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.
So what you’re saying is that you personally can’t be convinced by a post, and you’re extending that out to everyone else.
This seems like a form of solipsism. If you don’t believe the posts you’re surrounded by are authentic, then nothing anyone says can convince you otherwise.
Like for instance, I could tell you I’ve been convinced by things people have said online. Sometimes it’s in a context of debate, sometimes not. But if you think I’m only cynically saying that for the points, then I’m obviously just lying. It’s a perfect circle of protection.
Ultimately only you can decide if you’re open to being convinced. The problem comes when you decide that’s everyone else’s problem. I can’t say what’s in your head and it’s hard to figure out what you mean here.
I’d be interested to know what your online media diet is, because honestly I think most debate bros out there aren’t doing much of any worth, except again maybe performing to an audience. I don’t know what to say here. You say your head’s a mess, and I tend to agree. I can’t make head nor tails of what you’re saying. It sounds like you’re monologuing to yourself, and I’m not really qualified to interpret it. Only you are.
If I don’t believe posting can convince someone I should not be trying, you get that right?
The initial response of “you must believe posting can change minds or you wouldn’t be posting”…you understand that’s the point I started focusing on correct?
Third point is: I do not believe discussing this with you will change your mind because of point one and two together, are you still with me?
Fourth point is: any reasonably observer whom believes I mean what I say in point 1 believes me less the more I explain myself.
Fifth point: If I was to change your mind my position that posting doesn’t change minds is automatically invalidated, correct?
Sixth point: all of the extra wishy washy shit is you watching me try to find if my personal truth is that I believe point one, and if so why am I still in the conversation.
We’re talking about an analysis of truth and hypocrisy here, not solipsism.
How can you not follow this yet?
If you follow that you should understand that if I were to succeed in convincing you online posts don’t change minds I would immediately have proved myself wrong, and the basis of your conversion would be the conversation that ended my belief.
At this point, you’re just kind of bloviating. Like, none of the points on their own is particularly confusing - although if you don’t see the inherent contradictions I wonder if you’re even listening to yourself, you seem to explicitly acknowledge them - I just don’t know what the point of it all is. Like, you need to do some work to help me understand what you’re actually trying to say. I’m not your therapist. Either you have something you want me to respond to or you don’t.
The initial response of “you must believe posting can change minds or you wouldn’t be posting”…you understand that’s the point I started focusing on correct?
That is literally not what I said. I could repeat it, but you would have to tell me you’re curious to understand me or I’m not going to bother at this point. I’ve already asked you that and you ignored it, but you seemed troubled so I let it slide. I’m done with that. If you won’t meet me halfway in this conversation then you can carry on wanking in the corner, but I’m not going to watch.
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”.
You didn’t say this?
You think throwing the word theory in there changes the meaning significantly?
You are too clever by half my friend.
THE CONTRADICTION IS THE POINT.
Nothing is designed to convince you of anything, none of this. If I convince you I am immediately wrong. Please get it. Please think. Please I’ve never had to make something so simplified for a self professed “debater”. This isn’t a debate! This is me telling you why debating is pointless and you insisting I’m losing a debate.
THE ONLY WAY FOR YOU TO CHANGE MY MIND (about posting changing minds) IS TO CHANGE YOURS. IF YOU CHANGE YOURS YOU PROVE YOUR NEW POSITION AND MY CURRENT POSITION WRONG. THUS THERE IS NO WIN STATE FOR MY STATEMENT, IT IS UNPROVABLE.
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”?
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.
So what you’re saying is that you personally can’t be convinced by a post, and you’re extending that out to everyone else.
This seems like a form of solipsism. If you don’t believe the posts you’re surrounded by are authentic, then nothing anyone says can convince you otherwise.
Like for instance, I could tell you I’ve been convinced by things people have said online. Sometimes it’s in a context of debate, sometimes not. But if you think I’m only cynically saying that for the points, then I’m obviously just lying. It’s a perfect circle of protection.
Ultimately only you can decide if you’re open to being convinced. The problem comes when you decide that’s everyone else’s problem. I can’t say what’s in your head and it’s hard to figure out what you mean here.
I’d be interested to know what your online media diet is, because honestly I think most debate bros out there aren’t doing much of any worth, except again maybe performing to an audience. I don’t know what to say here. You say your head’s a mess, and I tend to agree. I can’t make head nor tails of what you’re saying. It sounds like you’re monologuing to yourself, and I’m not really qualified to interpret it. Only you are.
Ok so the crux is:
If I don’t believe posting can convince someone I should not be trying, you get that right?
The initial response of “you must believe posting can change minds or you wouldn’t be posting”…you understand that’s the point I started focusing on correct?
Third point is: I do not believe discussing this with you will change your mind because of point one and two together, are you still with me?
Fourth point is: any reasonably observer whom believes I mean what I say in point 1 believes me less the more I explain myself.
Fifth point: If I was to change your mind my position that posting doesn’t change minds is automatically invalidated, correct?
Sixth point: all of the extra wishy washy shit is you watching me try to find if my personal truth is that I believe point one, and if so why am I still in the conversation.
We’re talking about an analysis of truth and hypocrisy here, not solipsism.
How can you not follow this yet?
If you follow that you should understand that if I were to succeed in convincing you online posts don’t change minds I would immediately have proved myself wrong, and the basis of your conversion would be the conversation that ended my belief.
At this point, you’re just kind of bloviating. Like, none of the points on their own is particularly confusing - although if you don’t see the inherent contradictions I wonder if you’re even listening to yourself, you seem to explicitly acknowledge them - I just don’t know what the point of it all is. Like, you need to do some work to help me understand what you’re actually trying to say. I’m not your therapist. Either you have something you want me to respond to or you don’t.
That is literally not what I said. I could repeat it, but you would have to tell me you’re curious to understand me or I’m not going to bother at this point. I’ve already asked you that and you ignored it, but you seemed troubled so I let it slide. I’m done with that. If you won’t meet me halfway in this conversation then you can carry on wanking in the corner, but I’m not going to watch.
You didn’t say this?
You think throwing the word theory in there changes the meaning significantly?
You are too clever by half my friend.
THE CONTRADICTION IS THE POINT.
Nothing is designed to convince you of anything, none of this. If I convince you I am immediately wrong. Please get it. Please think. Please I’ve never had to make something so simplified for a self professed “debater”. This isn’t a debate! This is me telling you why debating is pointless and you insisting I’m losing a debate.
THE ONLY WAY FOR YOU TO CHANGE MY MIND (about posting changing minds) IS TO CHANGE YOURS. IF YOU CHANGE YOURS YOU PROVE YOUR NEW POSITION AND MY CURRENT POSITION WRONG. THUS THERE IS NO WIN STATE FOR MY STATEMENT, IT IS UNPROVABLE.
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”?