People in real life: it’s obvious you can’t kill an idea or win an argument by calling names.
People online: if I don’t call this person a pedophile because we disagree on the level of funding forestry services receive, LITERALLY EVERYONE who reads their comment will start thinking like them. I will kill their idea with my anxiety.
You aren’t going to kill an idea with name calling online either. You’ll, hopefully, be rightfully called out for using pointless ad hominem attacks and be shot down on the spot, pushing people to the fanatic you’re arguing against.
Unless we’re talking about Twitter, then yeah, louder idiot wins.
Posting “posting isn’t praxis” isn’t praxis either. But like, there is value in theory, and you must believe that or else you would’ve believed it was pointless to post “posting isn’t praxis”.
I very much do believe it was pointless. I believe it’s impossible to make someone who believes anyone in an argument online is not tailoring their argument to the amount of upvotes or downvotes they receive understand anything. I believe the infinite recursion you try to trap truth in has in fact trapped you. I don’t mean this in a hostile way, but I do mean it.
Tell me you aren’t going to post another form of “no u” because you interpret what I’m saying as “touch grass”. There is no way to have a good faith discussion with someone who replies like I did, or like you did to me. Which is to say, the internet is no place to spend any amount of time, which invalidates my typing this comment, which makes it pointless.
The inevitability of me having to type this renders it meaningless. The idea that I am trying to do what you are is both true and false, so I find myself in a position where I can explain how we got here but cannot prescribe a solution because there isn’t one. And what I mean by that is, my position forces me to perform an act of hypocrisy (one that I’m painfully aware of). People don’t like hypocrisy, so you can say something true like “this comment won’t change anyone’s mind”, and get smoked for posting by people who believe posting is praxis.
Honestly, if you want to get really weird with it, believing that someone being exposed to an idea renders them helpless to disbelieve it is extremely similar to believing drag queen story hour will turn your child gay.
So now you’re in a bind. You either believe you have to disprove me and in the process invalidate what you actually believe by contesting the last paragraph, or you say nothing and let it look like I’ve changed a mind.
This is unbelievably convoluted. You’ve talked yourself in knots but also somehow believe that your argument is so airtight that any attempt to refute it only invalidates my beliefs.
Your argument is circular, self-defeating and also missing some really obvious things, one of which I already pointed out.
The only thing left to do is to ask if you’re actually curious to understand what I mean.
So to be clear, you’re not curious to understand because you believe you can read my mind and understand the secret motivations behind my words that renders them invalid?
You laid out your motivations already. You believe posting changes minds, then you treated a long post I made that spells out how my mind works and attempts to put into an understandable format how I feel as if I was posting the same way you do (for upvotes for your idea, downvotes for mine). If you can’t see how your behavior isn’t a real discussion I don’t want to have one.
I very much didn’t lay out my motivations, I think you may have me confused for someone else.
But again, you’re not curious to understand because you think you already know everything you need to know about me.
For what it’s worth, I am actually curious to understand what you mean, but I’m struggling to for reasons I’ve laid out. Your reasoning is very circular and self-contradictory and also a lot of the sentences are very hard to parse out.
I am asking about whether you are curious to understand because I would like to have a real discussion, and I want to know if you are willing to also have one. So far you seem so convinced I would never actually listen to you that you therefore won’t listen to me. Unless and until that changes I don’t see this particular conversation achieving much.
My brain is a mess, in general but also from thinking about this.
I think posting doesn’t change minds. I am posting. How can I reconcile those things? If I believe what I’m saying it would be fair to assume I will be unable to have a productive discussion.
So am I sabotaging myself secretly to “be right”? In a way I’m trying to reason that out in real-time. I could argue that I don’t have to believe posting is effective to still be doing it, but then why do it? And why specifically this topic?
Personally the overwhelming desire to be understood, knowing I do not understand, has been a difficult thing to deal with. Having a true discussion with an audience, is it possible?
Part of the problem is I’m willing to be wrong about almost everything in real life, which you would think clearly means a post could change my mind. It doesn’t feel like that to me though and I don’t really have any data to back it up.
I think maybe there’s something broken about the internet as a way of communication, at least for me personally, and I’m pretty jaded about it I guess. What I want to talk about is deeper than what I can effectively communicate.
If you can’t see how your behavior isn’t a real discussion I don’t want to have one.
You literally said it’s impossible to have a real discussion online, and now you’re criticising someone for not engaging you in the way you want to have a “real discussion”?
People in real life: it’s obvious you can’t kill an idea or win an argument by calling names.
