If nazzis and I agree 1+1 makes 2 that doesn’t mean we’re all Nazzis.
Now, we’re going to count many examples you used to illustrate your point:
I counted one, and this was it right here:
If nazzis and I agree 1+1 makes 2 that doesn’t mean we’re all Nazzis.
Using a single example to make a point of comparison is dumb. Because one could just as easily say that I breathe air, and similarly, so do hamsters, therefore- I must be a hamster.
Demonstrably, this is untrue. And it’s a dumb argument to make. And it’s not the argument I made. I simply said that calling upon a similarity
shared with Nazis isn’t going to make the point one would probably wish to make.
(And the plural of Nazi is “Nazis.” Don’t be afraid to spell their name correctly. It’s not for the purpose of showing respect to them, it’s showing respect to the person that has to read what you’re saying)
You’re really hung up on the debate bro argumentation
NO IM NOT!
and seem to be intentionally missing the point everyone is trying to convey to you.
Which is?
Get over yourself man.
Done!
No one is giving you a hand job for your superior intellectual acumen.
Well now that’s fucking disappointing. I thought for sure there’d be some kind of reward for having to deal with some random’s little White Knight complex. I mean, you barged in here to the defense when you weren’t even called upon! Should I have just conceded right there and fed your horse for you?
No man, all the og poster was saying was that the downvote strategy has no effect. That’s all they said.
And the best you could come up with is
“hurr durr nazi”.
And when multiple people tried to clarify to you how you missed the point you instead doubled down and started talking about logic and how arguments don’t follow. Which brings me back to the first thing I wrote:
don’t shoot the messenger. Shoot the message
This is like the third time I’ve explained this. I’m done. Bye.
No man there is no white knight complex. Again, with the weird labels.
However, there is a weird fixation with users on this platform unable to engage with a topic without having to categorize and label whoever they are engaging with.
For instance: Someone pointed out an extremely neutral fact and it went straight to “well you’re a nazi”. It’s kinda sad and ultimately I just question what even is the point of discussing anything on this platform when it will always escalate within 1-2 comments to boxing someone into some kind of ad hominem or label the way you did?
Do you just delete the comments you make that get downvoted? It’s bad for lemmy to disrupt discussion by fragmenting conversations because you don’t “win.”
Yea i deleted the comments because they weren’t constructive and it seemed you wanted to talk about anything except the main thing I (and others) have highlighted for you so what’s the point.
It’s an unusual scenario that I’ve found is very typical of this particular platform and I’m very intrigued by this phenomenon. A really high percentage of conversations here seems very invested in labeling the other rather than addressing the argument presented. It’s particularly felt on Lemmy. It’s probably trivial to you, but it’s so frequent in my experience here that I’m beginning to wonder what about this place drives every conversation into an instant indictment of the other?
For instance, I’m really curious why in this particular case when someone pointed out why downvoting has little to no effect in changing behavioral outcomes your first instinct was to classify that person into the same category as the initial example?
Like, what led you to seek out that indictment in situ right out of the bat? Was it the way they phrased it? Did it remind you of a past story or example?
What aspect of the statement:
“down votes are not compelling”
made you go straight to : "aha! You have commonality with Nazis! "?
What intrigues me, is when people using batshit stupid singular examples like- how ignorant it is to find similarity in two people that correctly use math to illustrate commonality with Nazis, as an argument in defense of someone showing a direct commonality with Nazis-
And then arguing against their own point in another thread.
You really need to keep better track of your arguments. It’ll save you the embarrassment of having to delete your hypocrisy.
You’re obsessed with this singular logical example I provided but you refuse to answer my main question. It’s odd.
I’m going to ask again: what about someone declaring “down votes don’t affect behavioral outcomes” made you go straight to: “wow. You have so much in common with nazis”.
I’ve asked this like three or four times, and each reply you write focuses only on the bad logic about the analogy I provided earlier.
Why won’t you answer my main question? Is it because it makes you seem unhinged? I’m not interested in judging you. I’m just curious why? Why was that the first thing that you thought to write? Why won’t you answer this question? So far you’ve only talked about the analogy I gave and it’s been like three or four replies. I’m really curious.
It’s the context. I’ve seen you argue in a few other threads in a similar way. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you have an intellectual disability that makes the importance of context hard to grasp. It’s very common with some forms of autism. I’m choosing to believe this because the other option is that you’re just another conservative who is “just asking questions”, which is a classic alt-right approach and is exactly the kind of obdurate behaviour the OP is taking about.
