4 ms·

Speaking is meant to exchange information. You're not exchanging any information when the other side agrees with you and knows everything you're saying. An adv

Speaking is meant to exchange information. You're not exchanging any information when the other side agrees with you and knows everything you're saying. An advocacy group is ineffective if all its members have this mindset. With signaling mindset you have no chance to convince anyone of anything. I'd rather get someone thinking differently a little bit confused than lament something with people who think the same. It doesn't reinforce helplessness. I have many anecdotes with somewhat low chance of moving opinions. Few people will admit changing their minds, but sometimes they will agree with you but still offer a weaker counterpoint of the opposing narrative. You can't flip someone's opinion 180° on the internet, but you can get someone on the other side to acknowledge a counter point.

lapcat 4y ago
> Speaking is meant to exchange information. Speaking has many purposes. Why do you keep trying to "limit speech", so to speak? > You're not exchanging any information when the other side agrees with you I disagree. Is there not a difference between facts and opinions? Why do I have to "change my mind" in order to learn a new fact? What if the new fact actually supports my opinion? > and knows everything you're saying Confirming that another person knows what you know can be useful. > An advocacy group is ineffective if all its members have this mindset. To the contrary, advocacy groups are most effective when the members agree with each other, and most ineffective when they fight among themselves. > Few people will admit changing their minds, but sometimes they will agree with you but still offer a weaker counterpoint of the opposing narrative. This gives the appearance to me that you're telling yourself you've changed other people's mind and that they now agree with you, despite evidence to the contrary. > You can't flip someone's opinion 180° on the internet, but you can get someone on the other side to acknowledge a counter point. What does this mean? To me it sounds kind of like debate club, a game with scoring.

lapcat 4y ago

> Speaking is meant to exchange information. Speaking has many purposes. Why do you keep trying to "limit speech", so to speak? > You're not exchanging any information when the other side agrees with you I disagree. Is there not a difference between facts and opinions? Why do I have to "change my mind" in order to learn a new fact? What if the new fact actually supports my opinion? > and knows everything you're saying Confirming that another person knows what you know can be useful. > An advocacy group is ineffective if all its members have this mindset. To the contrary, advocacy groups are most effective when the members agree with each other, and most ineffective when they fight among themselves. > Few people will admit changing their minds, but sometimes they will agree with you but still offer a weaker counterpoint of the opposing narrative. This gives the appearance to me that you're telling yourself you've changed other people's mind and that they now agree with you, despite evidence to the contrary. > You can't flip someone's opinion 180° on the internet, but you can get someone on the other side to acknowledge a counter point. What does this mean? To me it sounds kind of like debate club, a game with scoring.