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.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Well I mean it stands to reason you’re most likely arguing with paid actors using Persona Management software to have hundreds of such conversations in unison, so it’s a moot point because they’re being paid to prevent minds from being changed on subject X.

      Honestly I feel like AI progression was just a cover for what was originally updated Persona Management where the human has to do even less to keep the consensus cracking and topic dilution ongoing.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Yeah, everything OP says about arguing with conservatives applies to arguing with any other group with entrenched views. The problem is that each of those groups will insist that their own views aren’t “entrenched”, they’re just reasonable.

      Social media is largely designed to group people together into like-minded communities, so you find this everywhere. Here in the Fediverse too, though of course we here in the Fediverse will insist that contrary to all those other social media platforms we’re open and diverse and not susceptible to that sort of thing.

      Personally, I’ve found that one can overcome the sense of futility by reframing the debate. When I debate with someone online it’s not to change their views, because that’s basically impossible (it rarely happens but I don’t count on it). Instead, the point of debate is to try to win over the casual onlookers who aren’t participating directly. They aren’t likely to have as much of a dog in the fight and so are more amenable to having those “huh, I hadn’t thought of it that way” reactions.

      The one nice thing about the Fediverse over Reddit in this regard, IMO, is the fact that we can see both the upvote and downvote count. So even if a comment of mine is being hammered with 93 downvotes I can still see that there were 18 upvotes and think to myself “at least a few people got what I was saying here.”

      • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I’ve had my share of boos and hisses in my time as a jokey internet commenter. When I really bomb, knowing a few people laughed is a consolation. Reddit is just so alienating now

    • Tbf, nobody is gonna convince me of anything now. Most of my beliefs are formed independent of the internet. From logics and some empathy.

      None of the bigoted xenophobic shit aint ever gonna sway me. Nor the tankie stuff.

      Lived experiences is more powerful than some texts on a screen.

      • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Everyone has a latitude of openness to new beliefs. They can be narrow, but it’s important to be mindful. Being entirely immovable is not only impossible, but maladaptive

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That said, it’s a rare thing when a single argument is able to shift a person’s opinion. Opinions form over time and change over time, nobody ever reads just one manifesto and goes “oh, I guess I’m a communist now.”

          • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            That could be a bird’s-eye view of social judgment theory, basically the idea that successive pitches to a person’s latitude of non-commitment are the mechanism by which firm stances can change over time.