Premise
Who you fight with, who you fight against, what you fight for, when you choose to fight. These are all often more important than what you’re arguing. In this case:
Background
The prompt was “don’t waste your effort fighting people who only argue out of malice and are not open to changing their beliefs”
I said “sure, but that should be balanced by the importance of making Nazis feel unwelcome. At the minimum put in the effort to downvote them”
Buddy replies “no, that won’t work don’t bother”
Who you fight with:
Sure he had an argument that COULD be discussed, but in this case it’s important to note that MOST people who argue for "not putting in even minimal effort to fight Nazis " are Nazis.
who you fight against
Yes, I’m sure you’ll point out that he didn’t say not to put in effort to fight Nazis. But in this context he’s ONLY arguing against downvotes for Nazis. It’s not like he presented alternatives.
what you fight for, when you choose to fight
In this case he’s fighting for not downvoting Nazis, and he’s only arguing this point in this context where his arguments support not downvoting Nazis. There is no value of “downvotes don’t work” that he’s arguing for in dozens of threads… Just this one time, in this one context where the argument is against downvoting Nazis.
Final notes
Against, I’m well aware of minor technical assumptions implicit in the text. I’ve tried to minimize them or address them ahead of time to allow you to see the importance of context in what people will support our fight against. I’m sure you can write 1000 words to try to pick apart what I’ve said, or just 3 words to dismiss it. But if you try, you’ll understand that context is more important to most people than content, especially in a public setting like Lemmy where you can’t vet the people you’re talking to ahead of time. If you want to genuinely argue content you have to make sure the context isn’t working against you.
The guy is a shit stirring troll. He likes to hide behind mods, while yelling at them. Any disagreement is a fight and boy does he hate a fight. Meta misses him as he’s the perfect little engagement goblin.
I beg that you accept my profuse apologies for making you way those endless hours for my return. I had no idea you fancied me so. And were I to have known, I may’ve not quickened to my slumber so!
/s
Look dude. You really need to let this go. You and your sock puppet have been following me in and out of conversations to the point that I’m not sure which of the three or four in as many communities that I’ve had with you- you’re even talking about.
Just let it go and walk away. Seriously. Learn to accept that while you’re free to offer your opinion, it doesn’t have to mean shit to anyone else but you. There is no entitlement you have to anyone’s time or effort here, just like there is no obligation we have to accept your opinion as truth. This applies to me as well- which is why I’m not bothering to argue to you to change your mind. I don’t care if I’m right. I just started my opinion that is all!
Plain as.
And it seems to me, that others might feel the same, because the ratios show it. Clearly few aside from your little friend seems to really care about your goals to out me as wrong, and even if I were- who cares. It’s the internet.
Okay, let me try and help. You said this:
Now, we’re going to count many examples you used to illustrate your point:
I counted one, and this was it right here:
Using a single example to make a point of comparison is dumb. Because one could just as easily say that I breathe air, and similarly, so do hamsters, therefore- I must be a hamster.
Demonstrably, this is untrue. And it’s a dumb argument to make. And it’s not the argument I made. I simply said that calling upon a similarity shared with Nazis isn’t going to make the point one would probably wish to make.
(And the plural of Nazi is “Nazis.” Don’t be afraid to spell their name correctly. It’s not for the purpose of showing respect to them, it’s showing respect to the person that has to read what you’re saying)
You’re really hung up on the debate bro argumentation and seem to be intentionally missing the point everyone is trying to convey to you.
Get over yourself man. No one is giving you a hand job for your superior intellectual acumen.
NO IM NOT!
Which is?
Done!
Well now that’s fucking disappointing. I thought for sure there’d be some kind of reward for having to deal with some random’s little White Knight complex. I mean, you barged in here to the defense when you weren’t even called upon! Should I have just conceded right there and fed your horse for you?
Debate bro indeed.
No man, all the og poster was saying was that the downvote strategy has no effect. That’s all they said.
And the best you could come up with is
“hurr durr nazi”.
And when multiple people tried to clarify to you how you missed the point you instead doubled down and started talking about logic and how arguments don’t follow. Which brings me back to the first thing I wrote:
don’t shoot the messenger. Shoot the message
This is like the third time I’ve explained this. I’m done. Bye.
Bye!
No man there is no white knight complex. Again, with the weird labels.
However, there is a weird fixation with users on this platform unable to engage with a topic without having to categorize and label whoever they are engaging with.
For instance: Someone pointed out an extremely neutral fact and it went straight to “well you’re a nazi”. It’s kinda sad and ultimately I just question what even is the point of discussing anything on this platform when it will always escalate within 1-2 comments to boxing someone into some kind of ad hominem or label the way you did?
Do you just delete the comments you make that get downvoted? It’s bad for lemmy to disrupt discussion by fragmenting conversations because you don’t “win.”
Either own what you say, or don’t say it.
Yea i deleted the comments because they weren’t constructive and it seemed you wanted to talk about anything except the main thing I (and others) have highlighted for you so what’s the point.
