150 Years Ago, a Philosopher Showed Why It’s Pointless to Start Arguments on the Internet. I.E. Don’t feed the trolls.

getpocket.com ^ | 1/2/2019 | Olivia Goldhill

[rktman]

Wildly inaccurate facts and spurious arguments are unavoidable features of social media. Yet no matter how infuriatingly wrong someone is, or just how much counter-evidence you have at your disposal, starting arguments on the internet rarely gets anyone to change their mind. Nearly a century-and-a-half ago, British philosopher John Stuart Mill explained, in a few clear sentences, why certain arguments simply won’t go anywhere. As historian Robert Saunders notes, Mill’s analysis neatly applies to heated and futile internet debates.

[mrobisr]

AMEN!

[fr_freak]

The emotional thinkers (generally, liberals) will always try to move the argument away from the black and white of the facts and towards the emotional tug of a particular position.

Having been unfortunate enough to have spent a good portion of my life around these types of people, I can tell you that they can be broken, and somewhat easily, but it requires psyops rather than logical argument because, as you pointed out, it isn't logic that drives them.

There are quite a few techniques you can use to beat an SJW down slowly over the internet, but start with the easiest one (if you have the stomach for this sort of thing):

ISOLATE THEM

The average leftist's most driving force is his desire to be one of the crowd, to be one of the cool kids, to feel like he is on the winning side (the Left has been very successful portraying themselves as the cool kids). Take that away, and he'll break. Example:

[argument over any inane thing]

Lefty: Oh, well obviously what's making you say that is that you hate colored people. Racist much?

Machiavellian Conservative: Whoa! Calm down, dude. We were just talking about [inane thing], here. You just went off the rails into some kind of paranoid episode.

Lefty: BS - you obviously hate black people, just like all right wingers!

Machiavellian Conservative: What the hell is wrong with you? Everybody here was just having an intelligent conversation about [inane thing] and you start spewing a bunch of conspiracy theory stuff? Are you OK?

Lefty: You're the one who isn't OK! You're a nazi!

Machiavellian Conservative: Whoa! So now people who disagree with you are National Socialists? What the hell are you so angry about? You're freaking everybody here out. We were all enjoying a good chat about [inane thing] and all of a sudden you're screaming about conspiracies and nazis? WTF?

Lefty: Conservatives ARE nazis! I'm a progressive, not some hate-filled bigot right-winger!

Machiavellian Conservative: Dude, I've had plenty of discussions on this board with progressives and they've all been reasonable, intelligent people who can have a civilized debate, not lunatics screaming about nazis and boogeymen under their beds. Seriously, you're embarrassing everybody here.


You get the idea. It might take a few, but you will wear him down. It works best if you don't give a damn, too. No matter what accusation or BS he throws at you, you just laugh and plod on with the psyops.

[rktman]

Well if one gets a kick out of it.😁

[jmacusa]

‘’Or the “Lost Cause’’ fools. Absolutely! Good God the modern day “Johnny Reb’’ wannabe’s are dumb as dirt and stubborn as mules.

[joma89]

In other words, people who make decisions based upon feeling should have zero say in how a government is run.

JoMa

[Bearshouse]

Minnesota winters are long and cold, gotta have fun somehow.

This reminded me... I took a cross country trip with my truck driver cousin. We were in his caddy but he had a cb radio installed. At some point on a long highway, he got in a real nasty argument with a truck driver. It was to the point that I thought someone would have to pull over and kick the other ones butt. I was just praying he was looking for another truck and didn't realize it was this name calling, foul mouthed, mother insulting man in a caddy. When it all settled down, I asked what in the world that was all about. He said, "Oh just a bit of fun and it kept a tired truck driver fired up and alert. I've appreciated many of these conversations over the years." Things aren't always what they seem.

[gattaca]

bmp

[SES1066]

So that fellow FReepers can keep their bandwidth low (smile)

Translating to my best ability, a person's position is anchored to a spectrum that stretches from factual to feeling. The closer the anchor is to the feeling end, the greater the resistance to argument in the contrary. The closer to the factual, the easier it is to ignore.

[Elsie]

...starting arguments on the internet rarely gets anyone to change their mind.

How about ending one?

Wahtever; it keeps a lot of us crotchety old dudes from runnin' the streets.

[Elsie]

OMG!

So true!

[Elsie]

Thus: MormonISM

[Cecily]

Or remind libbie women who hate Trump for his supposed sexism and ill treatment of women of the glory days of Bubba Clinton’s treatment of women, as enabled by the Hildabeast. Since they love the Clintons, the conversation about Trump usually ends abruptly.

[Elsie]

You are SO negative!

And argumentative; too!!

[Elsie]

(hint, it is not based on the Book of Mormon)

Why don't they ask you to read and pray about the OTHER scriptures that they have??

[Elsie]

So true

[Elsie]

I like your example!

May I morph it into a Christian/Mormon dialog?

[cgbg]

It is the most fun to engage lefties about stuff they _do_ rather than debating what _other_ people did or do.

Lefties pollute and use modern stuff (big carbon footprint).

Lefties have houses on the beach (while claiming seas are rising).

Lefties live in rich neighborhoods and stay away from poor neighborhoods and minorities.

Lefties pay dirt wages to illegal aliens (servants, construction) harming American citizen workers.

Watch what they do—make them live up to their own book of rules.

That gets their attention, rather than debating about what _other_ people say or do.

[daniel1212]

You cannot win an argument with a Mormon. They are thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that opposition is confirmation. You can spend days pointing out the gaping holes in their doctrine (hint, it is not based on the Book of Mormon), the many ludicrous events in the Book of Morman, the tens of thousands of edits, deletions, and additions to their scripture in a vain attempt to make it coherent, and all you’ll do is convince them that they’re right.

Perhaps not convincing them, but by exposing the contradictions of the Book of Mormon and its other "scriptures " with the Bible (and each other ) you can win the argument, thus showing others the fallacious nature of their elitist church, by the grace of God.

[Hootowl]

Probably because their other two books, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants, are even worse. D&C is the book that dictates Mormon doctrine but directly contradicts the Book of Mormon at many points. PGP originally included photos of the papyri from which Smith “translated” the book. Then the Rosetta stone allowed linguists to decode hieroglyphics and it was discovered that the papyri were most inventory lists and whatnot. PGP no longer uses the illustrations.

[Leep]

“They had single 32 year olds living in thier parent’s basement in 1850?”

Yes, and internet only cost $1 a year back then.