Screw feelings. The truth is worth discovering.
tell that to everyone who thinks their feelings are the only truth there is.
Oh, I intend to.
Yes, but the implication that feelings and truth are mutually exclusive is often used to bury, dismiss, or invalidate the truths around what feelings people experience, their meaning, importance, and roles in human lives/society.
It’s not about stripping feelings from discovery to arrive at truth, but rather charting the truths that feelings are actually pointing to in order to discover more complete truths.
I made hella dorks melt down on the Dorf fortress message board back in the day so yes
Sad pickaxe noises
Dont worry, dwarf fortress players are used to taking massive Ls
You monster! Haven’t they suffered enough?
Generally speaking, I don’t argue with strangers on the internet with the goal of changing their minds or “educating” them. I mean, I do start with that intention…who doesn’t? But by the time I am finished, I realize that I’m just clarifying my own thoughts and positions in my mind.
I just find it entertaining
Username checks out.
I don’t start with that goal because I assume people won’t change a stance because some online stranger said something. So I just get out my frustrations on idiots this way. Trying to stop, though. My time is worth more.
I think debating for fun has killed our ability to communicate as a species. Pushback becomes an ignorable stress since it comes with no real consequence. And it makes every conversation an chance to argue your point as if it must be a part of your identity to be protected at all cost.
I really dislike angry conversation without purpose.
Feels great. Hope those other people figure thier shit out someday.
Ask the Russian military industrial complex. They turned a world super power into clown world.
To be fair, they did have help from several, already established, billion-dollar propaganda machines.
Apparently it is worth it when you automate it and put it on steroids. You can see lost souls everyday repeating their bullshit
Everyone should have a bot army, maybe we can destroy the Internet together 😊
Just because we dont have the means to stop it doesnt mean it isnt advantageous to call it out when you see it.
Now, dont get full of yourself and think you’re the next coming of christ but much of the online propaganda we see can be dispelled in a couple of sentences.
It’s not a couple sentences if it’s your own automated bot army.
Either I change their mind, change my own, or provide thought-provoking content for the lurkers. Absolute worst case scenario I get to try out some creative insults. I feel great.
Mostly, yes a lot!
Writing about my thoughts, opinions and positions has helped me understand them even better!
You’re rarely going to change anyone’s position online, as sadly most aren’t arguing in good faith. BUT responding to rebuttals from others and questions (good faith or bad faith) leads to a very cool intellectual exercise where you get to probe your positions from so many different angles.
If things become toxic or brain-rotty, then you can just disengage without explanation! Kinda cool actually!!!
Do you try arguing from a position you don’t belive? It’s useful to have a separate account for this to avoid confusion with profile histories.
Did you know, this is called “trolling”?
If its done to irritate, yes. But it’s standard debating team practice to be given a random topic and have someone else chose if you agree or not.
Sure, but if you’re doing it online and trying to hide that you’re doing it, I’m gonna say 90% of the time or more, the intention is to irritate.
If all accounts are anonymous then there’s not any hiding.
The amount of irritation/trolling depends on how personal the comments get, not the username that is making them.
Sockpuppeting an argument with yourself is just masturbation though.
Sockpuppeting an argument with yourself is just masturbation though.
I would disagree. How else is one supposed to understand the limitations of a statement? The completeness of a position? Areas for further study? A confidence rating of sorts in a position?
No. Not unless the other party clearly knows that I’m arguing for a position that isn’t mine. Haven’t really had the opportunity to do that on Lemmy.
That being said, I do most of the counter argument stuff with myself to arrive at a given position. Or, read other people’s debates on the matter.
Yes, i was entertained for a while.
This is one of the core principles of modern social media platforms.
It’s my favorite hobby.
At this point, every comment on Lemmy is greeted with angry responses who are willfully choosing to ignore the point I was making and try to fight me.
If I say “I like dogs” someone is going to come along and tell me I’m a jerk for not liking cats even though I didn’t say I don’t like cats. That or someone mansplaining dogs to me.
Calm down Lemmy. Take a breather.
What about birds you heartless monster, you have ruined my day!
It is good fun though… It’s part of the reason I got permabanned from Reddit… That and criticizing Israel and Nazis.
i got banned for posting a picture of my cat sitting on the porch.
it made me a bird mass murderer, or something. ban was for inciting violence.
it was in 2021. then i was unbanned a few months later with a DM begging me to buy IPO stock.
People like being offended and feeling victimized.
It’s a rush and they get addicted to it.
I have a cat and a dog… and a lot of folks will just argue with me on principle or try to make me pick a side. even in real life. or like get in a big stink about if they are purebred or rescue. i have no clue why any of it matters, i guess other than their insecure need to feel validated by getting you to agree with them.
I hate it. It’s so stupid and annoying. You can’t just like things anymore… anything you enjoy has to ‘hurt’ someone else and they have to let you know how wrong and bad you are for enjoying it.
