this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
193 points (92.5% liked)
Progressive Politics
1201 readers
278 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ok this got a laugh out of me
You're not going to change the mind of the dumbshit with a dumbshit position, but you might be able to demonstrate to passers-by that the position is a dumbshit one. That matters.
Yeah, but you don't always have to be the one to raise your voice. It's ostensibly why the downvote exists.
Someone does, and sometimes I am that person.
That's why I yell at people on the street
Homeless people can't help but be on the street. Cut them some slack.
It is not possible for a conservative to enter any debate in good faith. Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. This has always been true and will remain true until conservatism is extinguished.
As a guy who's absolutely in the far-left camp, and at risk of being exactly what the post is complaining about, I'm sorry but you're being tribalist and delusional. Many conservatives try and argue from what they consider "good faith", it's just that their moral compass has been destroyed by conservative propaganda. Many conservatives actually believe that unborns have souls and are people, and that abortion is murder, even if it's a clearly wrong moral position. Many conservatives do believe that immigration is hurting their countries and they're making their country a better place by opposing it. Many do believe that reducing labour regulations will end up boosting the economy for the benefit of everyone. The fact that they're demonstrably wrong in most of it, doesn't mean that they're necessarily arguing from bad faith.
The fact that they're demonstrably wrong in most of it, doesn't mean that they're necessarily arguing from bad faith.
You make valid points, but when they are confronted with even scientific evidence of their errors, they cast the information aside as if science is their enemy. These same believers you are defending will lie and manipulate in their discussions to create or repeat lies.
Your defense suggests they are innocent because they believe those lies that they infect others with. I argue they are not innocent at all.
You're right that they ignore the science and the facts, that's why they're holding the positions they hold (climate change denialism, prohibition of abortion and gender reassignment, austerity policy, etc.) The problem IMO isn't so much with the individuals as it is with the propaganda apparatus. It's clear that people can be indoctrinated into such things, and much worse actually (see nazism), so instead of focusing on whether the individuals are arguing from bad faith or not, I'd rather blame the propaganda apparatus that turns them into ghoul, and not just blame it but put the focus onto it.
I agree with your points and that solving the propaganda is the real solution here. I still do not absolve the individuals any more than I absolve individual nazi's in 1941. But, the solution matters more than the blame. I hope we can address the propaganda someday soon. This shit is deadly.
LOL don't have to worry about another trump debate for some reason...
Online debates about politics tend to be bad, but that's mostly just because of people who are more interested in propagandizing than honestly hashing out ideas. If they aren't doing that, and you aren't doing that, it can be worthwhile. IMO the easiest way to tell the difference and know to stop replying is if you get a response that clearly was written after loosely skimming your comment, and using those few words as a jumping off point to launch into a mostly unrelated rant, rather than directly addressing your central point. Or, a common one with conservatives, an argument framed as unsolicited personal advice, that's never going anywhere constructive.
A debate requires that both sides have consented to spend their time with each other and that the topic is what they consented to spend their time on. Other than that no one owes another person their time or energy. Especially if their time isn’t being respected.
both sides have consented to spend their time with each other and that the topic is what they consented to spend their time on
No argument there, but it's not like this can never happen.
This is what you'd be arguing against https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy4mztkndHk&t=17
Lag in Fortnite is real
Pretty sure that was WoW.
You can tell by the CRT and the 90’s era key board.
I don't know why people want to have the same argument with the same people over and over again
It doesn't take many replies to realize someone just wants the adrenaline rush from an argument and don't even really care what they're arguing about.
Just block them and use your energy on people who actually have questions.
That's why I never got why TPUSA people go around "debating" people on college campuses. They never actually want a debate, they just want to tell you you're wrong.
The last Debate Bro I watched was with Matt Dillahunty vs Andrew something something. The debate topic was about the existence of a god.
But as soon as the microphone was put in front of Andrew, he started shouting hateful slurs about LGBTQ+ people and wouldn't stop. He refused to engage with the topic of the actual debate.
Matt walked away and Andrew claimed he won. Not everyone is worth debating. Some people are so desperate for attention and to be heard, they'll mass spam debate challenges.
It's chess with a pigeon
It can however be very funny to enter a debate in bad faith just to make the other side angry.
online debate is not a tactic for changing hearts, but if you like, try to engage in some different way that will affect them