• TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    it’s hard to reconcile with others on the internet when you don’t know anything about them. their personhood gets reduced to a series of opinions and stances. I’m worried that engaging with people through the lens of formal logic will just further disconnect us from one another.

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      yeesh does that hit home, last day or two i’ve been trying very hard to have a conversation with someone and their replies were wild assumptions about me and insults based on said wild assumptions, no actual arguments or anything, just being mad at a version of me they fully made up in their head. At first i felt kinda hurt by their words, i think rather understandably i’m not a fan of being insulted even when the insults make little sense, but then it just became really confusing how confident they were being about things they made up.

      i think as long as you don’t try to psycho-analyse a stranger on the internet basing on a single conversation you had you’ll be fine lol. stick to arguing with their points and trying to understand their stances not attacking them personality or extracting a whole made up image of who they could be

    • dingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I have a coworker who if I had met her online, I probably wouldn’t have gotten along with her. We have such completely polar opposite and radically different viewpoints and philosophies in life. We are exact polar opposites in things like political ideologies, religious notions, moral conventions, philosophical views on life, the state of the world, new technology, etc.

      But despite our radical differences, she is among the people who I care most about on this planet. If I met her in some sort of internet debate, I would hate her and she would hate me. But in person, when you slowly get to know people over time, it’s different. You realize that they are human just like you are. You both just want to survive on this planet and make your own way. You both have struggles. You both just want to joke and get along with one another.

      • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I get where you’re coming from but that’s why I find it especially egregious when they activily choose to pursue willful ignorance and vote against their best interests.

  • balderdash@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    People on the internet will literally take the worst interpretation of what you’re saying in order to argue against it. While you’re stuck clarifying your point, they just keep attacking (often without advancing any competing thoughts of their own).

    If I weren’t so passionate about standing behind my comments I wouldn’t keep falling for it, but somehow I do every time.

  • explodicle@local106.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The frequency of strawman and slippery slope accusations tells us more about how people usually think than how people usually argue.

  • Donkter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    This post is saying that killing orphans is ok and that Batman Begins was the best Christopher Nolan Batman movie. Before I get to the orphan thing I have to say that the Dark Knight Rises was clearly the better movie and thinking anything else is just one step away from starting World War 3.

  • FreshLight@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    Labeling whole arguments seems to be really effective as long as the opposition gets it. Usually this is not the case, though.