1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
But actually the big thing that helped me was sitting down and assessing why I wanted to correct this stuff. It never gave me any satisfaction, it never lead to anything I liked, and a good deal of it was likely venting trauma from being talked down to all my life. Once I put it together it just kind of stopped happening.
Eventually you learn that its not worth it.
90% of the time, people aren't arguing in good faith. You can only hear another variant of the cosmological argument so many times before you realize that arguing is pointless
This, plus it helps to keep in mind that it's not your responsibility to educate people even if they're objectively wrong. Nor is it your responsibility to change the mind of people with garbage opinions.
When someone is argumentative, they are rarely after an actual conversation, or even a debate. They're after an interaction they can win.
They are not entitled to your engagement.
Quite literally, you need to learn self-control, how to pick your fights, manage your emotions.
You really wanna let a bunch of random asshats on the internet live rent free in your head, dictate the emotional course of your day, your evening, your week?
This is where the 'touch grass' meme partially comes from.
Sometimes, you need to let go, walk away, pet a kitty, hug a dog, admire a tree... or more ideally, work on some hobby that you find fun and fulfilling, and is at least potentially 'useful' in some very broad kind of practical way.
Also, a lot of people are beyond wrong/misinformed; they're actively committed to denying that they're wrong, even after its been shown that they are wrong.
You can just block people who are unwilling to admit fault or learn.
Its doesn't need to be your responsibility to personally deal with every dumb idiot asshole on the internet.
i usually engage briefly so that others can see there is pushback, because i know most people are lurkers and it is important to me that there are both sides represented. but i learned when they respond in bad faith i can just disengage and either block or move on. i listen to my body's reactions and try to leave when i feel myself getting agitated. it works for me :)
I don't argue with people who are wrong. I point out where they are wrong, and why, for the sake of passers-by who may need more complete information, because most people are lurkers, and most people tend to believe what's typed on the internet without much further question.
Yeah, I tend to reply for lurkers, not to change the OPs mind.
Lurkers who haven't entered a dog in the fight are more likely to be convinced than someone already wound up and swinging. As they read, they are more open, much as I am when I lurk.
This is also why I don't necessarily mind "fake" posts. The original situation in the post might be fake, but the discussion from people responding does tend to have good or interesting responses in varying levels of nuance.
I'm not exactly great at it myself... but my dad used to tell me a story from his job.
There was a guy that made some claims, another desperately trying to correct him and tell him he's wrong. To no avail, afterwards, he turned to another person that had a doctorate in the very topic they were arguing about. And said "why didn't you say anything!? You know he is wrong!"
To which the doctor replied "yeah, but it's not my problem that he's an idiot"
You should stop treating arguments like a game. The point isn't to win - it's to find the truth. Every argument should start from the acknowledgement that you might be wrong, and if so, you wish to not be wrong for a minute longer than necessary. I can't think of a single thing that better demonstrates intellectual honesty than someone actually changing their view when faced with a convincing argument.
However, not all arguments are worth continuing. When your opponent doesn't even engage with what you're saying, or when you're not even open to the possibility that they might have a point, there's no reason to keep going - there's no end to it. So many online "arguments" are just people performing for an audience with no real regard for whether their points are landing or not. They're after applause, not a change of mind.
I can't think of a single thing that better demonstrates intellectual honesty than someone actually changing their view when faced with a convincing argument.
What if this argument is actually weak, and only appears strong because you have no counter-argument? Should you still change your mind? Does the fact that it is persuasive mean it is true?
Well, no - it doesn't always mean they're right. However, why would you hold on to your old view if someone makes an argument against it that you can't counter? At the very least it should give you some pause and make you look more deeply into the reasons why you're clinging to that view in the first place. Even if it doesn't directly disprove your point, it should still show that maybe you don't actually have the level of understanding on the subject that warrants the confidence you have in that particular view and perhaps you just want this to be the truth.
It's okay to have an opinion on something or lean toward A being more likely true than B, while still acknowledging that it's just your current view - not necessarily the absolute truth.
I mean, imagine not being able to respond to someone who defends the flat world. Even though I don't know enough about this, I trust scientists, even if I can't provide enough arguments that the earth is geoid at that moment, is this a good reason to question my view? We have a lot of beliefs in life that we don't defend very well. If we want to justify all of them, I guess we won't have time to live.
In a situation like this, you'd need to consider whether them being right on this particular point would actually shift your position.
A flat-earther might claim the moon landing never happened, show you a picture, and explain how it was actually taken in a studio. Okay - maybe you can't prove them wrong. Maybe they even made a valid observation about that picture. What happens if you grant them this one point and acknowledge that yeah, they're making a good point and maybe this particular picture is fake? Then what? Does that prove the moon landing never happened? No. Does it prove the earth is flat? No. At most it proves that one specific picture was fake. You still have a mountain of evidence supporting your belief that the earth is a sphere, not a disc, so it doesn't shift your original view. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Just because someone proves to you that jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams doesn't mean you have to grant them that 9/11 was an inside job. It's not a logical contradiction to hold these two views at the same time.
It's already been mentioned that some people are putting on a show for an audience. There's more to the social media metagame too. Many are simply trolls. Social media has gone a lot deeper than basic forum posting days.
Some commenters are setting up their own victory or confirmation bias. They post something incendiary which is an invitation for polar opposite replies so they can dump their prepared responses, which always sounds better than anyone who replies with a comment written off the cuff.
