So…you’re arguing with internet strangers that very likely have 0 influence in your community about extremist views, but letting the people who are actually physically in your presence carry on with those same beliefs and influence those around you.
Isn’t that a bit…futile?
Like I’m not saying you have to go out and physically fight people with Trump/Nazi paraphernalia or something, but it’s kind of a weird disconnect.
Arguments are never for the benefit of the person you’re arguing against as that person likely will not change their mind. I believe there are a few studies that strengthen that claim. So, when I argue with strangers, it’s for the benefit of the lurkers who fall somewhere between both of our ideas and are looking for something to push them in a direction. They’re willing to hear both sides or are simply entertained at the idea of someone they dislike being verbally flagulated. The people who are physically around me are more than likely not at a point in their lives where they’re open to discussion to be convinced out of the positions they hold.
I can’t imagine anything more futile than trying to reason with someone who hasn’t arrived at their beliefs by using it. However online the best outcome is I convince someone I’m right. At worst, I’m entertainment.
So, when I argue with strangers, it’s for the benefit of the lurkers who fall somewhere between both of our ideas and are looking for something to push them in a direction
Can’t this also apply to bystanders irl too? If someone sees you "sir/ma’am"ing someone with a Trump hat rather than ignoring them (or fighting them I guess), doesn’t that also change their perceptions of acceptability of those people?
I guess I just don’t get it, and if your internet argument statement is true, I never will. 🤷
Well sure but I really don’t think my local Wendy’s is the appropriate locale. Being polite with people you strongly disagree with isn’t compromising morals or contradictory, it’s knowing the right time and place for certain things. So yes while I could try my hand at professionally debating people where others have come to attend for that express purpose, that’s not really my skill set.
I also think you know the difference between this conversation and a debate on more serious and concrete positions. But hey, maybe you’re really convinced I should be verbally accosting everyone who shows public support for someone or something I don’t like and doing anything less is hypocrisy. I’m opening to being wrong by being right. Either way this was fun to elaborate on, hope you found it entertaining at least.
So…you’re arguing with internet strangers that very likely have 0 influence in your community about extremist views, but letting the people who are actually physically in your presence carry on with those same beliefs and influence those around you.
Isn’t that a bit…futile?
Like I’m not saying you have to go out and physically fight people with Trump/Nazi paraphernalia or something, but it’s kind of a weird disconnect.
Arguments are never for the benefit of the person you’re arguing against as that person likely will not change their mind. I believe there are a few studies that strengthen that claim. So, when I argue with strangers, it’s for the benefit of the lurkers who fall somewhere between both of our ideas and are looking for something to push them in a direction. They’re willing to hear both sides or are simply entertained at the idea of someone they dislike being verbally flagulated. The people who are physically around me are more than likely not at a point in their lives where they’re open to discussion to be convinced out of the positions they hold.
I can’t imagine anything more futile than trying to reason with someone who hasn’t arrived at their beliefs by using it. However online the best outcome is I convince someone I’m right. At worst, I’m entertainment.
Thanks for taking the time to try to explain it to me, though. I appreciate it all the same.
Can’t this also apply to bystanders irl too? If someone sees you "sir/ma’am"ing someone with a Trump hat rather than ignoring them (or fighting them I guess), doesn’t that also change their perceptions of acceptability of those people?
I guess I just don’t get it, and if your internet argument statement is true, I never will. 🤷
Well sure but I really don’t think my local Wendy’s is the appropriate locale. Being polite with people you strongly disagree with isn’t compromising morals or contradictory, it’s knowing the right time and place for certain things. So yes while I could try my hand at professionally debating people where others have come to attend for that express purpose, that’s not really my skill set.
I also think you know the difference between this conversation and a debate on more serious and concrete positions. But hey, maybe you’re really convinced I should be verbally accosting everyone who shows public support for someone or something I don’t like and doing anything less is hypocrisy. I’m opening to being wrong by being right. Either way this was fun to elaborate on, hope you found it entertaining at least.