These last few days I’ve been thinking about your last comment about public discussions being about the lurkers and the value of having that exchange from an outside perspective.
Every now and again I have to pick the choice between engaging in an internet argument/ debate or ignoring them, taking a break from the internet, and touching grass. I usually pick the second. But I keep thinking of this comment and wondering if I shouldn’t put up more or a resistance instead even if my opinion is a ‘wrong’ one.
I dont know, a long time ago I decided that it was better for time and mental health to not really argue back and forth with people.
Im unlikely to unchange your perspective or exchange ideas in a meaningful way, much more so if were both perocupied with
defending our ideas while dismantling the others. I think about that guy who wrote 30 something different ways to ‘win’ an argument by various conversational/psychological tricks and finally understood that for a lot of people it’s about being ‘right’ and ‘winning a battle’ not intelectual honesty and coming to better understanding with the other person.
Why even bother on a certain group ideologies “home turf” discussion fourm,or against someone who lives to write 10 paragraph essays deconstructing everything you say just to prove how right they are.
So how much value is there to be gained by verbally resisting the community ratio, or trading five paragraph essays with someone who lives and breathes debating politics, compared to just taking the L and moving on with life?
These last few days I’ve been thinking about your last comment about public discussions being about the lurkers and the value of having that exchange from an outside perspective.
Every now and again I have to pick the choice between engaging in an internet argument/ debate or ignoring them, taking a break from the internet, and touching grass. I usually pick the second. But I keep thinking of this comment and wondering if I shouldn’t put up more or a resistance instead even if my opinion is a ‘wrong’ one.
I dont know, a long time ago I decided that it was better for time and mental health to not really argue back and forth with people.
Im unlikely to unchange your perspective or exchange ideas in a meaningful way, much more so if were both perocupied with defending our ideas while dismantling the others. I think about that guy who wrote 30 something different ways to ‘win’ an argument by various conversational/psychological tricks and finally understood that for a lot of people it’s about being ‘right’ and ‘winning a battle’ not intelectual honesty and coming to better understanding with the other person.
Why even bother on a certain group ideologies “home turf” discussion fourm,or against someone who lives to write 10 paragraph essays deconstructing everything you say just to prove how right they are.
So how much value is there to be gained by verbally resisting the community ratio, or trading five paragraph essays with someone who lives and breathes debating politics, compared to just taking the L and moving on with life?