Its my crack I can’t stop coming back to all while hating every second of it
It’s my favorite hobby.
At this point, every comment on Lemmy is greeted with angry responses who are willfully choosing to ignore the point I was making and try to fight me.
If I say “I like dogs” someone is going to come along and tell me I’m a jerk for not liking cats even though I didn’t say I don’t like cats. That or someone mansplaining dogs to me.
Calm down Lemmy. Take a breather.
What about birds you heartless monster, you have ruined my day!
It is good fun though… It’s part of the reason I got permabanned from Reddit… That and criticizing Israel and Nazis.
People like being offended and feeling victimized.
It’s a rush and they get addicted to it.
I have a cat and a dog… and a lot of folks will just argue with me on principle or try to make me pick a side. even in real life. or like get in a big stink about if they are purebred or rescue. i have no clue why any of it matters, i guess other than their insecure need to feel validated by getting you to agree with them.
I hate it. It’s so stupid and annoying. You can’t just like things anymore… anything you enjoy has to ‘hurt’ someone else and they have to let you know how wrong and bad you are for enjoying it.
I like Cilantro, and I’ve had internet weirdos tell me that it’s able-ist to enjoy it, because my enjoyment of it is some sort of racism against the people for whom it tastes like soap. Or like commentary made at me in the taco line when I order it how it’s so gross. It’s so ridiculous. I think Pinto beans are disgusting, but I don’t feel offended and hurt that other people enjoy them.
To be fair, when you try it in person, they’re all “Who are you? How did you get in my house? I’m calling the cops!”, then it’s no fun at all.
Oh, I’m about to argue with one right now you little dumbass
I think debating for fun has killed our ability to communicate as a species. Pushback becomes an ignorable stress since it comes with no real consequence. And it makes every conversation an chance to argue your point as if it must be a part of your identity to be protected at all cost.
I really dislike angry conversation without purpose.
Hello, fellow stranger online!
Yes, i was entertained for a while.
Of course it was.
They were wrong. How are they going to know they are wrong if no one tells them?
The ones who know they’re wrong bother me even more.
Got me banned from reddit and now I’m here so I’d say in a weird ironic sense, sorta?
Absolutely. There’s way too many blithering idiots online. We made the web way too accessible to them back in the ‘90’s.
And if idiots don’t get challenged, you run the risk of them thinking they’re actually right. And that’s very, very dangerous.
I will admit the only reason I attempt to verbally correct them is because I don’t have access to a Reaper drone to shove a Flying Ginsu missile up their ass.
I mean, evidence shows that having their ideas challenged online tends to entrench people in their ideas more so than it convinces them that they’re wrong.
So, while I sympathize with your goals, I think your method is having the opposite effect of your intended outcome.
I say this, knowing it’s true, and still doing the arguing online thing anyway.
It’s not about them it’s about the other people that might be influenced by their post.
Online is never an A&B conversation, which is why I usually avoid direct confrontation and just provide well structured, clear information, because I don’t really care whether I can convince someone who has made up their mind.
It’s about deconstructing the argument with clear digestible information for the dozens of lurkers.
LOL as if. Literally I will see people with logical responses getting ripped apart because the person they are arguing with just sounds more right and or it fits what people wanted to hear in that specific echo chamber.
Say something cause you want to say it, not cause you are giving yourself points on an invisible scoreboard for people that might not exist.
What evidence? You didn’t pull this out of your ass, did you?
I don’t believe it!
spoiler
Get the joke?
Evidence isn’t what bullies and bigots rely on. It’s their feelings of superiority and their justification of violence.
hence why they will never argue with evidence or facts. They will just insult and harass and threaten.
and if you use the evidence of their own words against them… well get ready to get reported to the mods.
I hate saying this, I feel gross saying this, but the internet needs restrictions. I don’t know what the solution is. I hate all the ones that are being tried right now like age verification or needing an ID, because they really seem more focused on surveillance than anything else… But… God damn.
The general public should not have unfettered access to the internet. I think we have shown that this technology is too dangerous for humanity as a whole. There’s just too many idiots and bad actors. Again, I don’t know what the solution is. How do you balance privacy and personal freedom with the dangers that come with giving everyone access to everything? Unfortunately, I don’t see a solution that doesn’t come off as draconian or controlling in some way, shape, or form.
Maybe it’s something like a multi-layer internet, where the first layer anyone can access but is mostly read-only with a few exceptions. If you want to access the second layer which allows you to post, comment, upload, etc., you need a license. The barrier to entry should be small, something on the level of a HAM radio license. A simple class, an easy test, and a small one-time fee and you’re good for 10 years. You can even allow access for anyone at a library, university, or business.
It wouldn’t fix everything, and deep down I know that if anything like this were tried it would be twisted and warped by the powers that be to become just another form of control, but holy shit we need something or society is going to tear itself apart.
This already exists. News media for instance used to have standards as to who they would hire - like you’d have to spelel properely and everyhting. Then most of the major outlets were bought up by the wealthy and… well, they still exist but people don’t bother to read them anymore.
Even now, blogs exist (like Mastodon) but people on “social media” (where we are now) prefer to simply scroll and speak rather than listen.
What you are saying still exists though - it’s simply not here. Read this if you are interested: https://medium.com/@max.p.schlienger/the-cargo-cult-of-the-ennui-engine-890c541cebcb.
you feel gross saying this for a reason
yeah, your such a big tough strong guy who is so smart.
so strong that you fantasizing about murdering people who upset you by saying things you don’t like… so brave. so smart. so strong.
All thoughts are not created equal. Something tells me yours are created even less equal than most.
Ew. Using the 3/5s compromise even in a comment section is pretty gross.
yeah, so superior when you’re go to is insults and threats.
almost like you’re a bully, and a coward.
yeah, so superior when you’re go to is insults and threats.
yeah, your such a big tough strong guy who is so smart.
what was i supposed to do, let people just be wrong online?
could be worse, you could let them merge in front of you in traffic.
let… them…?
Is… Is that an option?
It’s a hobby.
There’s a weird dynamic to arguing online, particularly when it comes to political topics. Most of the time, you won’t convince your counterpart. Maybe some point sticks with them later and you’ll never know, but either way they’re not really the target of the arguments. It’s the (potential) audience that the argument is supposed to be for: People less emotionally invested in the conflict may take away something useful from the arguments, people on the fence about an issue might come around to your point, and people sharing your opinion will see that they’re not alone and feel affirmed.
Essentially, it’s a performance on an public stage for the sake of discourse. Phrased strongly, you don’t want “the other side” to dominate the public opinion, so you engage them. In the process, you may hone your own arguments, or you may find them wanting, perhaps even see them start to crack.
i think that’s true in large social media spaces, but not so much in smaller focused forums.
but since the latter doesn’t really exist anymore, it is kind of irrelevant.
People mostly respond to your presentation and how it makes them feel, not the content of what you are saying. Hence why most people objecting to you won’t even object to what you say, they will object to their interpretation of what you said and how it made them feel.
I used to enjoy it a while back, now not so much. As long as people understand this is not how you change the world, you are doing this for yourself.
Online forums definitely have the power to shape discourse. The resurrection of socialism is proof of that. Before the internet, socialism was a dirty word in America, and now any political thread will have socialists in it.
It’s not that one person makes a difference, it’s the constant exposure achieved by many people posting similar arguments.
Sure, it is the internet and not people’s personal finances imploding. Its why we definitely didnt see pushes like this in any other time before the internet. Nope not ever. It’s by posting to the internet that changes things.
Pro tip: Never open your inbox.
Not as powerful as you but I’m working on it
That’s a strong magic right there.
yes.