Thats why debate culture doesn’t work. The truth is, the type on the right doesn’t even care if they’re wrong. You could give them a thousand things proving them wrong and they won’t even read them.
You could convince a friend maybe but this requires a huge amount of trust and good faith on both sides.
However, ridicule does work because no one wants to join society’s punching bag. An example of this would include foot binding in China where the upper classes sent their children off to foreign universities who mocked relentlessly for being from the foot binding country. I would recommend the book “the honor code: how moral revolutions happen” for more examples. It’s a fantastic, easily accessible and short modern philosophy book by who I consider to be the greatest living philosopher (Kwame Anthony Appiah).
It’s comical how they are “facts over feelings” but would never read a study or consult with someone with actual expertise that isn’t working for a right wing think tank owned by a billionaire.
probing them wrong
Always ask for consent first though.
They don’t ask first, why extend them the courtesy?
Thats why debate culture doesn’t work. The truth is, the type on the right doesn’t even care if they’re wrong. You could give them a thousand things proving them wrong and they won’t even read them.
Can confirm.
No amount of debate stopped Charlie Kirk’s racist spiel and bullshit.
But one thing did stop him.
deleted by creator
I think in a debate what that works more than proving the other person wrong is that the spectators are able to identify who is in the right and who is full of shit, so in the end even if the moron debating doesn’t change his stance the people listening to it would atleast. The same applies for arguments we see in comments sections too I think or I am just putting more faith in us.
Yeah, and in some cases, it’s powerful to see people disagreeing at all. Like if an asshole says a bunch of stuff and no-one challenges it, then that can contribute to a spectator feeling like that the asshole must be right. Even if their initial gut impression is that the asshole is wrong, seeing opinions again and again can chip away at what we believe. Humans are deeply social creatures, so if someone believes that everyone else believes what the asshole is saying, that can cause there to be a powerful force for conforming to a particular view.
Humans are deeply silly creatures, but by understanding the ways that we tend to think like this, we can be smart about how we leverage our instincts to become collectively smart. Sometimes that means engaging in a seemingly futile argument with someone who isn’t arguing in good faith
Isn’t it bots and literal children 90% the time anyway?
Depends. Sometimes it’s paid shills from foreign countries.
https://www.the-independent.com/tech/x-about-this-account-location-maga-b2871068.html
I don’t get why people use the internet for fighting about stuff when you can just get updoots for nothing but being nice and showing your ass a little.
deleted by creator
50% of people who voted voted for him.
there are also a lot of people who didnt vote
deleted by creator
I wouldn’t normally say this but it seems warranted in a thread about “Factism”. Trump did not win over 50% of the popular vote. He won with 49.8% in 2024 and 46.1% in 2016.
This is ridiculous Studies are always behind a paywall.
In before someone says “Well Askshawlley you can just reach out to the author of the studies for a free copy!”
Fully ignoring that yes, that is possible, but no, it won’t be instant, you’ll waste a lot of time getting that study, just to win a argument on the internet with a chud who wasn’t actually interested in facts.
Sci-hub exists.
Eristic, bad-faith debater. They only care about winning. They don’t care how. They aren’t there to change their minds. It’s not a discussion, it‘s a fight; and they‘ll sell their souls, their dignity, and reality, to win.
insert picture of someone playing chess with a pigeon here
We all lose when we play pigeon chess.
Jokes on her now the oligarchs are consolidating all media and defunding real scientific studies
The meme is factually incorrect: it’s worse than that.
I don’t care which ones they are eliminating, it isn’t enough.
Love the detail with the coffee cup vs the beer 😂
Me and my wife discussing chem-trails.
We are not supposed to be a two-party system, we will continue to have this tired good cop/bad cop routine for foreseeable future.
Nothing about it is constitutional. BoTh PaRtIes circumvent actual democracy and squash new political parties/causes by law, since they write the law.
Meanwhile, actual voters are now over 40% INDEPENDENT, and our “major parties” are down to 30% each.
The Constitution has been ignored for a long time. Trump is the inevitable result, and it’s going to get worse. He’s the dumb one.
I’m pretty sure this is why the Bolsheviks just started using firing squads.
Realistically, people are sharing abstracts with one another and then citing their preferred, biased sources of information, whether it’s Al Jazeera, the New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, Democracy Now, The New York Times, etc… In practice, this means relying mostly on secondary sources, with primary studies cherry-picked to support whatever point they are trying to make.
I’ve read 12 pages of a study only for the other person to say cool story bro and move on to the next point. This happened more than once, so I no longer think that don’t things the right way is the best way to go about it. 😅
It’s so much easier to spread misinformation than truth. Just imagine the time investing vetting the studies to share in the response.
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
deleted by creator
Gestures broadly at the US.
No they usually ignore you after you send any studies unfortunately
Or start insulting you. Someone actually responding with a link, even to propaganda trash like Fox, is a more rare occasion.
