3 ms·

Unfortunately, there is an underlying assumption in many debates, arguments, rants, discussions, and wikis online that simply presenting others with "THE TRUTH"

Unfortunately, there is an underlying assumption in many debates, arguments, rants, discussions, and wikis online that simply presenting others with "THE TRUTH" is sufficient to change their viewpoint. I realised a while ago that this is unlikely to be the case. Unless someone is ready to be convinced of some particular fact or truth then you can talk at them until you are blue in the face and not get anywhere. It doesn't matter what clever logic you use, what pretty diagrams you make, or if you are polite or rude or patient or pithy. If someone has convinced themselves of some truth or other, then no statistic or image will un-convince them. Ultimately I believe that it comes done to differences in philosophy. Like a web of ideas in which each person is trapped, any statement from the outside world is filtered and altered by what people already believe. Even seemingly 'obvious' things such as what constitutes evidence; or what does it mean for a sentence to be true; or what is 'research'. Maybe I've been reading too many wikipedia talk pages.

pjc50 10y ago
Indeed. Especially the idea of some "silver bullet" truth, the revelation of which is enough to get people to switch parties. People really underestimate the role of loyalty in politics. The Trump campaign is providing really spectacular examples of this: there are a lot of senior republicans who are really unhappy about him being the candidate, but out of loyalty to the system aren't going to break ranks publicly. But no amount of "surely this will convince people" argument is making a dent in his support. It's always hard on the internet to know if you're convincing bystanders. Your interlocutor is rarely going to give up, but what about everyone else reading who doesn't want to tip their hand?
- ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
  Interesting take on things, but I'm going to disagree with your assertion that Republicans aren't breaking ranks publicly. Many of the Republican Establishment have been very vocal in their anti-Trump stance, here's an active list of 60 from a month ago. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/meet-the-republicans-speaking-out-against-trump http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/meet-the-republicans-speaking-out... Your argument does fit quite well for those in the DNC and Hillary camp. Despite all of the evidence that Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have engaged in pay-for-play politics since Bill left office and the DNC's active roll in assuring Hillary gets the nomination, hardly anyone on the Democrat side sees an issue with the Truth
- striking 10y ago
  > It's always hard on the internet to know if you're convincing bystanders. Hm, not always. Some sites let you compare your relative vote scores to those of the person you're arguing with, on each comment you post.
  - throwaway7767 10y ago
    That does not measure if you're convincing people who previously disagreed with you, it might just be that your view is more common.

pjc50 10y ago

Indeed. Especially the idea of some "silver bullet" truth, the revelation of which is enough to get people to switch parties. People really underestimate the role of loyalty in politics. The Trump campaign is providing really spectacular examples of this: there are a lot of senior republicans who are really unhappy about him being the candidate, but out of loyalty to the system aren't going to break ranks publicly. But no amount of "surely this will convince people" argument is making a dent in his support. It's always hard on the internet to know if you're convincing bystanders. Your interlocutor is rarely going to give up, but what about everyone else reading who doesn't want to tip their hand?

ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
Interesting take on things, but I'm going to disagree with your assertion that Republicans aren't breaking ranks publicly. Many of the Republican Establishment have been very vocal in their anti-Trump stance, here's an active list of 60 from a month ago. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/meet-the-republicans-speaking-out-against-trump http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/meet-the-republicans-speaking-out... Your argument does fit quite well for those in the DNC and Hillary camp. Despite all of the evidence that Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have engaged in pay-for-play politics since Bill left office and the DNC's active roll in assuring Hillary gets the nomination, hardly anyone on the Democrat side sees an issue with the Truth
striking 10y ago
> It's always hard on the internet to know if you're convincing bystanders. Hm, not always. Some sites let you compare your relative vote scores to those of the person you're arguing with, on each comment you post.
- throwaway7767 10y ago
  That does not measure if you're convincing people who previously disagreed with you, it might just be that your view is more common.