Sometimes they're reposting a common variant of an (un)popular remark that more people than not will upvote/downvote or reply in agreeance/disagreeance with, thus proving a point to themselves (an audiences).
Of course there's the ones who are flooding the zone with shit so they can shift the Overton Window.
I don't know about you guys but the more I think about it the more social media seems like an actual asylum. There's not an exchange of ideas like back in the older days of the internet. It's more like the mentally unstable unhoused people who roam around cities arguing with themselves. Social media puts them all in a single room and let's chaos ensue. All while the tech industry sells ads and subscriptions to view the pandemonium.
I usually reply once. I don't argue. I said what I said, bye.
This is the correct way. Reply -> turn off notifications -> forget about it -> live a happy life.
you don't have a problem with stopping the argument. you have a problem with the desire to always be right. you're compensating for a lack of recognition in your skills and intelligence in real life.
accept that you will never get that recognition and you will stop needing to be right.
I know this, because I was this.
next time you see something that someone said is wrong, just high five them and move on.
step 1. understand that people are people
step 2. understand that other people have their own problems are often don't have the time/energy to focus on the topic at hand
step 3. understand that you're not going to help other people by hammering your argument into their head. instead the thing that helps more is to make a better quality of life for everyone, then they will have the time to actually listen to you and find a meaningful result.
Why would I want to stop?
I just accept that I tried educating that person and if they refuse to learn that's fine and I move on
weed
Bro dont argue on public social media especially fb. They're idiots. I only stay there for marketplace and like 2 friends.
I wish i could voice my thoughts on fb but I'd get instantly labeled as a terrorist by the Drump regime for daring to go against dear leader and oligarchy.
On public social media they likely think I'm a right wing Drump voter 😄
It all depends on your motivation, but what I prefer to do is think about the reader. Imagine there's some post and someone makes a comment and I know that the comment is wrong or misleading. So I might decide to reply. And my comment is there to help readers not be deceived by the previous comment.
Therefore, I don't need to deal with any sub comments and I don't need to keep following that thread. The most important thing was to have a rebuttal to the primary claim that was made and I already wrote that so my work is done. I find this to be an okay use of time, at least some of the time, because a lot of times the commenter that I'm replying to is someone that I just can't reach. They might have some immovable position on a political issue or they could be religious or they could be argumentative or trolling. And I could go back and forth with them several times, but really nobody else would read our thread, so it would be a waste of time.
Of course that's only one approach and it really depends on the types of comments and issues that you're concerned with. But it's one way to reduce stress and save you time.
Whenever I see a comment on social media that I think is wrong, I feel the need to correct it.
Yeah it can be rough. My strategy is simple; I practice radical acceptance of the fact that 1) I'm always right about everything no matter what and 2) everybody else is wrong and stupid. Also 3) nobody is more knowledgeable than me about any subject, period. Its simply impossible.
I find that this goes a long way towards reducing friction. Hope this helps!
Like this.
That's not how you do it you dolt!
That's not an argument.
Yes it is. That'll be five pounds.
Yes it is.
Depends on the scenario. Most often, I just mute the thread and try delete notification of that vary arguement because I know I am extremely reactive. If that person to me is really scummy, I tend to just blocked them and try move on the day. Life is too short to be hyperfocus on an arguement I doubt anybody would care in the long-term.
It's okay with me if people are wrong. I disagree with everyone on at least one thing, I find, if I talk to them for more than a few minutes.
You could try this--offer your correction, and then never look at the thread again. Disengage. You've done all you can do, let it go. Eventually, you WILL get to that point, so get there quickly and on your terms.
It's okay if people are wrong, and a lot of people are.
If you really can't control yourself, then you might benefit from therapy.
I just deleted everything
I downvote and hide the thread. I used to argue with flerfs on Twitter years ago. Didn't take long before I noticed they believe what they want. Trying to educate is a waste of my limited time.
Honestly, if you mean Facebook then I salute you for having the patience. If I had to correct the moronic comments I see whenever I use that platform I'd explode. It genuinely made me loose faith in democracy as a system. I honestly don't think half of these people should have a vote.
Speaking of Facebook, I've been seeing comments there from people who are seemingly completely unaware or in denial of the crimes Trump has committed. Whenever there's a post about how he ought to be removed from office and/or arrested, these people go "on what grounds?" "Name one crime he's committed. I'll wait". Like, I don't get the vive they're sincerely asking, I get the vibe it's a rhetorical challenge. They think it's a gotcha. They legitimately don't think people have an answer fir what Trump has done that should warrant removal from office
There are two rules to happiness.
Rule1: Never say everything you know.
Can't argue with people on social media if you're not on social media.
taps_forehead.jpg
I only post on Lemmy and I don't do a lot of arguing because it leads to beatdowns. Either I get beatdowns from idiots or I get a well-deserved beatdown because I'm the idiot. Get enough beatdowns and you too will tire of it - maybe you are now! Maybe this is a cry for help!
Delete the app
An adage that i found helps: never argue with an idiot, because the best possible outcome is that you will win an argument against an idiot
To put it a slightly different way- think about what you’re doing and why. Will it achieve anything? Will anybody find it useful? Will it enrich your life? Or are you just chasing a cheap, hollow, short-lived dopamine hit?
Add to that the fact that nowadays there’s a reasonable chance that you’re interacting with a chatgpt prompt designed to farm engagement, and it should become relatively easy to have those “…what am i doing?” moments
Turn off notifications. Even if they reply, you'll never see it. One comment, if you have to, and then you 'walk away.'
