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
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.
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
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.
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.
Brutha I didn’t change the subject and argue points my opponent wasn’t trying to make in order to make myself right about something. You are literally an example of what I was talking about.
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.
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?
Presenting facts to conservatives.
And presenting facts to democrats, right? Both sides have basically the same people in them. Generally stupid people that learn a few things about politics, from the internet, then think they are able to suddenly have realistic opinions about a complex subject decades in the making because they watched a couple documentaries and podcasts (typically a younger crowd regarding)…
Anyway, the 1st step in keeping it real about your political opinions is remember humans make up both sides. Humans… every bit of lovely and stupid, everywhere. You too. 2. Dont be so rigid, get some flex. People switch sides, and switch back, it happens a lot. 3. Keep it real by not following the cult of personality. Its such a major issue with trumpism that all others look completely tame by comparison. 4. 9/10 people dont want you inserting your political commentary into everything, this can be very hard for some people.
Some people claim to vote 1 way but vote another actually, that was me, I wasnt keepin’ it real. Ive actuallyonly ever voted 3rd party, but ive lied to some people to avoid unwanted judgment and issues, yeah sue me.
I dont know… this was a long stupid rant. I saw this cheap shot partisan comment and felt like something should be added.
I might answer by changing the statement like so: presenting “facts” to the other political side feels like a losing battle because we stand diametrically opposed on issues, and the “facts” lead to different conclusions for both group, and neither will change their fundamental stance… hence, a losing battle.
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.
Arguing with religious people. Especially the ones who ring doorbells
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.
Job market.
Ah, life. Just like, all of it.
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.
Uhh you talking about yourself? And its pretty hilarious that you are mad about having rules for a debate? You need rules in debated so that no one will try to pull some bs. “Whataboutisms” logical fallacies (like ad hominem or false dichotomies), maintaining relevance to the topic, requiring evidence for claims, ensuring clarity and consistency in definitions and arguments…
I mean were there other specific rules they wanted that would “give them an out”?