People online: if I don’t call this person a pedophile because we disagree on the level of funding forestry services receive, LITERALLY EVERYONE who reads their comment will start thinking like them. I will kill their idea with my anxiety.
You aren’t going to kill an idea with name calling online either. You’ll, hopefully, be rightfully called out for using pointless ad hominem attacks and be shot down on the spot, pushing people to the fanatic you’re arguing against.
Unless we’re talking about Twitter, then yeah, louder idiot wins.
When was the last time you spoke to a person face to face?
Wait…do people still do that? I shouldn’t have said either lol. I dunno, the whole comment was really just a dig at Twitter.
Posting “posting isn’t praxis” isn’t praxis either. But like, there is value in theory, and you must believe that or else you would’ve believed it was pointless to post “posting isn’t praxis”.
I very much do believe it was pointless. I believe it’s impossible to make someone who believes anyone in an argument online is not tailoring their argument to the amount of upvotes or downvotes they receive understand anything. I believe the infinite recursion you try to trap truth in has in fact trapped you. I don’t mean this in a hostile way, but I do mean it.
Tell me you aren’t going to post another form of “no u” because you interpret what I’m saying as “touch grass”. There is no way to have a good faith discussion with someone who replies like I did, or like you did to me. Which is to say, the internet is no place to spend any amount of time, which invalidates my typing this comment, which makes it pointless.
The inevitability of me having to type this renders it meaningless. The idea that I am trying to do what you are is both true and false, so I find myself in a position where I can explain how we got here but cannot prescribe a solution because there isn’t one. And what I mean by that is, my position forces me to perform an act of hypocrisy (one that I’m painfully aware of). People don’t like hypocrisy, so you can say something true like “this comment won’t change anyone’s mind”, and get smoked for posting by people who believe posting is praxis.
Honestly, if you want to get really weird with it, believing that someone being exposed to an idea renders them helpless to disbelieve it is extremely similar to believing drag queen story hour will turn your child gay.
So now you’re in a bind. You either believe you have to disprove me and in the process invalidate what you actually believe by contesting the last paragraph, or you say nothing and let it look like I’ve changed a mind.
This is unbelievably convoluted. You’ve talked yourself in knots but also somehow believe that your argument is so airtight that any attempt to refute it only invalidates my beliefs.
Your argument is circular, self-defeating and also missing some really obvious things, one of which I already pointed out.
The only thing left to do is to ask if you’re actually curious to understand what I mean.
This is the same as not replying.
You said nothing, alluded to work you didn’t do, and then asked a question I answered when I said I don’t believe posting can change minds.
Like, read what you wrote and tell me it’s not designed to get an upvote? What is the substance? I should stop arguing with AI online.
So to be clear, you’re not curious to understand because you believe you can read my mind and understand the secret motivations behind my words that renders them invalid?
You laid out your motivations already. You believe posting changes minds, then you treated a long post I made that spells out how my mind works and attempts to put into an understandable format how I feel as if I was posting the same way you do (for upvotes for your idea, downvotes for mine). If you can’t see how your behavior isn’t a real discussion I don’t want to have one.
I very much didn’t lay out my motivations, I think you may have me confused for someone else.
But again, you’re not curious to understand because you think you already know everything you need to know about me.
For what it’s worth, I am actually curious to understand what you mean, but I’m struggling to for reasons I’ve laid out. Your reasoning is very circular and self-contradictory and also a lot of the sentences are very hard to parse out.
I am asking about whether you are curious to understand because I would like to have a real discussion, and I want to know if you are willing to also have one. So far you seem so convinced I would never actually listen to you that you therefore won’t listen to me. Unless and until that changes I don’t see this particular conversation achieving much.
My brain is a mess, in general but also from thinking about this.
I think posting doesn’t change minds. I am posting. How can I reconcile those things? If I believe what I’m saying it would be fair to assume I will be unable to have a productive discussion.
So am I sabotaging myself secretly to “be right”? In a way I’m trying to reason that out in real-time. I could argue that I don’t have to believe posting is effective to still be doing it, but then why do it? And why specifically this topic?
Personally the overwhelming desire to be understood, knowing I do not understand, has been a difficult thing to deal with. Having a true discussion with an audience, is it possible?
Part of the problem is I’m willing to be wrong about almost everything in real life, which you would think clearly means a post could change my mind. It doesn’t feel like that to me though and I don’t really have any data to back it up.
I think maybe there’s something broken about the internet as a way of communication, at least for me personally, and I’m pretty jaded about it I guess. What I want to talk about is deeper than what I can effectively communicate.
You literally said it’s impossible to have a real discussion online, and now you’re criticising someone for not engaging you in the way you want to have a “real discussion”?