3 ms·

Eh, I tried to take that view but then I started hearing those wrong pithy responses reflected back at me via my real life friends, which showed that their camp

Eh, I tried to take that view but then I started hearing those wrong pithy responses reflected back at me via my real life friends, which showed that their campaign worked. Now I don't argue to try to change the person's mind, but rather to plant the seed of critical thinking that may help an onlooker find the truth.

wutheringh 4y ago
[flagged]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
csydas 4y ago
I absolutely understand your strategy and that there is a huge frustration to have such awful pithy ideas continue to spread. One thing I'd like to offer though is a reminder of the quote "living well is the best revenge." I deal with a lot of prima donna managers, technical persons, you name it, and it became a lot easier for me to just let things go when I realized the best thing I can do to counter the pithy/ridiculous notions they espouse was just to do my thing and be comfortable in what I do, say, think, and feel (regardless of the feeling). It has an amazingly convincing effect on many without me having to write/say a single word, I am much less stressed as I don't feel a need to defend my thoughts and ideas, and I find my methods and ways far more simple and effective than those which are espoused by my colleagues. I don't insist that I'm right in every case or my strategies are right for everyone, I just focus on what is right for me. That it sends a strong message is simply a side-effect, albeit a positive one I think.
- iinnPP 4y ago
  That only works if you are in a position that isn't negatively impacted (yet) by the permeation of specific ideas. The conversation has, unsurprisingly, shifted slightly as inflation puts more people from your position into a position where not caring could eventually be life altering. It's quite concerning to say the least.
ianai 4y ago
“Never debate stupid. Bystanders will not distinguish between your salient words and your own. They’ll just see two seemingly educated people arguing and assume their points are equally valid.“ People respond most often and vehemently to what they disagree with on the internet. It’s a guttural response and not grounded in level headed thinking.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > “Never debate stupid. Bystanders will not distinguish between your salient words and your own. They’ll just see two seemingly educated people arguing and assume their points are equally valid.“ This is foolish because if you just let things stand, then they see only one seemingly educated person making an equally valid point, rather than two, which is worse. Like in this example right now, I could have let your point stand and not corrected it, then a lot of people would have taken it to heart rather than reconsidering like some are as they read this.
  - jason-phillips 4y ago
    I think you actually just illustrated and proved his point for him, in fact. However, now I've just made myself a hypocrite and broken my own self-similar rule to never respond to or debate with stupid.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      They made two points. One is incorrect and the other is irrelevant, which is my point.
  - roncesvalles 4y ago
    This is incorrect.
  - ianai 4y ago
    It’s foolish if taken too far, I think, but useful often. The trouble is even if outright false claims are responded to with a Wikipedia or news article (and possibly nothing further), with a large enough audience, the proponents of the falsehood will eventually try to subvert that Wikipedia or news article.
vorpalhex 4y ago
I usually ask a question or two, or correct some tiny non-combustible fact. Just enough for them to start questioning the pithy response. What gets me is how much the pithy response is often just.. wrong. Not a matter of opinion or politics, not something hard to research, just wrong.
troad 4y ago
This is the way. You don't even have to argue, it's usually enough to confidently note that you disagree with the points being made. In a group setting, that's all it takes to prevent a false impression of consensus from emerging. In private settings, it can plant that seed of doubt. Very rarely will anyone push you to justify your disagreement, and you absolutely don't need to engage if they do. In a friendly context you can say it's not worth arguing about, in a more adversarial context you can let the other person know you have no obligation to engage. Take a note from the people who deprogram extremists or cult members. You won't get far if you argue with the person all the time, nor if you pretend they're right. You confidently tell them they're wrong on this one, make it clear this doesn't affect your opinion of them as a human being, and change the topic to something friendly. They have enough self-doubt to do the rest for you.
- escapedmoose 4y ago
  > They have enough self-doubt to do the rest for you Realizing this works wonders. Often it’s enough to politely point out one or two factual errors. “I’m not invested enough in the topic to argue on it, but I do know that X is factually incorrect.” It’s non-confrontational, so it doesn’t put people on the defense. Plus it gives them a thread to pick at to unravel the inconsistencies with their own reasoning.

