I fell super hard into this in 2020. I would try so hard to gently explain to people that, yes, COVID is real and that, yes, Donald Trump lied about election interference. There was some post about more people in some county voting than were registered. I literally found the county's records and showed them that no, there were more people registered than voted and that the post was a lie. You know what they said? "You found that with Google, which is a liberal source."

It's not worth it. I don't engage. I'm a much more stable and happy person because of it.

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

"Incorrect! You have 2 more guesses for which search engine I used."

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 points 4 days ago

I think it was because I told them something like "you can just Google the county's election information" and gave them the official link with the information.

[–] ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Yeah, i had someone dictating my position to me and then debating that made up belief last night. It was surreal.

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 1 points 4 days ago

The best? They proceed to call you a troll and then block you before you're able to tell them to get off from your back and fuck off

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 34 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Also don't forget that a considerable number of the users that would engage in a debate with you are either children or bots.

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The internet would be a different place if you always got to see a picture of who you're arguing with (people would immediately see that I can't be wrong)

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 5 days ago

Yeah it would be a great place for rightoids to hunt queers and attack them on optics

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago

Or trolls. I swear the internet as a whole forgot that the best way to deal with all of the above (AND idiots!) is to stop engaging.

I blame modern social media. People are too well trained to feed the algo, even here on the fediverse.

[–] sleen@lemmy.zip 35 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Peaceful arguments is just not a thing online. There is no learning nor seeing the other perspective - Just people being defensive and manipulative.

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 5 days ago

If it were constructive it would be called a discussion, not an argument or debate.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 20 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It unfortunately also not a thing in real life. Tried to convince my mother's partner that transphobia and homophobia is bad. Best I could do is to him admit it was not about "protecting the children".

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It never has been and never will be about protecting the children, not with the full roster of diddlers they keep in positions of authority...

[–] ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

A human trafficking minor fucker was tapped for AG.

Roy Moore, the guy that was supposed to replace Jeff Sessions as senator wasn't allowed in the mall. Too diddly.

"They're not sending their best."

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I know it's wrong and primarily unjustified to think this, but sometimes I feel that we've evolved not at all as a species. We've developed fancier stuff, but barbarism is alive and well. It's just wearing an expensive suit now.

[–] ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Looks around

I'd say it's justified.

[–] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 18 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It is possible, but especially in the bigger communities its usually just throwing poop at each other(that's at least my experience).

[–] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago

Yeah I've burned a depressing amount of time in conversations that aren't going somewhere. And yet, I keep finding myself back at that toxic ass watering hole 😔

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

You win debates for onlookers, you're not meant to change the perspective of the person you're debating, you're meant to make them look like idiots so that any lurkers who quietly agree feel bad and change their viewpoint. The left lost because they weren't willing to do this hard enough.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] josefo@leminal.space 20 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Also, the debate crowd doesn't actually want to hear you to change their minds if new information is presented, they just want a platform to parrot their bullshit in a way they look legit and smart, and they can't do that without the debate. So, as usual, don't feed the troll.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 days ago

They're absolutely being disingenuous, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the purpose of debate is not generally to change the mind of the person you're debating with. It's intended to be done with an audience (or judges in a formal competitive debate), and it's the audience that you're trying to sway to your side.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

The only reason to engage is for lurkers who might not know better and need to see a way out of the pipeline before they go in too deep.

[–] DJDarren@thelemmy.club 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

This puts me in mind of this classic.

Screengrab of a tweet by Denizcan James @MrFilmkritik When someone disagrees with you online & demands you prove your point to their satisfaction by writing a logically sound defense, u can save a lot of time by not doing that. Dude, I've known u for ten seconds & enjoyed none of them, I'm not taking homework assignments from you.

[–] prime_number_314159@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago

Actually, debate between hostile strangers online serves an important role in churning up internet drama. This is vital to the continued survival of the popcorn industry.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 21 points 5 days ago

Love this ❤️

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Wow thank you for this meme. The comments in the post above this one were absolute dog shit, and I seriously was on the verge of engaging with them. I didn't engage. Yayyyy

[–] Onionguy@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I absolutely disagree and want you to change your opinion right now!

[–] A7thStone@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago

If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

-Sartre

Two additional sentences at the end of the often posted quote from "Anti-Semite and Jew". Those two sentences were always included in the quote when I first saw it making it's round years ago. Now it takes hunting to find the complete quote. Most sites cut it off after "the time for argument is past". I wonder who would benefit from us forgetting those last two sentences.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Anything that costs me peace of mind is too expensive for my tastes

[–] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

This is something I wish I'd learned many years ago

[–] pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 5 days ago

yes i agree that jd vance should die.

[–] HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I argue to check if my opinions are popular in the community I'm in. If I get more positive engagement then I know I'm probably in the right place.

[–] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago

Test your echo chambers, as they say

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Unfortunately, social media is highly influencial of public opinion, so it is a civic responsibility that those with life experience and expertise with things need to engage in. Failure to do so effectively is rolling over for ~~MAGA~~ Nazis 2.0.

We need to be better at rhetoric and debate. Cicero wrote over 2 millenia ago about the power of eloquence.

"Wisdom without eloquence does too little for the good of communities, but eloquence without wisdom is, in most instances, extremely harmful and never beneficial. If, then, anyone exerts all of his energies in the practice of oratory to the neglect of the highest and most honorable pursuits of reason and moral conduct, he is reared as a citizen useless to himself and harmful to his country; but the person who arms himself with eloquence in such a way that enables him not to assault the interest of his country, but rather assist them, this man, in my opinion, will be a citizen most helpful and most devoted both to his own interests and those of the public.”

In recent years, the unwise have weaponized eloquence. The wise among us have failed spectacularly at understanding the importance and power of persuasion.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago

Nazis making shit up and moderation failing to silence them is not a question of eloquence. Fuck off with that.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Won't somebody feed the trolls?!

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 8 points 5 days ago

debates fine but you don't need to finish it or win it. Its a process.

[–] Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Ah yeah? But what if I call you a big Chicken-Butt?

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago

That's what I get for guessing what 😔

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 days ago

I like this.

[–] Dust0741@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Any tips for organizing in person debates with friends?

[–] mossy_@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

Get good at cooking. No, really! People love to eat.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I went through exactly this last night. It's funny for a minute or two, but gets exhausting so fast.

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

I find it's helpful to practice parsing political arguments and recognizing underlying worldviews as well as understanding and applying my own. With the right attitude it can be a compassionate and worthwhile way to put good out into the world. But still, have to be measured with how invested you get and know when to walk away.

[–] PeachyMcPeachface@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 days ago

Objective Materialism vs Subjective Idealism go brr

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I've changed people's minds with arguments.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

I did that once, afterwards they hated me.

[–] prime_number_314159@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Face to face, this is definitely possible. I've convinced more than a dozen people that climate change is real, and humans are the primary cause of it in face to face conversation. Online, where tone is easily misinterpreted, everyone is a stranger, and people are more able to rapidly retreat into a bubble of others that agree with them, I think it does a lot less good - but every once in a while, something works a little bit for someone.

More importantly, if we decide that we should all exist in our isolated bubbles of (non)social acceptance, it leads to the rise of extremism in some of those groups, and even the most terrible ideas can be allowed to fester and grow. Pretty much regardless of who you are, or what you believe, you probably have an example or two of such beliefs.

[–] otacon239@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

DEBATE ME

load more comments