I’m not writing to the crackpot I’m responding to. I’m writing to the lurkers on the fence wondering if he has a valid point.
That might be why I’m so used to replies that look like long-form essays. It takes a lot more words to explain nuance and invite critical thought than it does to shitpost.
How else are they supposed to virtue signal?
Everyone just wants an echo chamber and the internet is happy to oblige
You’re never going to change their minds. That’s not the point. The point is to push back against them. So people who see the interaction will see the rebuttal and the pushback against the insanity. That’s the important part.
You don’t change the view of the person you are arguing with on the internet, you are putting a red flag so that would-be readers don’t fall into the rabbit hole.
Well, the alternative is a bunch of crackpot comments with no pushback (except downvotes) and 3-10x less actually-decent-takes
It was never about winning.
It was always about getting shit off on strangers for self-gratification, and public shaming for reprehensible behaviours/ beliefs.
The number of threads that I’ve just completely abandoned on .ml when I realize I’m trying to reason with morons is too damn high.
Going to .ml looking for an enlightened discussion is like going to the zoo looking for a glory hole.
I’ve found that, while you can’t convince a crackpot of anything, you can study them like a scientific specimen and it can be quite interesting
"Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.
- Jonathan Swift, A Letter to a Young Gentleman, Lately Enter’d Into Holy Orders, 1721 C.E.
My rule to live by (and this seems to trigger people online for some reason whenever I say it): never engage with comments online. I’ll post a comment, but >99% of the time there is no reason to reply. Someone has to make it abundantly clear that they are responding in good faith to warrant a response. My life has been much better since I started doing this and I would strongly recommend everyone try it out.
I enjoy the banter back and forth until the person doubles down, then it’s over
That reminds me, I really must check my inbox
Its not about converting the crackpots, its about pushing back on insane bullshit so others are less likely to become crackpots.
This is why dissent is important. Visibility.
Agreed. Where do you draw the line between downvoting and potentially feeding the trolls? I’m having a hard time with that. When someone is acting like an ignorant contrarian, I’m inclined to ignore them.
I feel like there’s a certain point where you’re no longer pushing back against the crackpots and just arguing with a brick wall.
I start off with the logic, and when they double down on bullshit and toxicity I just keep spotlighting the terrible rhetoric with no substance. In a “like damn dude, your 3rd grade teacher would be disappointed in your writing” way.
You have to out dumb them and take away their argument.
Vaccines cause autism? It’s caused by aliens to force us to build another pyramid so they can land their ship here to harvest the squirrels.
I hold myself to slightly higher standards. I’m not above insulting and throwing toxicity back, but I am honest about it to stop it from undercutting my argumentation.
I’ve had cases where I’ve moved the needle. Got someone to move from “I hate communism!!” to “I see where you’re coming from. Capitalism has problems, I admit”.
For some people, you need to let them feel heard and avoid being too antagonistic.
Some people are just trolls, though.
I managed to convert a “god put dinosaur fossils in the ground 6000 years ago to test us,” person once, although she was already questioning things so I led her to the right answer.
