One thing I always hated about microblogs and their character limits was that it was just enough characters to spout stupid bullshit but never enough to explain to why it’s wrong.
And you can’t just be like “Ok I have master’s degree in this specific subject” because then the response is inevitably some form of “ok then please provide sources which would allow me to condense 6 years of your education into something I can refute in 6 minutes, and refusing to do so will out you as a liar.”
That’s fucking idiotic. It’s basically formalizing the whole “Whoever talks loudest and proudest wins” instead of “Whoever has the most valid and factual argument wins”
Yup, we all go through the shock you’re experiencing, but if you want to influence people who are hostile to your position you need to learn debate and rhetoric.
And it’s not about who’s loudest but who’s most convincing. And for opinions that facts and logic didn’t get you into, facts and logic (alone) won’t get you out of. You need to speak to people’s emotions.
That’s why it’s spiralled into a meme war. The problem is, the fronts are all quiet, and every side is only memeing internally.
Some sides send trolls to fracture the other sides from within. Other sides just tear themselves apart because performative virtue signalling is more important to them than progress. Still others are just echo chambers that huff each other’s fumes to reinforce their own delusions.
There’s no good-faith discussion being had. Most people aren’t capable of holding one, so it isn’t worth trying to engage.
Maybe we need specialized “information operations” cells which infiltrate right-wing spaces and spread deradicalization propaganda (like “follow the white rabbit”), but I feel like that would require more coordination and organization than the left is capable of…
that’s because neurotypicals don’t actually care about logic and data, they only care about your seeming proud and self-confident because that makes you appear as a might-be feudal lord in their eyes and they love that shit.
Facts also only work when people believe them. Yes sometimes you have situations where so much evidence is presented and people jump through hoops to avoid the best fitting solution, such as with the flat earthers. But many times people have been convinced to reject sources and methods or to prioritize one source or method above all others, or they are convinced that their preconceived biases are common sense and take that as a valid source.
Someone who was raised on right wing media is going to have a hard time ever seeing Wikipedia for what it is, a genuine attempt at a neutral and fact based information aggregator and summarizer, because it disagrees with the sources they trust and those sources say not to trust it. Sure it cites its sources in a way fox doesn’t, but those sources are often academic and also are likely in that person’s zone of disregard.
So how do you change that person’s mind? You begin breaking their trust in the right wing media (the right will do the same tactic, latching on to every loss of credibility in academia of liberal institutions). This can be intellectual by having them observe the ways in which their trusted institutions lie to them or changing their mind about something, or it can be emotional by swaying them through rhetoric or interpersonal connections. Asking sincere questions that put the gaps in the lies in focus is a particularly effective technique. But ultimately it’s about changing what they see as trustworthy and as a source of truth.
I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, but I’m also not entirely sure what you’re getting at.
What I was talking about:
If you look at the way that conservatives tend to argue online these days, or at the very least the 15-minutes of fame anti-woke-types on youtube and such, there has been a sizeable shift away from truth-seeking as a concept.
The goal with these conservatives is to get in, take a few pot shots, irritate the other person to farm clippable moments, and get out. It’s not uncommon to see one of these people withdraw an argument you’ve beaten, and then ten minutes later give the exact same argument, no amendments.
Their tactics have moved beyond “believing in things.” At least on the surface.
And MAGA is not their media figures, of course, but they do learn what works from them.
But anyway, I want to reiterate, I don’t disagree with you, I just like talking.
I’m more talking about real life people that you may struggle to convince because you’re operating on different paradigms of where truth comes from and what it might be. Some of these people are seeking truth, they just think they already have it and you’re the one blinded by ideology.
I think I kind of understand where we’re talking past each other.
I’m holding a higher standard for what “truth seeking” means, and I would not describe what I see most conservative people doing, even the offline ones, as truth seeking.
I agree that a conservative watching Fox news believes they are consuming the truth, but I don’t think that this is the same as being a truth-seeking person.
I think that the modern, offline conservative is more accepting (just more) of inconsistencies in their worldview than they were, like, 20 years ago. There used to be more cultural emphasis on consistency as a virtue, and less distrust of smart people as a category, and those were things you could more easily leverage against a person.
