Being informed and not getting into arguments aren't related.
Don't argue with people. If they want to disagree with facts, walk away.
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
67 points (97.2% liked)
No Stupid Questions
34293 readers
2324 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's literally that easy.
On social media if you run I to anyone too crazy, you can just block them, then never run the risk of arguing with them again.
99.9% you'll never change anyone's mind anyways. Rightwingers/fascists/bigots/racists and the rest of their ilk love sea lioning and pretending to be reasonable at first, but they didn't get to their current positions with logic, and logic won't get them out of it.
They'll claim anything and change at the drop of the hat if a better excuse comes up.
There's a problem with that: often the irrational will keep vomiting its irrationality, and potentially convince others of it. Sometimes it's no biggie, but sometimes the irrationality in question is being used to back up some discourse like nationalism or similar trash.
So if you walk away, you're making society worse. If you don't walk away, you're wasting your time. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I know you didn't mean it this way, but I read your comment to first mean "if they want to disagree with you by using facts they have, then walk away."
...took me a second, lol.
Being informed and not getting into arguments aren't related.
Yes they are
Eta: oh shoot, I think I offended people. Sorry, I was trying to do a Monty Python.
I've never seen this before. Thanks for sharing!
Listen to experts. Stay off of social media. Get used to visualizing the average commenter on anything as a middle schooler. Talk to your friends about important topics. Learn how to vet sources. Challenge your beliefs. Recognize what cognitive dissonance feels like to you and seek it out. Focus on things that matter to your life. Read all the way through articles.
Don’t. Frankly, I’ve stayed on top of the news for 20 years. The ideal of an informed citizenry comes from a time without a 24-hour news cycle, and a time before the US (if you’re here) was downgraded from a democracy to an enocracy. The only thing you’ll get from being informed 24-7 is unneeded stress. Look at a news website once or twice a week, that’s plenty informed for most purposes. (Within 6 months of a national election, maybe bump it up a little.) Don’t discuss controversial news online unless that’s fun for you. If I could follow my own advice, my mental health would be improved, honestly.
I don't really get the question. To stay informed you just have to read/watch. To get into an argument you'd have to get into a conversation with someone.
It's very easy to watch TV or read a newspaper without getting into an argument with it.
Believe it or not, about 20 years ago or so people with opposite ideologies used to be able to converse with each other without it becoming a fight. Nowadays, the vast majority of people seem disinterested in listening to anything that contradicts their own opinion. Rather than researching their own ideologies, they will research points to tear down other's ideologies instead.
My recommendations would be:
-
Don't engage in comment sections. Reading through them may provide some context, but typically anything past top level comments or parent comments usually devolves into arguing.
-
Try to look for two media outlets with opposite ideologies and read both. Pay particular attention to the one you don't agree with, but be careful to not try to look for ways to "disprove" it. Sometimes, one might point something out the other doesn't. This can give you a clearer picture of what is going on.
-
Never trust a claim without a source. While many statements are made without a source are correct, its always a good idea to look up more information and do your own research to confirm the facts before you spread information that is potentially wrong.
-
Not all sources are trustworthy. Just because someone lists a source doesn't mean its trustworthy. This has been an increasingly more common practice online. Checking sources can be time consuming, but it is worth doing.
-
Always check your sources for bias. Confirmation Bias, Recency Bias, Political Bias, etc. These are all highly infectious and are far more prolific than they used to be. Finding sources without any bias is not possible, but recognizing it can help temper your view on the source.
-
Be ready and fast to admit when you're wrong or have changed your mind. There is nothing wrong with a person who changes their mind. What you believe today, you might think a bit differently tomorrow. There is no reason that you should feel obligated to cling to an ideology that you do not feel is right, even if you thought it was right yesterday.
-
Do not engage in debate. This one is hard for people today, since they feel the need to clip and retweet everything everyone says. It used to be that debates were for serious conversation, but as I mentioned initially, this is no longer the case. People who engage in debate usually don't want to change their mind or even hear what the other side is saying. So simply don't engage.
And lastly:
- Do not try to be informed on everything. There is too much information now for any person to be totally caught up on all things. If someone talks about something you don't know about that interests you, ask for more information. Make a mental note and do your research on it later. Any person that looks down on someone else for "not being informed" is simply saying they have a superiority complex. Pay it no mind. You're not inferior for not being informed on all aspects of all matters.
I've always had the belief that the worst thing you can be in this world is consciously uninformed
In that case, it might be useful to remind yourself that once it gets to the protracted argument stage, you're encouraging the very thing you are trying to fight.