It’s an unusual scenario that I’ve found is very typical of this particular platform and I’m very intrigued by this phenomenon. A really high percentage of conversations here seems very invested in labeling the other rather than addressing the argument presented. It’s particularly felt on Lemmy. It’s probably trivial to you, but it’s so frequent in my experience here that I’m beginning to wonder what about this place drives every conversation into an instant indictment of the other?
For instance, I’m really curious why in this particular case when someone pointed out why downvoting has little to no effect in changing behavioral outcomes your first instinct was to classify that person into the same category as the initial example?
Like, what led you to seek out that indictment in situ right out of the bat? Was it the way they phrased it? Did it remind you of a past story or example?
What aspect of the statement:
“down votes are not compelling”
made you go straight to : "aha! You have commonality with Nazis! "?
What intrigues me, is when people using batshit stupid singular examples like- how ignorant it is to find similarity in two people that correctly use math to illustrate commonality with Nazis, as an argument in defense of someone showing a direct commonality with Nazis-
And then arguing against their own point in another thread.
You really need to keep better track of your arguments. It’ll save you the embarrassment of having to delete your hypocrisy.
You’re obsessed with this singular logical example I provided but you refuse to answer my main question. It’s odd.
I’m going to ask again: what about someone declaring “down votes don’t affect behavioral outcomes” made you go straight to: “wow. You have so much in common with nazis”.
I’ve asked this like three or four times, and each reply you write focuses only on the bad logic about the analogy I provided earlier.
Why won’t you answer my main question? Is it because it makes you seem unhinged? I’m not interested in judging you. I’m just curious why? Why was that the first thing that you thought to write? Why won’t you answer this question? So far you’ve only talked about the analogy I gave and it’s been like three or four replies. I’m really curious.
It’s the context. I’ve seen you argue in a few other threads in a similar way. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you have an intellectual disability that makes the importance of context hard to grasp. It’s very common with some forms of autism. I’m choosing to believe this because the other option is that you’re just another conservative who is “just asking questions”, which is a classic alt-right approach and is exactly the kind of obdurate behaviour the OP is taking about.
Premise Who you fight with, who you fight against, what you fight for, when you choose to fight. These are all often more important than what you’re arguing. In this case:
Background The prompt was “don’t waste your effort fighting people who only argue out of malice and are not open to changing their beliefs” I said “sure, but that should be balanced by the importance of making Nazis feel unwelcome. At the minimum put in the effort to downvote them” Buddy replies “no, that won’t work don’t bother”
Who you fight with: Sure he had an argument that COULD be discussed, but in this case it’s important to note that MOST people who argue for "not putting in even minimal effort to fight Nazis " are Nazis.
who you fight against Yes, I’m sure you’ll point out that he didn’t say not to put in effort to fight Nazis. But in this context he’s ONLY arguing against downvotes for Nazis. It’s not like he presented alternatives.
what you fight for, when you choose to fight In this case he’s fighting for not downvoting Nazis, and he’s only arguing this point in this context where his arguments support not downvoting Nazis. There is no value of “downvotes don’t work” that he’s arguing for in dozens of threads… Just this one time, in this one context where the argument is against downvoting Nazis.
Final notes Against, I’m well aware of minor technical assumptions implicit in the text. I’ve tried to minimize them or address them ahead of time to allow you to see the importance of context in what people will support our fight against. I’m sure you can write 1000 words to try to pick apart what I’ve said, or just 3 words to dismiss it. But if you try, you’ll understand that context is more important to most people than content, especially in a public setting like Lemmy where you can’t vet the people you’re talking to ahead of time. If you want to genuinely argue content you have to make sure the context isn’t working against you.
So you don’t have an answer for why you escalated so fast to name calling. It’s just second nature to you. Got it.
The guy is a shit stirring troll. He likes to hide behind mods, while yelling at them. Any disagreement is a fight and boy does he hate a fight. Meta misses him as he’s the perfect little engagement goblin.
I beg that you accept my profuse apologies for making you way those endless hours for my return. I had no idea you fancied me so. And were I to have known, I may’ve not quickened to my slumber so!
/s
Look dude. You really need to let this go. You and your sock puppet have been following me in and out of conversations to the point that I’m not sure which of the three or four in as many communities that I’ve had with you- you’re even talking about.
Just let it go and walk away. Seriously. Learn to accept that while you’re free to offer your opinion, it doesn’t have to mean shit to anyone else but you. There is no entitlement you have to anyone’s time or effort here, just like there is no obligation we have to accept your opinion as truth. This applies to me as well- which is why I’m not bothering to argue to you to change your mind. I don’t care if I’m right. I just started my opinion that is all!
Plain as.
And it seems to me, that others might feel the same, because the ratios show it. Clearly few aside from your little friend seems to really care about your goals to out me as wrong, and even if I were- who cares. It’s the internet.
Just, learn to let go.