But as you say, the old tactics still work, it just depends on who you’re talking to and when and how. The first step in any rhetorical battle is identifying who you’re talking to.
Well if the value of a belief is in its ability to predict the future and people are believing stuff that explains but cannot predict anything, then we can simply figure out a way to set ourselves up for success based on solid beliefs that accurately predict the future while they take increasing doses of cope.
I know it is not that easy but I try to live by that principle. I cannot refute someone’s belief that the entire universe started existence 10 minutes ago and everything from memories to tangible goods are simply created from nothing. I can however say that predicts nothing therefore I won’t engage.
That’s all well and good, but by and large policy defines the human experience. So while they may not be able to change the laws of nature, the laws of humans are wide open to them.
set ourselves up for success […] while they take increasing doses of cope.
This is all well and good, but they also vote. Their cope will drown us in the Atlantic.
This is fine, though, because there are different ways of convincing people. Some people are moved by facts, and some people by narratives. And some people by power; the stupidest of the three, but what can you do.
I doubt they thought that far ahead, at least when Twitter was starting. Smartphones didn’t really exist back then, except maybe some BlackBerrys and Palm Pilot-type phones. The 140 character limit on Twitter was so the tweets could fit in a standard 160 character SMS message. It operated basically entirely over SMS; I’m not sure they even had a web version in the early days. I still remember getting messages on my flip phone from 40404, the number they used. Once I was in the Oregon desert on vacation for a week without signal and when I got back to a signal my phone kept buzzing for 20 minutes as all the tweets I’d missed were delivered. No algorithm back then, you got everything from people you followed, and no advertising either.
I mean, the character limit was there originally because twitter’s gimmick originally was that you’d post via SMS, which has its own char limit. They’ve raised the limit even before the musk takeover, so I’m inclined to believe twitter motivates ragebait in other ways.
One thing I always hated about microblogs and their character limits was that it was just enough characters to spout stupid bullshit but never enough to explain to why it’s wrong.
And you can’t just be like “Ok I have master’s degree in this specific subject” because then the response is inevitably some form of “ok then please provide sources which would allow me to condense 6 years of your education into something I can refute in 6 minutes, and refusing to do so will out you as a liar.”
Why interact on an even playing field? Just make like 15 accounts and convince them they have a neurological disorder like a normal human being.
Well then they have a PhD of course. In polar bears.
Introduction to elementary debate, 17th addition. page 1.
That’s fucking idiotic. It’s basically formalizing the whole “Whoever talks loudest and proudest wins” instead of “Whoever has the most valid and factual argument wins”
Yup, we all go through the shock you’re experiencing, but if you want to influence people who are hostile to your position you need to learn debate and rhetoric.
And it’s not about who’s loudest but who’s most convincing. And for opinions that facts and logic didn’t get you into, facts and logic (alone) won’t get you out of. You need to speak to people’s emotions.
That’s why it’s spiralled into a meme war. The problem is, the fronts are all quiet, and every side is only memeing internally.
Some sides send trolls to fracture the other sides from within. Other sides just tear themselves apart because performative virtue signalling is more important to them than progress. Still others are just echo chambers that huff each other’s fumes to reinforce their own delusions.
There’s no good-faith discussion being had. Most people aren’t capable of holding one, so it isn’t worth trying to engage.
Maybe we need specialized “information operations” cells which infiltrate right-wing spaces and spread deradicalization propaganda (like “follow the white rabbit”), but I feel like that would require more coordination and organization than the left is capable of…
that’s because neurotypicals don’t actually care about logic and data, they only care about your seeming proud and self-confident because that makes you appear as a might-be feudal lord in their eyes and they love that shit.
That’s precisely what paves the way for the kakistocracy we’re living through now.
It’s unfortunately just how things work. Facts only matter to people who care about the truth, and a lot of people don’t.
Facts also only work when people believe them. Yes sometimes you have situations where so much evidence is presented and people jump through hoops to avoid the best fitting solution, such as with the flat earthers. But many times people have been convinced to reject sources and methods or to prioritize one source or method above all others, or they are convinced that their preconceived biases are common sense and take that as a valid source.