No one changes their mind when they've drawn virtual lines in the sand. They are in fact more likely to double down on their beliefs, right or wrong.
resist
By recognizing that the fruitless arguments are just a waste of your valuable life time.
It is good to be informed about some topics that are helpful for your life. You do not need to be informed about so many other topics.
Stick to very serious journalism, maybe from outside of your own country.
Repeat after me: “What evidence would it take for your to believe your position is wrong?”
That's a way to get in to a protracted or heated argument.
Don't try to chase breaking news, but focus more on analysis that steps back and looks at the situation. For instance, I read the Economist because it only publishes once a week and it provides more in depth discussion of issues.
I think that the most important steps go before any sort of argument. They are:
- Get used to think logically and notice logical flaws. Including yours.
- Avoid vomiting certainty. (I call this "to be an assumer".)
If you follow those two steps, you'll be far more informed than most people out there, simply because you'll make better use of the info that you're exposed to.
Now, when you are in a protracted argument, here's my "ideal" approach:
- Ask myself "am I being irrational?". If yes, I try to identify the source of the irrationality (e.g. emotional attachment). If I can't get rid of it, I leave the discussion.
- Ask myself "am I being an assumer?". If yes, I inform myself further, then decide if I'm going to keep the argument or not. It's fine to retract your claims, just do it clearly.
- If the other side is being an irrational, assumer, or liar, I call it out while exposing why it matters. (There are polite ways to do this; I don't bother.) The reaction of the other side dictates what I do: if they disengage I leave it be, if they admit it I might go on with the argument or not, if they turn into "lalala this hurts my fee fees then I claim that I didn't read lol lmao haha" mode I usually mock it and disengage.
- If I got tired of a discussion about something not too overly important, I simply leave. There's no shame on that.
I say "ideal" because I myself sometimes don't follow it, even knowing that I should. (I'm verbose and eager to dig deeper into any subject.)
Some key details here:
- Remember that in social media (including Lemmy) there's always some sort of general audience, lurkers that are following the discussion but not interacting with it. What matters is less to convince the moron(s) and more to inform the general audience.
- Sometimes misinformation can be harmful, so there's an actual reason to keep yourself in a protracted argument. Just don't do it at the expense of too much of your time.
- I believe that it's completely fine to answer blatant stupidity with rudeness, as long as your rudeness isn't: misaimed at the wrong people, or in an environment with no tolerance towards rudeness, in a community that you hold a position of power (e.g. the discussion happens in a comm that you mod) or backed up by more stupidity. Your mileage may vary with that.
Remember that in social media (including Lemmy) there's always some sort of general audience, lurkers that are following the discussion but not interacting with it. What matters is less to convince the moron(s) and more to inform the general audience.
This 100%. The rule of thumb I've heard is that about 90% of people are lurkers, 9% are commenters, and 1% are posters. This might be skewed somewhat on lemmy, as the reddit migration resulted in a disproportionate amount of commenters and posters to move to lemmy, plus the general sense of "doing my part" to provide content for this platform.
Anyhoo, regardless of the actual numbers, the most important people to convince in an online discussion are the onlookers. Rarely will you convince the person you're debating, but if you come in calm and rational and bring good links and supporting evidence to your claims, most lurkers will recognize that in my experience. If you look deranged and/or ignorant, you're unlikely to sway many except those who already agree with you.
The reason this is important is because, unfortunately, misinformation can spread like wildfire on the internet if you let it, so convincing onlookers of the actual facts is important. Sure, it's not healthy to dedicate our lives to schooling ignoramuses on the internet, but it's always good to help in the ways you can in the fight against misinformation.
I'm a news junkie too, and I also used to have a problem with online conflict. I got so worked up posting on Twitter in 2016 that I broke into hives. No joke...
I took several years off from the news, but I reestablished a healthy relationship with it 3 years ago. What revelation did I have?
Comment sections aren't informative. Just stick to factual reporting and if you need to hear some opinions to help you contextualize things you learn, stick to centrist sources and try to read at least two differing opinions per topic.
I only get news from AP News, Reuters and Five Thirty Eight.
If I desperately want to hear an opinion, I'll read an editorial in The Economist or I'll look at polling numbers.
The main issue I find with strict factual reporting like Reuters or the AP is that most of us simply don't understand the context on every single issue to think critically about every story we read. Like, I know I have certain topics I do know a lot about, but the world is just too complex for me to know a lot about every topic.
