Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2022 22:32:34 GMT -8
There are a LOT of reasons, but the blogger below is too polite to point all of them out: www.lightforcenetwork.com/dust-wind/why-you-cant-win-argument-internetA lot of what he says is true, but my humble opinion is that beyond the vastness of human stupidity, insanity and incompetence, the internet has basic formatting glitches. In an ACTUAL debate, there are rules, limits, qualifications, and a defined ending. You will know within minutes if you've won or lost, and can choose to either improve your skills, or take up another pastime. But on the net, any  can voice their opinion, and many choose to do so with alarming frequency. Sometimes it's due to boredom, or a lack of social skills, but people will advance the most uniquely ideas, then NEVER back down. I've dropped in on internet arguments that have gone on for DECADES, and to anyone who isn't either brain-dead or so blindly loyal they can't see straight, one party's stance holds merit, while the other's is pathetic. So beyond philosophies about how we arrive at our beliefs, and why and how we defend them, you have the built-in problem of a game without rules or boundaries or endings. And there's no rule against being insane or stupid or incompetent on the net. As long as you can express your pathetic ideas with some modicum of civility, you are always welcome anywhere - like a quiet drunk with plenty of money to spread around. And all this can lead to outcomes ranging from hilarious to absurd, like Alice in Wonderland on auto-play. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Dec 15, 2022 15:52:27 GMT -8
It actually depends on what parameters and the scope of the internet debate.
On the CGC forums moderation took the position to always limit and censor one side of the debate.
Before they did that, certain people looked like blooming idjits but those same people started to hide behind moderation (and spite those that opposed them) when they realized they could game the system, scurry and hide behind gaming it.
Arguments can only be settled with honesty and that is the stumbling block every time.
Most people can't be intellectually honest with themselves.
I know that makes me sound pompous but I've admitted publicly that I've been wrong many times, and that's been attested to me by my friends but more importantly even my enemies.
Honesty is the source of trouble for most all of the world's problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 15, 2022 17:56:42 GMT -8
There are a LOT of reasons, but the blogger below is too polite to point all of them out: www.lightforcenetwork.com/dust-wind/why-you-cant-win-argument-internetA lot of what he says is true, but my humble opinion is that beyond the vastness of human stupidity, insanity and incompetence, the internet has basic formatting glitches. In an ACTUAL debate, there are rules, limits, qualifications, and a defined ending. You will know within minutes if you've won or lost, and can choose to either improve your skills, or take up another pastime. But on the net, any  can voice their opinion, and many choose to do so with alarming frequency. Sometimes it's due to boredom, or a lack of social skills, but people will advance the most uniquely ideas, then NEVER back down. I've dropped in on internet arguments that have gone on for DECADES, and to anyone who isn't either brain-dead or so blindly loyal they can't see straight, one party's stance holds merit, while the other's is pathetic. So beyond philosophies about how we arrive at our beliefs, and why and how we defend them, you have the built-in problem of a game without rules or boundaries or endings. And there's no rule against being insane or stupid or incompetent on the net. As long as you can express your pathetic ideas with some modicum of civility, you are always welcome anywhere - like a quiet drunk with plenty of money to spread around. And all this can lead to outcomes ranging from hilarious to absurd, like Alice in Wonderland on auto-play. winning an internet argument is extremely rare-impossible if the other person is emotionally tied to the argument. some may admit they are wrong about small things, like date stamps on comics or whatnot, but large disagreements like climate change-nope. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2022 22:12:08 GMT -8
It actually depends on what parameters and the scope of the internet debate. On the CGC forums moderation took the position to always limit and censor one side of the debate. Before they did that, certain people looked like blooming idjits but those same people started to hide behind moderation (and spite those that opposed them) when they realized they could game the system, scurry and hide behind gaming it. Arguments can only be settled with honesty and that is the stumbling block every time. Most people can't be intellectually honest with themselves. I know that makes me sound pompous but I've admitted publicly that I've been wrong many times, and that's been attested to me by my friends but more importantly even my enemies. Honesty is the source of trouble for most all of the world's problems. Gaming the system is a problem (the incompetent looking to moderators to conceal their incompetence, and address the inevitable exasperation of serious posters to that incompetence), but the real problem on any and all forums is the democratic nature of the internet. Being stupid, incompetent or insane is not disqualifying, and when you add in the lack of rules, limits and boundaries to debate, you get these 20 year races on the merry-go-round. By definition, the stupid, incompetent and insane cannot be intellectually honest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2022 22:14:27 GMT -8
There are a LOT of reasons, but the blogger below is too polite to point all of them out: www.lightforcenetwork.com/dust-wind/why-you-cant-win-argument-internetA lot of what he says is true, but my humble opinion is that beyond the vastness of human stupidity, insanity and incompetence, the internet has basic formatting glitches. In an ACTUAL debate, there are rules, limits, qualifications, and a defined ending. You will know within minutes if you've won or lost, and can choose to either improve your skills, or take up another pastime. But on the net, any can voice their opinion, and many choose to do so with alarming frequency. Sometimes it's due to boredom, or a lack of social skills, but people will advance the most uniquely ideas, then NEVER back down. I've dropped in on internet arguments that have gone on for DECADES, and to anyone who isn't either brain-dead or so blindly loyal they can't see straight, one party's stance holds merit, while the other's is pathetic. So beyond philosophies about how we arrive at our beliefs, and why and how we defend them, you have the built-in problem of a game without rules or boundaries or endings. And there's no rule against being insane or stupid or incompetent on the net. As long as you can express your pathetic ideas with some modicum of civility, you are always welcome anywhere - like a quiet drunk with plenty of money to spread around. And all this can lead to outcomes ranging from hilarious to absurd, like Alice in Wonderland on auto-play. winning an internet argument is extremely rare-impossible if the other person is emotionally tied to the argument. some may admit they are wrong about small things, like date stamps on comics or whatnot, but large disagreements like climate change-nope. As that stunning and brave liberal duo once observed, sorry seems to be the hardest word... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2022 5:21:41 GMT -8
