Whenever I see a comment on social media that I think is wrong, I feel the need to correct it. These arguments can go on for days, even weeks, and if I don’t win the argument, I get overly fixated on it, wondering where I went wrong and so on.
Bro dont argue on public social media especially fb. They’re idiots. I only stay there for marketplace and like 2 friends.
I wish i could voice my thoughts on fb but I’d get instantly labeled as a terrorist by the Drump regime for daring to go against dear leader and oligarchy.
On public social media they likely think I’m a right wing Drump voter 😄
Dude, whom do you call idiots? Facebook is still a normal platform. Don’t understand what that fuss is about. It still works as it was.
Check your ego and be willing to walk away from an argument that isn’t going anywhere.
Leaving social media helps… But if someone is wrong on Lemmy that’s a whole new problem I can’t help with.
I would say don’t sweat it too much and if you eat downvotes sometimes that’s fine.
Honestly, if you mean Facebook then I salute you for having the patience. If I had to correct the moronic comments I see whenever I use that platform I’d explode. It genuinely made me loose faith in democracy as a system. I honestly don’t think half of these people should have a vote.
I actually mean instagram and x.
You should stop treating arguments like a game. The point isn’t to win - it’s to find the truth. Every argument should start from the acknowledgement that you might be wrong, and if so, you wish to not be wrong for a minute longer than necessary. I can’t think of a single thing that better demonstrates intellectual honesty than someone actually changing their view when faced with a convincing argument.
However, not all arguments are worth continuing. When your opponent doesn’t even engage with what you’re saying, or when you’re not even open to the possibility that they might have a point, there’s no reason to keep going - there’s no end to it. So many online “arguments” are just people performing for an audience with no real regard for whether their points are landing or not. They’re after applause, not a change of mind.
I can’t think of a single thing that better demonstrates intellectual honesty than someone actually changing their view when faced with a convincing argument.
What if this argument is actually weak, and only appears strong because you have no counter-argument? Should you still change your mind? Does the fact that it is persuasive mean it is true?
Well, no - it doesn’t always mean they’re right. However, why would you hold on to your old view if someone makes an argument against it that you can’t counter? At the very least it should give you some pause and make you look more deeply into the reasons why you’re clinging to that view in the first place. Even if it doesn’t directly disprove your point, it should still show that maybe you don’t actually have the level of understanding on the subject that warrants the confidence you have in that particular view and perhaps you just want this to be the truth.
It’s okay to have an opinion on something or lean toward A being more likely true than B, while still acknowledging that it’s just your current view - not necessarily the absolute truth.
I usually reply once. I don’t argue. I said what I said, bye.
This is the correct way. Reply -> turn off notifications -> forget about it -> live a happy life.
I’ve realized for myself, the social media platform itself can make a difference. Lemmy with the clear direct replies makes it much too easy to get into a direct back and forth, whereas on Mastodon it’s way harder
But also, finding things to do with my time offline has helped immensely in breaking some of those nasty feedback loops that digital stuff is designed to sink people into
Easy. I don’t respect people who are wrong on the Internet. I just imagine them as drooling idiots with only two braincells to their name. What could I even accomplish if I changed their mind? Then they’d be wrong somehow but on my side.
But actually the big thing that helped me was sitting down and assessing why I wanted to correct this stuff. It never gave me any satisfaction, it never lead to anything I liked, and a good deal of it was likely venting trauma from being talked down to all my life. Once I put it together it just kind of stopped happening.
Eventually you learn that its not worth it.
90% of the time, people aren’t arguing in good faith. You can only hear another variant of the cosmological argument so many times before you realize that arguing is pointless
This, plus it helps to keep in mind that it’s not your responsibility to educate people even if they’re objectively wrong. Nor is it your responsibility to change the mind of people with garbage opinions.
When someone is argumentative, they are rarely after an actual conversation, or even a debate. They’re after an interaction they can win.
They are not entitled to your engagement.The second paragraph is the one which should be constantly highlighted. Sometimes people rather argue for the sake of arguing rather than debate the root cause. This also relates to the point of how facts and logic supposedly give clarity to conversation - which sometimes they dont, as arguing is what they may desire.
Yup. Another aspect of this is that I sometimes find myself in a conversation with someone (it’s happened here on Lemmy too) about something technical. I might tell them about an approach that I might use, or my preference, mostly just making conversation, and the reply isn’t conversational at all, it’s argumentative and sometimes even confrontational or combative.
Luckily Lemmy allows for tagging these people so that I won’t bother making conversation with these again. I usually tag these people after shutting down the “discussion” with something like “No, I will not address what you said. I was making conversation, you were after a debate that you could win. I am not interested in typing just to feed your ego, so I see no point in resuming this thread”
I don’t argue with people who are wrong. I point out where they are wrong, and why, for the sake of passers-by who may need more complete information, because most people are lurkers, and most people tend to believe what’s typed on the internet without much further question.
Yeah, I tend to reply for lurkers, not to change the OPs mind.
Lurkers who haven’t entered a dog in the fight are more likely to be convinced than someone already wound up and swinging. As they read, they are more open, much as I am when I lurk.
This is also why I don’t necessarily mind “fake” posts. The original situation in the post might be fake, but the discussion from people responding does tend to have good or interesting responses in varying levels of nuance.
You don’t argue with people you think are wrong.
i usually engage briefly so that others can see there is pushback, because i know most people are lurkers and it is important to me that there are both sides represented. but i learned when they respond in bad faith i can just disengage and either block or move on. i listen to my body’s reactions and try to leave when i feel myself getting agitated. it works for me :)
These arguments can go on for days, even weeks, and if I don’t win the argument, I get overly fixated on it, wondering where I went wrong and so on.
Gotta have a strategy for deciding on a stopping point. A good overall goal for a social media argument is to get people reading to consider things they might not have thought about or been aware of before, so it’s probably not going to help if all you have left to say is finding new ways to rephrase the points you’ve already made, or explaining in detail basic uncontroversial things that your opponent is playing dumb about. It isn’t bad to let them have the last word if there is nothing that you really need to clarify or address.
Unfortunately when you get an inbox notification and read some inflammatory things, making that call to walk away is hard because emotionally you get worked up about it. This is why I think “disable inbox replies” is a good feature Reddit has and threadiverse software should implement it, a lot of the time you know in advance that you’ve already said your piece and whatever someone writes in response to you, it’s very likely going to be a mistake to respond again, and it helps a lot to just remove the temptation.
Gotta have a strategy for deciding on a stopping point. A good overall goal for a social media argument is to get people reading to consider things
These two are the main points in my eyes.
I do engage in responses and discussion to a specific comment or person, but only so far as it seems like a productive and good or decent-faith one. Beyond that, I consider whether it’s worth it to set the record straight.
If it’s a public, shared resource that we have to cultivate. Giving it up to the loudest or strongest-opinioned would be a negative influence on the community. I think a sense of justice, correctness/validity/truthfulness, and moral also plays into it.
I enjoy reasoning and formulating, and also thinking about how best to approach or defuse (bad) arguments/bait. The act of doing so is practice as well, useful in other situations, too. So, even ignoring the public record/shared resource aspect, it’s not like you gain nothing from formulating responses.
Same as you would stop arguing offline, recognise the moment the argument isn’t going anywhere helpful and leave/defuse the conversation. Life’s too short to be arguing with people who you will probably never meet or see.
Sometimes it’s the reason people choose just to lurk or choose not to comment on posts at all.
