61–70 of 125 posts
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.
So much negativity in the comments. I think this concept of how to have a conversation on the internet, and how to understand someone’s point, and how to maybe even convince someone successfully is extremely important. Much more important than what ever is in vogue right now as the hot topic politically issues of today. I have a minor gripe though, there’s a contradiction in the writing. “ There’s a misconception tha…
He should talk to my family who is alt-right “they are clearly a different species” to see how much he would understand the other side.
We have seen that during COVID and now we see that even more in those russians who are in favour of the war.
I'd say that some techniques to argue with people on the far side do exist, but it takes time and a lot of effort.
Is online the same? It's possible to talk to someone new every time. Will this long process happen for each person?
There's a reason why first impressions matter. Yes, someone who left a bad first impression could be a diamond in the rough. Except, why not just chat with the other diamonds instead?
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.
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…
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.
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.
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…
That's the elephant in the room here. The site formerly known as Twitter is optimised to maximise engagement, and conflict typically generates much more engagement than co-operation. It'd be like trying to have a friendly discussion to work out your differences with your opponent in a boxing ring, surrounded by large crowd who have been whipped up by the venue into baying for a fight. I sometimes wonder if it is even possible to build a sustainable internet platform which somehow rewards cordial good faith discourse and penalises the mean and intolerant (and by sustainable I mean immune to the tendency for these platforms to eventually pivot to maximising profits above all else).
The question is whether it's worth the time. If you know someone face to face and plan to interact with them in the future. Then you must be able to continue conversing with them. So the time investment to have a decent conversation is necessary. Is online the same? It's possible to talk to someone new every time. Will this long process happen for each person? There's a reason why first impressions matter. Yes, someo…
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.
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…
The best summary I've ever read about the internet
Earlier quoted context omitted.
irc died and was replaced with nothing
Isn't discord this generation's IRC?
Also yungins might be surprised to learn that we had a distributed, open source communication network, where basically any dipshit with a static IP and a Pentium could start an IRC server and maybe get added to the network if they were reliable enough (I was one such dipshit).