I like Cilantro, and I’ve had internet weirdos tell me that it’s able-ist to enjoy it, because my enjoyment of it is some sort of racism against the people for whom it tastes like soap. Or like commentary made at me in the taco line when I order it how it’s so gross. It’s so ridiculous. I think Pinto beans are disgusting, but I don’t feel offended and hurt that other people enjoy them.
Please give your furry friend a treat from me and tell them I said hi!
It is fun arguing with people you disagree with as long as both argues in good faith and has uses good etiquette. Both needs to be open minded to a certain degree.
The goal of a conversation is not to convince, but rather to explore your own and their mind. To grow together. A conversation is not a competition, we should not aim to “win” a conversation.
No it isn’t. I win!
I agree with you.
Oh no, is this an echochamber now?
I disagree. This is not an echo chamber.
Horray!
You’re never going to win, and that’s not even the point. The point is to provide pushback to people who rarely receive it so that everyone else reading the exchange has a chance to see accurate information.
For example, it’s staggering how many people insist they want socialism when what they’re actually describing is social democracy, yet they have no idea what either term actually means. They’ll argue, foaming at the mouth, that humanity’s only hope is “socialism,” while demonstrating they don’t understand the ideology they’re advocating for.
The same goes for the abundance of anti-American rhetoric. Some criticism of America is absolutely justified—I have plenty of criticisms of my own country. But it’s interesting how many people who endlessly denounce America never mention what country they’re from or hold their own country to the same standard.
So no, the point isn’t to win the argument. The point is to apply enough pressure that the other person starts making obvious mistakes, exposing the weaknesses in their own position. That’s the entertaining part.
We must be on different lemmys because it seems pretty well understood here that the whole point of socialism is that the workers democratically control the means of production, only liberals from the USA act confused about that
So no. This is exactly what I’m talking about.
Socialism is not “democratic ownership of the means of production.” Where did you get that from? What YouTube channels are you watching?
Socialism is social or public ownership of the means of production. Democracy is a method of governance, not an economic system. The two are not synonymous.
In fact, there are companies right here in the United States that are run democratically. They’re called worker cooperatives. The employees collectively own the company, elect management, vote on major decisions, and often have much smaller pay gaps between executives and line workers. They’re successful examples of democratic workplaces operating within a capitalist economy.
Socialism, by contrast, is an economic system in which the means of production are owned socially rather than privately. That ownership can take different forms, including state ownership or worker ownership, depending on the model.
Capitalism is the opposite: the means of production are privately owned, and profits accrue primarily to the owners or shareholders.
And thanks for proving my point. What liberals have to do with any of this, I have no idea. You pulled that completely out of your ass because you heard it on conservative talk radio or somewhere similar.
It’s badly phrased but I think that “workers democratically control the means of production” translates to “workers own the means of production”.
So I think you are ranting over nothing.
As for worker co-ops in capitalist countries I would argue that those are indeed bubbles of socialism within a broader capitalist system. Just like you can have communes inside a capitalist country. Have you heard of socialist market economy or economic democracy?
No, I’m objecting because you’re collapsing multiple distinct concepts into the word “socialism.”
A worker co-op is a company where the employees collectively own that particular business. That does not mean the economy is socialist. It is still operating in a market economy, competing with privately owned firms, buying and selling goods, and responding to prices. That’s capitalism permitting an alternative ownership structure.
Socialism, in the classical sense, is public or social ownership of the means of production across the economy. How that ownership is administered, through the state, municipalities, public trusts, or some other institution, is a separate question. “Workers democratically control the means of production” is one proposed implementation, not the definition itself.
That’s why economic democracy, market socialism, worker co-ops, and socialism are related but distinct concepts. You’re treating them as interchangeable.
Ironically, this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. People hear the word “socialism” and start attaching every form of worker participation, workplace democracy, or cooperative ownership to it, even when those things can and do exist inside capitalist economies.
And the reason I’m ranting is because you are the exact thing I was talking about in my original comment.
This thread is a whole lot of words for “I am full of myself and dumb”.
This is a good bit of projection if I’ve ever seen it.
If this is your takeaway, my confidence in our people has dropped a few more notches.
“Waaahhhhh, this thread is a little too intellectual for my tastes, which must mean you’re all the dumb ones, not me, surely!”
I agree, yes. I always try to have that conversation, even if the other side seems to be arguing, since at the beginning I am interested in their thoughts and motives, and trying to get them to understand mine. I do enjoy getting people angry though, so at certain point, if they are clearly arguing in bad faith, the calmness becomes a tool, to make them look like morons.
Got me banned from reddit and now I’m here so I’d say in a weird ironic sense, sorta?
Hello, fellow stranger online!
Oh, I’m about to argue with one right now you little dumbass
