The entire spirit of bickering about everything on the internet as if making some point or dunking on someone actually has some meaningful social value is exhausting regardless of the particular viewpoint being espoused. Like, yeah, if it’s dirt stupid and inherently destructive it’s worse, but I see the same sort of behavior from all sorts of different perspectives and none of it is good.
It’s almost impossible to have a good faith, rational debate on the internet. Logical validity and soundness go out the window the moment someone has to examine their biases and check whether their assumptions have been accurate.
Yeah, but I’m not sure “debate” in the sense the internet uses it has any relevance anyway. Debates in the formal sense are basically an academic sport, but what people on the internet do is basically just aggressively dribbling at people who have no interest in playing basketball.
Like, generally people on the internet just start trying to debate bystanders making casual comments or sharing their opinions who aren’t in it to prove anything. It’s kind of weird. Debating shouldn’t be assumed to be the default form of conversation, or even the default form of disagreement.
One doesn’t have to be a professional to play a sport. One shouldn’t have to be a professional to participate in a rational debate either.
Dribbling and dunking on an unwilling participant in the grocery store who’s just trying to do some shopping would be a douchebag move. But if you go to a basketball court and start engaging with the people dribbling, then they’re not being a douche when they dunk on you.
Internet forums are a public space where theoretically people can discuss whatever they want. If someone doesn’t want to participate in a discussion then they don’t have to, but they shouldn’t get upset when they see someone lay out a well-crafted treatise on the nature of toe beans. If they don’t want to debate, they don’t have to engage. That’s the freedom of the internet.
I think the problem are the trolls who don’t engage in good faith or rationally, and simply make disingenuous strawman arguments so they can insult people about scenarios that they’ve made up and projected onto the other person. That’s not what I mean when I say rational debate.
Tankies are so exhausting to deal with. In my view, they’re as bad as maga. The two really seem to feed off each other.
The entire spirit of bickering about everything on the internet as if making some point or dunking on someone actually has some meaningful social value is exhausting regardless of the particular viewpoint being espoused. Like, yeah, if it’s dirt stupid and inherently destructive it’s worse, but I see the same sort of behavior from all sorts of different perspectives and none of it is good.
It’s almost impossible to have a good faith, rational debate on the internet. Logical validity and soundness go out the window the moment someone has to examine their biases and check whether their assumptions have been accurate.
Yeah, but I’m not sure “debate” in the sense the internet uses it has any relevance anyway. Debates in the formal sense are basically an academic sport, but what people on the internet do is basically just aggressively dribbling at people who have no interest in playing basketball.
Like, generally people on the internet just start trying to debate bystanders making casual comments or sharing their opinions who aren’t in it to prove anything. It’s kind of weird. Debating shouldn’t be assumed to be the default form of conversation, or even the default form of disagreement.
One doesn’t have to be a professional to play a sport. One shouldn’t have to be a professional to participate in a rational debate either.
Dribbling and dunking on an unwilling participant in the grocery store who’s just trying to do some shopping would be a douchebag move. But if you go to a basketball court and start engaging with the people dribbling, then they’re not being a douche when they dunk on you.
Internet forums are a public space where theoretically people can discuss whatever they want. If someone doesn’t want to participate in a discussion then they don’t have to, but they shouldn’t get upset when they see someone lay out a well-crafted treatise on the nature of toe beans. If they don’t want to debate, they don’t have to engage. That’s the freedom of the internet.
I think the problem are the trolls who don’t engage in good faith or rationally, and simply make disingenuous strawman arguments so they can insult people about scenarios that they’ve made up and projected onto the other person. That’s not what I mean when I say rational debate.