Someone who was raised on right wing media is going to have a hard time ever seeing Wikipedia for what it is, a genuine attempt at a neutral and fact based information aggregator and summarizer, because it disagrees with the sources they trust and those sources say not to trust it. Sure it cites its sources in a way fox doesn’t, but those sources are often academic and also are likely in that person’s zone of disregard.
So how do you change that person’s mind? You begin breaking their trust in the right wing media (the right will do the same tactic, latching on to every loss of credibility in academia of liberal institutions). This can be intellectual by having them observe the ways in which their trusted institutions lie to them or changing their mind about something, or it can be emotional by swaying them through rhetoric or interpersonal connections. Asking sincere questions that put the gaps in the lies in focus is a particularly effective technique. But ultimately it’s about changing what they see as trustworthy and as a source of truth.
I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, but I’m also not entirely sure what you’re getting at.
What I was talking about:
If you look at the way that conservatives tend to argue online these days, or at the very least the 15-minutes of fame anti-woke-types on youtube and such, there has been a sizeable shift away from truth-seeking as a concept.
The goal with these conservatives is to get in, take a few pot shots, irritate the other person to farm clippable moments, and get out. It’s not uncommon to see one of these people withdraw an argument you’ve beaten, and then ten minutes later give the exact same argument, no amendments.
Their tactics have moved beyond “believing in things.” At least on the surface.
And MAGA is not their media figures, of course, but they do learn what works from them.
But anyway, I want to reiterate, I don’t disagree with you, I just like talking.
I’m more talking about real life people that you may struggle to convince because you’re operating on different paradigms of where truth comes from and what it might be. Some of these people are seeking truth, they just think they already have it and you’re the one blinded by ideology.
I think I kind of understand where we’re talking past each other.
I’m holding a higher standard for what “truth seeking” means, and I would not describe what I see most conservative people doing, even the offline ones, as truth seeking.
I agree that a conservative watching Fox news believes they are consuming the truth, but I don’t think that this is the same as being a truth-seeking person.
I think that the modern, offline conservative is more accepting (just more) of inconsistencies in their worldview than they were, like, 20 years ago. There used to be more cultural emphasis on consistency as a virtue, and less distrust of smart people as a category, and those were things you could more easily leverage against a person.
But as you say, the old tactics still work, it just depends on who you’re talking to and when and how. The first step in any rhetorical battle is identifying who you’re talking to.
Well if the value of a belief is in its ability to predict the future and people are believing stuff that explains but cannot predict anything, then we can simply figure out a way to set ourselves up for success based on solid beliefs that accurately predict the future while they take increasing doses of cope.
I know it is not that easy but I try to live by that principle. I cannot refute someone’s belief that the entire universe started existence 10 minutes ago and everything from memories to tangible goods are simply created from nothing. I can however say that predicts nothing therefore I won’t engage.
That’s all well and good, but by and large policy defines the human experience. So while they may not be able to change the laws of nature, the laws of humans are wide open to them.
This is all well and good, but they also vote. Their cope will drown us in the Atlantic.
This is fine, though, because there are different ways of convincing people. Some people are moved by facts, and some people by narratives. And some people by power; the stupidest of the three, but what can you do.
A user with the name ProbablyBaysean commenting on a thread about epistemology is peak. What are the odds?
People don’t give a shit about facts dude
George Will on Donald Trump and Twitter.
“It’s perfect for him, because he can encapsulate everything he knows into 140 characters.”
Brandolini’s Law
i wonder how intentional it was.
more argument = more engagement = more ad watching = more money
I doubt they thought that far ahead, at least when Twitter was starting. Smartphones didn’t really exist back then, except maybe some BlackBerrys and Palm Pilot-type phones. The 140 character limit on Twitter was so the tweets could fit in a standard 160 character SMS message. It operated basically entirely over SMS; I’m not sure they even had a web version in the early days. I still remember getting messages on my flip phone from 40404, the number they used. Once I was in the Oregon desert on vacation for a week without signal and when I got back to a signal my phone kept buzzing for 20 minutes as all the tweets I’d missed were delivered. No algorithm back then, you got everything from people you followed, and no advertising either.
I mean, the character limit was there originally because twitter’s gimmick originally was that you’d post via SMS, which has its own char limit. They’ve raised the limit even before the musk takeover, so I’m inclined to believe twitter motivates ragebait in other ways.