Because some people are not arguing in good faith. Sometimes it’s best to call them out on what they’re doing so people learn to recognize the behavior.
This comment section is not the first time this topic has been thought about and discussed.
Because some people are not arguing in good faith. Sometimes it’s best to call them out on what they’re doing so people learn to recognize the behavior.
This comment section is not the first time this topic has been thought about and discussed.
Well, I see it like this: A conversation can only ever be had under the assumption that all participants are acting in good faith. If that assumption breaks down then the conversation simply cannot continue. Once you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that your conversation partner does not want to share information with you or does not wish to convince you of their point of view but instead has some kind other motive that does not involve listening to and understanding your points, then there’s nothing else to do but to exit the conversation.
It’s fine to not care about what other people think and engage with the other person in a discussion. Even then, there can still be value in our arguments for the other people on this website with us. Our discourse can be useful.
As far this Onion video, we should engage in the relentless pursuit of the truth regardless of other people’s opinions real or imagined. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be grateful when someone is arguing for equality.
The conversations we are having on this public comment section are of course public. This can be observed by the fact that people jump in at different points of the comment chains in this comment section. Not to mention the fact we are having a meta discussion about the discussions. Also, most instances have some form of voting in their default views. So the audience is real.
What I find to be the common misconception is that because we are having this discussion over an artificial medium that somehow cheapens the discourse. However, this is a real discussion with real people about a topic that affects real people.
A primary goal should be to educate people. There’s no reason why the discussion can’t be entertaining. Usually this shouldn’t be at anyone’s expense, however we shouldn’t tolerate intolerant people. The far-right have seen the internet as a serious means of communication and are using it as a way to spread their ideology to devastating effect. Making fun of these intolerant people is a necessary step to preventing the spread of disinformation. But making the argument on its own is great too.
I don’t have the time or the energy to reply to every incorrect take or argument I see on the internet. And I typically read more than I write. That’s probably true of most internet users. So I appreciate it when I see other people pushing back against intolerant ideologies. Especially in this case, where the bad faith was so explicitly apparent. No one person could fight back against the right-wing infosphere by themselves. Defeating intolerant ideologies and educating people is a group effort.
Is a rat’s tail like a monkey’s paw?
Also, I lost track of your username. I thought I was arguing with another person in this chain. So anyway, thanks again! =)
Because some people are not arguing in good faith. Sometimes it’s best to call them out on what they’re doing so people learn to recognize the behavior.
This comment section is not the first time this topic has been thought about and discussed.
Well, I see it like this: A conversation can only ever be had under the assumption that all participants are acting in good faith. If that assumption breaks down then the conversation simply cannot continue. Once you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that your conversation partner does not want to share information with you or does not wish to convince you of their point of view but instead has some kind other motive that does not involve listening to and understanding your points, then there’s nothing else to do but to exit the conversation.
I can see your point that in the context of a public discussion board it may make some sense to consider a possible audience, but I also feel like this comes with such a rat’s tail of different problems that it’s probably not worth the effort. It provides a very perverse incentive for an argument to devolve into some kind of spectacle sport, where one ends up disregarding the conversational partner and instead is rewarded for focussing on an imaginary audience. I think that’s not desirable and it’s therefore best to treat every conversation as if it were private - if possible.
It’s fine to not care about what other people think and engage with the other person in a discussion. Even then, there can still be value in our arguments for the other people on this website with us. Our discourse can be useful.
As far this Onion video, we should engage in the relentless pursuit of the truth regardless of other people’s opinions real or imagined. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be grateful when someone is arguing for equality.
The conversations we are having on this public comment section are of course public. This can be observed by the fact that people jump in at different points of the comment chains in this comment section. Not to mention the fact we are having a meta discussion about the discussions. Also, most instances have some form of voting in their default views. So the audience is real.
What I find to be the common misconception is that because we are having this discussion over an artificial medium that somehow cheapens the discourse. However, this is a real discussion with real people about a topic that affects real people.
A primary goal should be to educate people. There’s no reason why the discussion can’t be entertaining. Usually this shouldn’t be at anyone’s expense, however we shouldn’t tolerate intolerant people. The far-right have seen the internet as a serious means of communication and are using it as a way to spread their ideology to devastating effect. Making fun of these intolerant people is a necessary step to preventing the spread of disinformation. But making the argument on its own is great too.
I don’t have the time or the energy to reply to every incorrect take or argument I see on the internet. And I typically read more than I write. That’s probably true of most internet users. So I appreciate it when I see other people pushing back against intolerant ideologies. Especially in this case, where the bad faith was so explicitly apparent. No one person could fight back against the right-wing infosphere by themselves. Defeating intolerant ideologies and educating people is a group effort.
Is a rat’s tail like a monkey’s paw?
Also, I lost track of your username. I thought I was arguing with another person in this chain. So anyway, thanks again! =)