This is where good explanatory journalism can come in, like Vox does. If you can find a good explanatory journalism outlet that you can trust (for me Vox is one of them), it can do a lot for your understanding of the news. There are also solo journalists doing this, scientists doing science communication, and so forth. Explanations by experts are worth their weight in gold.
I feel like this and the previous comment are what I seek most.
To you and @[email protected], I don't suppose you would mind providing any more sources that you recommend?
For science news/communication, Sabine Hossenfelder is really good. She's an actual physicist and does a great job at presenting science news in a no-bs way. Also a good sense of humor.
For climate-related stuff, Climate Town is very good. He has a master's degree in climate policy, and he cites a ton of sources. His videos have a lot of humor and sarcasm, but they're very strongly fact-based and in-depth. He's not strictly news, but he does more mini-documentaries of topical topics relating to climate science and especially climate policy.
For general journalism and analysis, The Atlantic and The Economist are very good in my experience. They're both subscription-based (which honestly might be why they're so good; they don't have to chase clicks for ad revenue), but you can just browse their website for articles, then copy-paste the article links into archive.is to bypass the paywall. Both have a lot of excellent explanatory journalism and analysis.
I also find public broadcasters produce a lot of good content, as they likewise don't have to chase clicks for ad dollars. PBS and NPR (American), CBC (Canadian), DW (German, but they have English-language documentaries on youtube here), and Al Jazeera (Qatari, just don't trust their reporting on Qatar; their English international journalism is highly reputable, though, and they produce good documentaries available on youtube here) are some examples. In general, I find the long-form content produced (i.e., longer videos and documentaries as well as long-form articles) by these outfits to be better for "getting informed" than their regular just-the-facts news.
Amongst the above public broadcasters, I especially recommend the DW documentaries. They're really prolific and produce a ton of high-quality documentaries, all available for free on youtube.
For geopolitics and the war in Ukraine, William Spaniel is the best I've found. He's a professor of political science, and his videos are in-depth and topical on the happenings of the war. He also gives great insight into political science and geopolitics as a whole. Also has a good sense of humor and engaging style. He's also very quick to upload an analysis whenever there's a major development in the war.
For general data-based analysis, Our World in Data is a really good website. All the data is open-access and open-source, and they have a treasure trove of good charts and accompanying analysis for exploring the world by data. You can filter by subject category as well.
Looks like I'll have a lot of bookmarking to do. You have my appreciation. ^~^
You’d probably like this site:
https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
They rate news articles based on their bias, and source related articles on the same topic. It’s not always 100% accurate, but it is helpful in ensuring you are reading both sides of the story and can try to get an informed take
The internet has made it way too easy for morons to band together and validate their beliefs. for all the same reasons that makes the internet great. Whenever I see blatant misinformation and fear around a topic I happen to know a lot about I feel an overwhelming responsibility to say something. It always just turns into a flame war because these kinds of people just can’t stand facts. It gets nowhere.
I seriously want to just let it go and let them be insufferable but I’m worried what would happen if the truth made no attempt to fight back. So many riots and misguided movements keep happening because of it.
Honestly, the best way to get informed is outside of social media. What gets people talking isn't always what you should know, and what people talk about on social media isn't typically a very high level of discourse. Sure, you do find occasional people putting in high-effort, informed comments, but it's hard to separate those from all the noise.
Probably my top recommendation is to find a non-fiction book (or several!) with good reviews and written by an expert on a topic that interests you and read it. As an example, I'm really interested in sustainable agriculture and gardening, so I got a few books on the topic, Farming the Woods and Silvopasture, and I read them. The nice thing about entire books written by experts is they'll include a lot of details and specifics that you simply wouldn't know that you don't know. And because it's a book, not some short video that has to appease an algorithm, they can take the time to guide you through all the depth you would miss from more superficial material.
Be wary to find legit books by legit experts, as there's unfortunately nothing stopping charlatans from pretending to be experts to sell you stuff or peddle a weirdo ideology.
Some people talk, some people listen.
Those who talk generally don’t listen.
Read the Sunday Paper. Other than that stay away from the news.
My approach is gray rocking. I posted something on Mastodon and got reply from someone I knew was looking to argue with me by what he wrote. I just shut it by just replying, "yeah, sure, whatever you say." Super dismissive, but letting it go in case he replies to that I can just keep replying, whatever you say.
I make one attempt to explain myself, maybe add a clarification. If it still looks like it'd turn into an argument, I just let it go.
Don't follow any news at all, hear it from the people around you, let them have their retarded rants and just let it go. Save your opinionated argumentativeness for the internet, where you can engage in it on your own terms.