wutheringh 4y ago

[flagged]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

csydas 4y ago

I absolutely understand your strategy and that there is a huge frustration to have such awful pithy ideas continue to spread. One thing I'd like to offer though is a reminder of the quote "living well is the best revenge." I deal with a lot of prima donna managers, technical persons, you name it, and it became a lot easier for me to just let things go when I realized the best thing I can do to counter the pithy/ridiculous notions they espouse was just to do my thing and be comfortable in what I do, say, think, and feel (regardless of the feeling). It has an amazingly convincing effect on many without me having to write/say a single word, I am much less stressed as I don't feel a need to defend my thoughts and ideas, and I find my methods and ways far more simple and effective than those which are espoused by my colleagues. I don't insist that I'm right in every case or my strategies are right for everyone, I just focus on what is right for me. That it sends a strong message is simply a side-effect, albeit a positive one I think.

iinnPP 4y ago
That only works if you are in a position that isn't negatively impacted (yet) by the permeation of specific ideas. The conversation has, unsurprisingly, shifted slightly as inflation puts more people from your position into a position where not caring could eventually be life altering. It's quite concerning to say the least.

ianai 4y ago

“Never debate stupid. Bystanders will not distinguish between your salient words and your own. They’ll just see two seemingly educated people arguing and assume their points are equally valid.“ People respond most often and vehemently to what they disagree with on the internet. It’s a guttural response and not grounded in level headed thinking.

guerrilla 4y ago
> “Never debate stupid. Bystanders will not distinguish between your salient words and your own. They’ll just see two seemingly educated people arguing and assume their points are equally valid.“ This is foolish because if you just let things stand, then they see only one seemingly educated person making an equally valid point, rather than two, which is worse. Like in this example right now, I could have let your point stand and not corrected it, then a lot of people would have taken it to heart rather than reconsidering like some are as they read this.
- jason-phillips 4y ago
  I think you actually just illustrated and proved his point for him, in fact. However, now I've just made myself a hypocrite and broken my own self-similar rule to never respond to or debate with stupid.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    They made two points. One is incorrect and the other is irrelevant, which is my point.
- roncesvalles 4y ago
  This is incorrect.
- ianai 4y ago
  It’s foolish if taken too far, I think, but useful often. The trouble is even if outright false claims are responded to with a Wikipedia or news article (and possibly nothing further), with a large enough audience, the proponents of the falsehood will eventually try to subvert that Wikipedia or news article.

vorpalhex 4y ago

I usually ask a question or two, or correct some tiny non-combustible fact. Just enough for them to start questioning the pithy response. What gets me is how much the pithy response is often just.. wrong. Not a matter of opinion or politics, not something hard to research, just wrong.

troad 4y ago

This is the way. You don't even have to argue, it's usually enough to confidently note that you disagree with the points being made. In a group setting, that's all it takes to prevent a false impression of consensus from emerging. In private settings, it can plant that seed of doubt. Very rarely will anyone push you to justify your disagreement, and you absolutely don't need to engage if they do. In a friendly context you can say it's not worth arguing about, in a more adversarial context you can let the other person know you have no obligation to engage. Take a note from the people who deprogram extremists or cult members. You won't get far if you argue with the person all the time, nor if you pretend they're right. You confidently tell them they're wrong on this one, make it clear this doesn't affect your opinion of them as a human being, and change the topic to something friendly. They have enough self-doubt to do the rest for you.

escapedmoose 4y ago
> They have enough self-doubt to do the rest for you Realizing this works wonders. Often it’s enough to politely point out one or two factual errors. “I’m not invested enough in the topic to argue on it, but I do know that X is factually incorrect.” It’s non-confrontational, so it doesn’t put people on the defense. Plus it gives them a thread to pick at to unravel the inconsistencies with their own reasoning.