There are a LOT of reasons, but the blogger below is too polite to point all of them out: www.lightforcenetwork.com/dust-wind/why-you-cant-win-argument-internetA lot of what he says is true, but my humble opinion is that beyond the vastness of human stupidity, insanity and incompetence, the internet has basic formatting glitches. In an ACTUAL debate, there are rules, limits, qualifications, and a defined ending. You will know within minutes if you've won or lost, and can choose to either improve your skills, or take up another pastime. But on the net, any can voice their opinion, and many choose to do so with alarming frequency. Sometimes it's due to boredom, or a lack of social skills, but people will advance the most uniquely ideas, then NEVER back down. I've dropped in on internet arguments that have gone on for DECADES, and to anyone who isn't either brain-dead or so blindly loyal they can't see straight, one party's stance holds merit, while the other's is pathetic. So beyond philosophies about how we arrive at our beliefs, and why and how we defend them, you have the built-in problem of a game without rules or boundaries or endings. And there's no rule against being insane or stupid or incompetent on the net. As long as you can express your pathetic ideas with some modicum of civility, you are always welcome anywhere - like a quiet drunk with plenty of money to spread around. And all this can lead to outcomes ranging from hilarious to absurd, like Alice in Wonderland on auto-play. winning an internet argument is extremely rare-impossible if the other person is emotionally tied to the argument. some may admit they are wrong about small things, like date stamps on comics or whatnot, but large disagreements like climate change-nope. In light of recent events - as liberals are fond of saying - I have a question for you as a biologist. Why do the incompetent persist? From an evolutionary perspective I mean. Is it that fools and followers are needed more than leaders and the clear-headed (sadly rare as these two qualities are in combination)? Is incompetence as a result of trauma the issue more so than some baked-in tendency for so many to be incapable of intellectual honesty, correction and advancement? Is the long-noted incapacity of the incompetent to recognize and potentially correct their incompetence a function (as I suspect) of the need to appear competent at all costs, and project an ignorance-based confidence which helps the incompetent avoid being ostracized in the short term? (Though this shunning may inevitably occur in the long term as a cumulative effect of the individual's incompetence.) Why is the world so full of blockheads? Zod will await your reply.  |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2022 8:49:16 GMT -8
winning an internet argument is extremely rare-impossible if the other person is emotionally tied to the argument. some may admit they are wrong about small things, like date stamps on comics or whatnot, but large disagreements like climate change-nope. In light of recent events - as liberals are fond of saying - I have a question for you as a biologist. Why do the incompetent persist? From an evolutionary perspective I mean. Is it that fools and followers are needed more than leaders and the clear-headed (sadly rare as these two qualities are in combination)? Is incompetence as a result of trauma the issue more so than some baked-in tendency for so many to be incapable of intellectual honesty, correction and advancement? Is the long-noted incapacity of the incompetent to recognize and potentially correct their incompetence a function (as I suspect) of the need to appear competent at all costs, and project an ignorance-based confidence which helps the incompetent avoid being ostracized in the short term? (Though this shunning may inevitably occur in the long term as a cumulative effect of the individual's incompetence.) Why is the world so full of blockheads? Zod will await your reply.  this is why |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Dec 19, 2022 12:34:30 GMT -8
winning an internet argument is extremely rare-impossible if the other person is emotionally tied to the argument. some may admit they are wrong about small things, like date stamps on comics or whatnot, but large disagreements like climate change-nope. As that stunning and brave liberal duo once observed, sorry seems to be the hardest word... The main reason nobody can win an argument between two people is because of a lack of honesty or integrity.  For example, SEVERAL people confirmed they saw you call another board member by their old CGC board name and yet you deny it. In order for a discussion to productively it MUST move from one established point ot the next. It's impossible to proceed once you've proven that one party is dishonest. It's like trying to build a house without a solid foundation. You can't. End thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2022 22:09:37 GMT -8
In light of recent events - as liberals are fond of saying - I have a question for you as a biologist. Why do the incompetent persist? From an evolutionary perspective I mean. Is it that fools and followers are needed more than leaders and the clear-headed (sadly rare as these two qualities are in combination)? Is incompetence as a result of trauma the issue more so than some baked-in tendency for so many to be incapable of intellectual honesty, correction and advancement? Is the long-noted incapacity of the incompetent to recognize and potentially correct their incompetence a function (as I suspect) of the need to appear competent at all costs, and project an ignorance-based confidence which helps the incompetent avoid being ostracized in the short term? (Though this shunning may inevitably occur in the long term as a cumulative effect of the individual's incompetence.) Why is the world so full of blockheads? Zod will await your reply. this is why Very interesting, and quite unexpected! In the context of the topic, it boils down to objective competence (to the extent this could even be ultimately determined) being irrelevant from an evolutionary perspective. If one can project competence, embracing it as part of one's self-image, and thus convince a potential mate to perceive us as fit, this is all that matters. To the extent that intellectual honesty (for instance) and subsequent self-correction might interfere with a steady state of confidence in our projected fitness, it's actually an evolutionary disadvantage from the standpoint of the imperative for reproduction. In other words, Mike Judge got it right with Idiocracy; the confidence of the stupid trumps the hesitant mindfulness of the bright! Say it loud - I'm a dope & I'm proud!!!!  |
|
can voice their 
can voice their 
