Discussing politics and other contentious sunjects online feels to me like it’s counterproductive these days and even though I try not to get suckered in, I often can’t help myself. Usually though I just end up feeling frustrated and sometimes angry at the other person either missing my points or refusing to accept them.

Thinking back to conversations I’ve had here and previously on Reddit, not only can I not remember an example of me “winning” the discussion and the other person changing their mind or conceding the point, I also cannot think of a time where my mind was changed either.

So have you ever begun a discussion online with someone with a different view point to yours and either you, or they, changed the others mind?

  • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I have had my mind changed, or at the very least been introduced to new ideas that I then went on to explore, which led to me changing my mind.

    Online arguments are for the audience, anyway. This is more obvious if you watch some old debate videos from the mid 2010s, especially involving right wing “intellectuals” like JP. He is clearly uninterested in convincing his opponent. Most of the time, his aim is to (a) confuse and (b) enrage his opponent, and then adjust his suit and tie, lean back, and smugly tell them to calm down.

    It’s not debating to convince your opponent (or even the audience) of your ideas, hence his tendency for useless tangents and unnecessarily esoteric language. It’s debating to look like the smart and collected guy, while making your opponent look unhinged in comparison. It’s not about the substance, it’s about the show.

    • Fallibilist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      He is clearly uninterested in convincing his opponent.

      Having watched his debates with Sam Harris, I’ll at least give him credit for being able to steelman the views he’s arguing against.

      Whether one is able to get others to change their deeply held beliefs is another thing but simply being able to demonstrate that you’ve actually understood the point you’re arguing against is a rare skill in of itself.

      • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        That’s only because he mostly agrees with sam harris. Who also does something similar, just not as well.

        There’s a reason those guys always debate college students, and then when they run into college students that happen to be on the debate team and call them on their bullshit, those videos never make it to YouTube.

        • Fallibilist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Peterson mostly agrees with Harris? The guys who spend an hour trying to define the word “truth” and failing to do so? I could not disagree more.

          • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Correct. Their disagreements are largely performative. There is a reason they get platformed by the same people and are both considered “deep thinkers” by those people. Same with Ben shabongo and the fourth guy.

            Note they all use the same tactic of decorum in their “debates”.