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.
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”
Quite literally, you need to learn self-control, how to pick your fights, manage your emotions.
You really wanna let a bunch of random asshats on the internet live rent free in your head, dictate the emotional course of your day, your evening, your week?
This is where the ‘touch grass’ meme partially comes from.
Sometimes, you need to let go, walk away, pet a kitty, hug a dog, admire a tree… or more ideally, work on some hobby that you find fun and fulfilling, and is at least potentially ‘useful’ in some very broad kind of practical way.
Also, a lot of people are beyond wrong/misinformed; they’re actively committed to denying that they’re wrong, even after its been shown that they are wrong.
You can just block people who are unwilling to admit fault or learn.
Its doesn’t need to be your responsibility to personally deal with every dumb idiot asshole on the internet.
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 :)
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.
No arguments there.
I’m not exactly great at it myself… but my dad used to tell me a story from his job.
There was a guy that made some claims, another desperately trying to correct him and tell him he’s wrong. To no avail, afterwards, he turned to another person that had a doctorate in the very topic they were arguing about. And said “why didn’t you say anything!? You know he is wrong!”
To which the doctor replied “yeah, but it’s not my problem that he’s an idiot”
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 mean, imagine not being able to respond to someone who defends the flat world. Even though I don’t know enough about this, I trust scientists, even if I can’t provide enough arguments that the earth is geoid at that moment, is this a good reason to question my view? We have a lot of beliefs in life that we don’t defend very well. If we want to justify all of them, I guess we won’t have time to live.
In a situation like this, you’d need to consider whether them being right on this particular point would actually shift your position.
A flat-earther might claim the moon landing never happened, show you a picture, and explain how it was actually taken in a studio. Okay - maybe you can’t prove them wrong. Maybe they even made a valid observation about that picture. What happens if you grant them this one point and acknowledge that yeah, they’re making a good point and maybe this particular picture is fake? Then what? Does that prove the moon landing never happened? No. Does it prove the earth is flat? No. At most it proves that one specific picture was fake. You still have a mountain of evidence supporting your belief that the earth is a sphere, not a disc, so it doesn’t shift your original view. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Just because someone proves to you that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams doesn’t mean you have to grant them that 9/11 was an inside job. It’s not a logical contradiction to hold these two views at the same time.
It’s already been mentioned that some people are putting on a show for an audience. There’s more to the social media metagame too. Many are simply trolls. Social media has gone a lot deeper than basic forum posting days.
Some commenters are setting up their own victory or confirmation bias. They post something incendiary which is an invitation for polar opposite replies so they can dump their prepared responses, which always sounds better than anyone who replies with a comment written off the cuff.
Sometimes they’re reposting a common variant of an (un)popular remark that more people than not will upvote/downvote or reply in agreeance/disagreeance with, thus proving a point to themselves (an audiences).
Of course there’s the ones who are flooding the zone with shit so they can shift the Overton Window.
I don’t know about you guys but the more I think about it the more social media seems like an actual asylum. There’s not an exchange of ideas like back in the older days of the internet. It’s more like the mentally unstable unhoused people who roam around cities arguing with themselves. Social media puts them all in a single room and let’s chaos ensue. All while the tech industry sells ads and subscriptions to view the pandemonium.
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.
you don’t have a problem with stopping the argument. you have a problem with the desire to always be right. you’re compensating for a lack of recognition in your skills and intelligence in real life.
accept that you will never get that recognition and you will stop needing to be right.
I know this, because I was this.
next time you see something that someone said is wrong, just high five them and move on.
Ouch that hits hard. I’m going to need some extra info on how to accept this.
for me it was accepting that my experience and opinions don’t matter to an individual, but they can make a difference when shared for a solution to a problem that was expressed.
this whole chain is actually a really good example of this process in motion.
I’m not expressing my experience or opinion as the answer, but sharing my perspective instead. I’m not right, but my experience may help others solve their problem on their own.
step 1. understand that people are people
step 2. understand that other people have their own problems are often don’t have the time/energy to focus on the topic at hand
step 3. understand that you’re not going to help other people by hammering your argument into their head. instead the thing that helps more is to make a better quality of life for everyone, then they will have the time to actually listen to you and find a meaningful result.
Why would I want to stop?
I just accept that I tried educating that person and if they refuse to learn that’s fine and I move on
weed
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.
Mmmm bud its been co opted heavily by the alt right and Russian bots a decade ago, maybe more. Its a cesspool.
Zucc: “they just gave all their information to me. Dumbfucks”
