One thing I always hated about microblogs and their character limits was that it was just enough characters to spout stupid bullshit but never enough to explain to why it's wrong.

Gish galloping is a well known argumentative technique to avoid scrutiny. It works so well, that now the US government is using a version of it to destroy the government at a rapid pace.

The common pattern I see often is that they simply refuse to address or even acknowledge your points and instead just spout even more bullshit. Once I see that, I just block and move on.

I have no time for intellectually dishonest people.

"Never argue with stupid people because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." George Carlin

So often it's me typing out a big old comment. Realizing I can preempt some nuance to help the conversation. Thinking of a dozen more little nitpicks that might happen and realizing it's just not worth it and it's really the idiocy of the argument that's making it so hard to explain myself.

I met a guy in a sauna the other day who started preaching to me and saying that he doesn't believe in science because it contradicts the bible story of creation.

I just had nothing to say to this man. His perception of reality is so far off base that I cannot comprehend his thought processes.

There are some people who have just been filled with so much wrong information over the course of their life that it's impossible to reach them. Anything you say to them will have a keyword that puts their guard up, any fact you share would be fake news. It's like their brains have been encrypted with the propaganda and hate. It's pavlovian. I try to recognize it in myself and maintain an open mind but it's hard.

In science there is an answer "you are not even wrong" which is a polite way of saying that wat you said makes so little sense, that it cannot even be disproven.

I used to work with people who would smoke whatever weed their friend gave them but wouldn't get the covid vaccine because "you don't know what's in it"

"Right extremists are defending Democracy"

Just 2 weeks ago and I still haven't recovered from hearing that in person.

MAGAs. Sometimes I don't even debate them, I ignore them and talk about them as if they weren't there, make fun of their arguments, laugh at them, mock them, just generally bully them, without even addressing them directly. They really hate that.

MAGAs and Anti-Vaxxers are about the only acceptable bullying targets, and they should be bullied as viciously and as relentlessly as possible. The damage they have done is incalculable, they deserve it.

I see you have met my in-laws. This isn't just some boomer humor, they have truly transcended their Fox News addicted roots and now get really angry about aliens, chemtrails, and all sorts of bullshit.

Yes, I block them, after I make sure that they're insistent on being disingenuous, and not merely misinformed.

Related: Pretty sure I've blocked most of the .world moderators/admins at this point.

7/10 ppl online.

But w lemme its still 7/10....but there's obly like 10 users so I can handle it.

online arguments never change minds, they only serve to galvanize each persons prior beliefs

1/5

Went to the UK and the director was shitting on vegans. I said, "you can hate them but at least they're good for climate change" (I ignored mentioning I was a vegan in the past). Holy fuck, non stop verbal diarrhea. He said that global warming isn't true because scientists have agendas. Global warming is when seasons change (I think he was being funny or facetious about that). He also said eating meat had some carbon in their bones and that's good for the earth or some shit.

I wasn't able to get a word in. I did eventually say that his definition of climate change would be agreed by no one. Then he came at me again and eventually ended it with "well, you started it".

I said, "yes and let's end it and move on"

He did not and then said more random shit.

It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with an idiot.

In my wise old age I don't waste time on fools. I no longer have the patience. I used to try to talk them out of whatever stupidity they're peddling and it was rarely successful. Not worth the effort.

Brandolini's law (or the bullshit asymmetry principle) is an Internet adage coined in 2013 by Italian programmer Alberto Brandolini. It compares the considerable effort of debunking misinformation to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. The adage states:

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.[1][2]

The challenge of refuting bullshit does not come just from its time-consuming nature, but also from the challenge of defying and confronting one's community.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

No, I've never tried interacting with myself like that.

I try not to argue with people on the internet. Its a complete waste or time and im actually surprised by how many people do it.

I dont think you can change anyones mind with comments.

I live in rual northern Nevada and everyone here is hardcore brainwashed republicans. I used to try to correct them when they said dumb shit but it just made me look stupid, so now I just watch and listen to there ramblings. It’s more entertaining for me and less of a headache.

Yes, i have meet a person before. I have also commented on the internet.

Every maga I come across. Just a bag full of excuses for pedophiles.

Its unethical to have a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.

The denominator is divisible by the numerator.

Sure. Charlie Kirk was a fantastic example.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

That fact that there is a term for it is just as depressing.