SILICON VALLEY— A panel of experts, including AI engineers, behavioral scientists, and child healthcare specialists, gathered today to discuss whether the Redditor you’re actively arguing…
There is a very valid point made there. Think about all the weird arguments you had with other users on the internet over really frustrating stances that made you think "no one can be that dense, or with discussion tactics that were just utterly pointless (constantly shifting goal posts, strawmen, weird pseudo-philosphical ramblings that missed the point completely but ended in some smug “gotcha” that actually was nothing but nonsense). Those tend to leave us in a.bad mood sometimes, right? At least they wanted our mozherfuckin time.
Now ask yourself: would the impact on your day, the evaluation of what was said and/or your reaction to it have changed, had you known that your opponent is either a literal child or a teenager who just discovered the message behind an Ed Sheeran song and now thinks of themself as some conveyor of deep thoughts?
I’d bet that around half of all political debates on the internet are useless duels between one person actually arguing something and a child/teenager regurgitating what their dad said and they think they understood but actually didn’t.
As a counterpoint, I’ve had in person/face-to-face arguments with people that looked convincingly like typical adult humans that did all of these things.
This is why I tend not to reply. I make a post and if someone replies with “actually you’re wrong” I just move on with my day. I’ve never seen a reply chain 12 comments deep where the two people arguing come to a reasonable compromise.
Because it’s a battle of egos and about dominating the conversation. Both of which are vitally important to human life whether other people want to accept it or not.
There is a very valid point made there. Think about all the weird arguments you had with other users on the internet over really frustrating stances that made you think "no one can be that dense, or with discussion tactics that were just utterly pointless (constantly shifting goal posts, strawmen, weird pseudo-philosphical ramblings that missed the point completely but ended in some smug “gotcha” that actually was nothing but nonsense). Those tend to leave us in a.bad mood sometimes, right? At least they wanted our mozherfuckin time.
Now ask yourself: would the impact on your day, the evaluation of what was said and/or your reaction to it have changed, had you known that your opponent is either a literal child or a teenager who just discovered the message behind an Ed Sheeran song and now thinks of themself as some conveyor of deep thoughts?
I’d bet that around half of all political debates on the internet are useless duels between one person actually arguing something and a child/teenager regurgitating what their dad said and they think they understood but actually didn’t.
As a counterpoint, I’ve had in person/face-to-face arguments with people that looked convincingly like typical adult humans that did all of these things.
This is why I tend not to reply. I make a post and if someone replies with “actually you’re wrong” I just move on with my day. I’ve never seen a reply chain 12 comments deep where the two people arguing come to a reasonable compromise.
I tend to reply more often than is probably good for me not because I care about changing that person’s mind, but instead the others that are reading.
Why is it that despite knowing how utterly futile snarky little debates are, I can’t resist doing it?
I hate it, but it’s so damn engaging.
The thing is. It’s never satisfying. Luke no one ever concedes. Ever. They just stop replying eventually.
It is satisfying on the rare occasion someone makes an actually interesting argument you haven’t heard before, or actually addresses your points.
Because it’s a battle of egos and about dominating the conversation. Both of which are vitally important to human life whether other people want to accept it or not.
I’m the exact same.