Excellent article about how to argue online

[Free]

UR MOM

DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT

 

[Clara D.]

DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT

LOG OFF NOW

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

That's why there's no ignore.

And this feature has been demanded since ages, but it just falls on deaf ears.

PUN POLICE.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

It's funny how many of my old drafts start with the words "Fuck you Jahar".

What happened to Jahar? (I liked him a lot, though we didn't always agree). I hope he's OK.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

What happened to Jahar? (I liked him a lot, though we didn't always agree). I hope he's OK.

In SLU there was a thread asking help outside mainstream medicine, it turned into a giant shouting match and he hasn't been seen since.

 

[Clara D.]

In SLU there was a thread asking help outside mainstream medicine, it turned into a giant shouting match and he hasn't been seen since.

it's becoming mainstream, hence the arglebargle vs. Jahar.

 

[Free]

LOG OFF NOW

TURN OFF YOUR COMPUTER AND TOSS IT OUT THE WINDOW

 

[Clara D.]

TURN OFF YOUR COMPUTER AND TOSS IT OUT THE WINDOW

NO U

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

This is because trying to argue with a gaslighter’s misdirections and ad hominems is walking into his carefully set trap. I stay meta and address the gaslighting rather than try to get a discussion going. It works well enough because right wing gaslighters are very predictable.

As a minor correction, I think that often enough gaslighting is not done intentionally and not carefully set. Many personality types will rapidly convince themselves it never happened and/or was such a minor issue, that it doesn't matter. Some people just have no self awareness.

 

[Brenda Archer]

As a minor correction, I think that often enough gaslighting is not done intentionally and not carefully set. Many personality types will rapidly convince themselves it never happened and/or was such a minor issue, that it doesn't matter. Some people just have no self awareness.

I agree with that part. Lately, it seems to me the right wing types are media programmed and argue in unison. The less educated of them turn into an angry mob when their received wisdom is questioned, like a cult.

There are personality types that gaslight deliberately though, and plenty of morally deformed people who believe their inferiors don't deserve honesty.

 

[Brenda Archer]

There are a lot of people my age and older who don't read, including online, and who have substituted the TV reality for mundane real life. If Fox News is lying but speaks for the people who have the power, is it necessary to even listen to some isolated weirdo trying to report from reality?

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

I agree with that part. Lately, it seems to me the right wing types are media programmed and argue in unison. The less educated of them turn into an angry mob when their received wisdom is questioned, like a cult.

There are personality types that gaslight deliberately though, and plenty of morally deformed people who believe their inferiors don't deserve honesty.

I agree some do it intentionally. There is some disagreement on exactly how much of the population are sociopaths. I think most data suggests that it's at most 4%. That 4% is very noticeable and very loud in some internet communities though. I hope like hell it's not more than that...

"True believers" are much more numerous and probably a lot more dangerous. Mentally "normal" people with average empathy who just think different people are a threat to their tribe are enough of a problem even when not being manipulated by sociopaths.

 

[Free]

NO U

 

[Clara D.]

 

[Free]

 

[Clara D.]

 

[Free]

Going full Heathers sort of ends the game.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Something kind of related to this that I've been thinking about. Consider these two propositions:

1) Vaccines mostly work for the diseases they are meant to prevent, and don't cause autism.

2) Vaccinations should be mandatory.

The first statement is objective and provable. The second statement is subjective and not provable. It's important to know the difference! I occasionally see someone trying to claim their opinions on objective issues are valid. But I think it's at least as common for someone to mistakenly believe they "proved" something about something that's actually subjective.

 

[Brenda Archer]

Something kind of related to this that I've been thinking about. Consider these two propositions:

1) Vaccines mostly work for the diseases they are meant to prevent, and don't cause autism.

2) Vaccinations should be mandatory.

The first statement is objective and provable. The second statement is subjective and not provable. It's important to know the difference! I occasionally see someone trying to claim their opinions on objective issues are valid. But I think it's at least as common for someone to mistakenly believe they "proved" something about something that's actually subjective.

True, but if we could convince people of #1, no one would think of pushing #2.

Voter ignorance permits a lot of scapegoating and racketeering. Eventually a regulation gets proposed as a solution, or a consciousness raising campaign, but the root of the problem is usually someone making money off ignorance.

Ignorant people hate being shoved around, but the rest of us hate dealing with the danger and corruption their ignorance enables. We’ve got this idea that ignorance is a right, so it’s a convenient way for corruption to blame the victims.

With a few moments thought I’m sure we could multiply many examples. It tends to boil down to profit seeking and bullying.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

True, but if we could convince people of #1, no one would think of pushing #2.

I think that's true of this particular example, but I was more trying to talk about subjectivity in general. I've encountered quite a few people who think their taste in music is on firm ground as well...

Voter ignorance permits a lot of scapegoating and racketeering. Eventually a regulation gets proposed as a solution, or a consciousness raising campaign, but the root of the problem is usually someone making money off ignorance.

I think it's worse than that. I don't think the profit motive adequately explains the anti vaccine movement for example. Big insurance companies, hospitals and healthcare workers are putting a lot more resources into trying to fight the antivaxx nonsense than the other way around.

A lot of really nonsensical conspiracy theories also aren't clearly being driven by someone profiting off of them. Sure, maybe someone sold a few books, but a lot of nonsense goes way beyond who's actually profiting off of it. I don't think corporate America wants 911 truthers around either.

There is something fundamentally broken in human psychology that causes them to believe outrageous things. Sometimes someone finds a way to profit from it, but I think the cult like ideas don't need malicious actors to spread.

I don't know why people do this, I only have speculation, but I think blaming it all on profiteering is a comforting simplification. Sometimes, people are just crazy. I think the nonsense often comes first, and sometimes people find a way to profit off of it.