101–110 of 125 posts
Is there an example for the gold medal and still getting a "wow, a civil interaction, how rare!"?
BTW a public discussion most of the time isn't about the people discussing but about the audience.
It's rare to change someone's opinion but you can easier help create one in the undecided.
I think the approach the author is suggesting is the right one but for abdifferent reason. The most important person in an internet argument is the uninvolved passer-by, at least in those cases that make me argue publicly at length with strangers. I might never be able to convince the person I am discussing with, but I might convince the audience.
This also applies to any _public_ offline argument, doesn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. In that case offering a submissive message may mollify the interlocutor in exchange for a response, but at the cost of signalling to other readers that their position is sensible. My grandma used to say that arguing something is the greatest concession. Consider A: -Earth is flat - it is not, earth is round - ya it is, john doe proved it - ok sorry for not understanding could you please explain what john…
I feel reminded of Mark Twain: “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Of course on the Internet, no one ever thinks themselves an idiot, no matter how ridiculous their position is.
I think the approach the author is suggesting is the right one but for abdifferent reason. The most important person in an internet argument is the uninvolved passer-by, at least in those cases that make me argue publicly at length with strangers. I might never be able to convince the person I am discussing with, but I might convince the audience.
> The most important person in an internet argument is the uninvolved passer-by Exactly. Correia’s Law: "Internet arguing is a spectator sport. You argue to convince the undecided and give ammo to those on your side. Do not expect to change your opponent’s mind as you cannot sway the willfully ignorant. Internet arguing is only worth it when there is an audience. The contestants do not get a vote, the audience decide…
I dont think it is possible to have a debate in good faith without putting the opponent first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. In that case offering a submissive message may mollify the interlocutor in exchange for a response, but at the cost of signalling to other readers that their position is sensible. My grandma used to say that arguing something is the greatest concession. Consider A: -Earth is flat - it is not, earth is round - ya it is, john doe proved it - ok sorry for not understanding could you please explain what john…
> it all comes down to whether you view the internet as the greek agora or the roman circus. The best summary I've ever read about the internet
I think the approach the author is suggesting is the right one but for abdifferent reason. The most important person in an internet argument is the uninvolved passer-by, at least in those cases that make me argue publicly at length with strangers. I might never be able to convince the person I am discussing with, but I might convince the audience.
> The most important person in an internet argument is the uninvolved passer-by Exactly. Correia’s Law: "Internet arguing is a spectator sport. You argue to convince the undecided and give ammo to those on your side. Do not expect to change your opponent’s mind as you cannot sway the willfully ignorant. Internet arguing is only worth it when there is an audience. The contestants do not get a vote, the audience decide…
You may have convinced the audience, but you ended up with a solution that doesn't work and is divorced from the real world.
Is it worth it in the end?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see your point, on the other hand I see that people have been ridiculing and insulting alt-right content a for years and that method did not work. In the contrary, deplattforming, doxxing and all the things people came up with are now an integral part of the rights toolkit. Point is: when I talk to people on the street I get the impression Thant what most of them desire is just boring politics by upstanding people.…
> Maybe it’s time to change the way we discuss. My takeaway from your comment is not so much that we need to change the way we discuss, but that we more regularly need to remind ourselves that computers and people are not the same thing. As you suggest, when people have discussions it usually goes well, with all parties more or less wanting "boring" discussion that goes somewhere meaningful. It is when people have di…
The first example is basically saying you have to insult yourself first to prevent the other side from insulting you further. I won't call this good faith, let alone a productive discussion. The second example is just wishful thinking. I bet even if KJ had responded with the author's way, axial would have still blocked them after several exchanges. Of course I might be wrong. Perhaps I'm just not as good at argumenti…
> The second example is just wishful thinking. I bet even if KJ had responded with the author's way, axial would have still blocked them after several exchanges. Not true! I'm trying to collect "success stories" here because I've done this dozens of times, even with the most troll-like internet strangers. It's very consistent. Nobody believes that it generalizes. What I'm working on now is writing down these techniqu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe it’s time to change the way we discuss. My takeaway from your comment is not so much that we need to change the way we discuss, but that we more regularly need to remind ourselves that computers and people are not the same thing. As you suggest, when people have discussions it usually goes well, with all parties more or less wanting "boring" discussion that goes somewhere meaningful. It is when people have di…
are you a computer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. In that case offering a submissive message may mollify the interlocutor in exchange for a response, but at the cost of signalling to other readers that their position is sensible. My grandma used to say that arguing something is the greatest concession. Consider A: -Earth is flat - it is not, earth is round - ya it is, john doe proved it - ok sorry for not understanding could you please explain what john…
I feel reminded of Mark Twain: “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
> "Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it" - George Bernard Shaw
> “Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.” - Shannon L. Alder