinse and repeat
Get ready to start going in circles with that line of questioning though.
This is what lead me to question my own faith: just someone asking honest questions with real curiosity
Keep it mind it can take years for those seeds to bloom from doubt to realisation
I was trying to relax in the sauna, so I didn’t want to get into it. Which is part of the problem with preaching like that!
It’s pointless, then they go on a tangent about how it’s the word of god etc. To them god is real and everything is about god and if they have to make leaps in logic it’s just because mere people can’t understand god’s will
That’s a classic one too
MAGAs. Sometimes I don’t even debate them, I ignore them and talk about them as if they weren’t there, make fun of their arguments, laugh at them, mock them, just generally bully them, without even addressing them directly. They really hate that.
MAGAs and Anti-Vaxxers are about the only acceptable bullying targets, and they should be bullied as viciously and as relentlessly as possible. The damage they have done is incalculable, they deserve it.
This reminds me of that quote
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
I’ve yet to encounter either on Lemmy.
Finding lemmy requires a certain level of knowledge they don’t really have. They go for the path of least resistance: Reddit.
Oh they’re out there. Talking ABOUT them, instead of talking TO them pisses them off because they are looking for an argument with a “Liberal®” so they can practice the conservative debate skills they hear on the radio or TV when the host sounds so smart debating nobody. They think they can do it for real (they can’t), so it is immensely frustrating when their intended target won’t engage, and mocks them instead.
The common pattern I see often is that they simply refuse to address or even acknowledge your points and instead just spout even more bullshit. Once I see that, I just block and move on.
I have no time for intellectually dishonest people.
The entirety of the alt right playbook is such a good series
Gish galloping is a well known argumentative technique to avoid scrutiny. It works so well, that now the US government is using a version of it to destroy the government at a rapid pace.
If the American Republic survives I suspect one long term change we’ll need is to introduce classes on political and rhetorical life to schools. Train people on how to have constructive discussions and how to recognize bad faith rhetorical tactics. We’re seeing now just how effectively bad faith tactics can undermine critical thought. This of course will have to be paired with teaching emotional intelligence.
If the goal of our education system is to produce good citizens of a republic and effective stewards of democracy, we need to be putting more time and effort into that. If my schools could fit religion classes in and still be a better education than public schools they can find the way to teach these things. Philosophy classes every year would probably have done me much better than religion classes.
You’ve put a long form version of a theory I also have been thinking of: we need to do better for future generations by teaching and actually supporting critical thinking skills. I’ll also add empathy, which supports critical thinking and is not always hard wired in every human brain. Both are skills, much like emotional regulation and resilience. Personally, I would have benefited greatly by learning critical thinking and interpersonal skills at the age of 16 vs. whatever ‘algebra’ is supposed to be.
Essentially, and TLDR: We need to teach young developing minds how to think, not what to think. We can do even better by teaching said minds that while we are not defined by our thoughts, we have much to learn by observing them instead.
See I actually think math is one of the things that absolutely shouldn’t be cut, but it needs to be framed better. Algebra is logical thinking and in some ways can be thought of as mastery level arithmetic.
I think a lot of teachers are really bad at explaining why certain topics are included in education and this results in the “when will I ever use it?” And then these teachers will respond with a few real world examples if they can think of any (and let’s be real, a major portion of why you learn algebra is because it’s a prerequisite to high school level science classes, most everyday algebra is minor). But when you explain to people that they’re learning algebra because it’s a manifestation of logical thinking and it is a means of understanding how numbers interact with each other which will come up in science classes as well as business classes and will convey a generally useful background of understanding that will be useful at various points in life, then they’re more likely to be receptive to it.
And therein lies the additional thing. If you don’t explain to students why philosophy, rhetoric, and emotional intelligence are important for them to learn, many will slack off and not absorb it. I know I resisted in literature and writing classes because I didn’t understand that those are meant to be teaching critical thinking, analysis of media, and effective communication. They managed to beat it into me thanks to some good teachers, but I took the attitude of “I’m going into STEM why do I need this.” Hell my government teacher was the only high school teacher that actually presented an effective argument as to why his class mattered for every student: that we were on the verge of inheriting the government and we needed to learn how it works in order to be good shareholders of it.
But yeah, I generally agree we need to teach kids how to think, but also we need to teach them why we’re teaching them what we teach them. And we need to commit the resources to it.
I wish more people simply… Learned how to shut up.
It would also be great if people learn that being offended is a part of life and turning into a fucking Karen is not acceptable.
“Never argue with stupid people because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” George Carlin
