1797
me_irl
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
1797 points (100.0% liked)
me_irl
6039 readers
950 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You're clearly incorrect!
I know you're playfully joking, but I second their opinion. I was basically on a crusade against misinformation in 2020 and 2021 against COVID deniers and election truthers. Nobody ever changes their mind. Nobody ever admits their wrong. No matter how respectful and accommodating you are, no matter what sources you find, it's just not worth it. Give one response if you feel inclined, but don't reply to the reply. Don't waste your time. Don't get pointlessly stressed.
People do change their minds sometimes, but it's never done in the moment and if you press them too hard on their beliefs they'll double down.
You don’t primarily reply to convince the person you reply to, it’s about the other readers.
On top of that, I don't think most people realize how that level of dehumanization affects the conversation as a whole. We are not replying to people, we are replying to walls of text, abstract concepts, hypotheses, and we treat one another as such. It's why anonymous internet discussions so quickly devolve.
It depends on the topic. If you talk about personal or emotional issues the other person is more important.
If you’re are arguing history or technology for example, then topical arguments and facts are more essential. Ideally you attack the arguments, not the person.
The devolvement is usually because there’s little social consequence to being obstinate and uncompromising.
A conversation can be about discovering new information by sharing perspectives and accumulating ideas and facts. If it devolves into a fight about who is right, then it’s about power, dominance, performance, not learning and discovery.
Places like this on the internet are also filled with people who are mentally unwell, have issues with social interactions, etc.. That affects the quality of the conversation as well.
Getting into an argument gets you attention, dopamine, excitement and so on. You can be a mighty keyboard warrior fighting for whatever cause you find worthwhile. This makes you feel great while you’re actually a lonely NEET screaming into the void.
I’m speaking from experience here. I attended a group for internet addiction for a while. Half were gamers, the other half lonely NEETs wasting away their days by arguing on the internet.
We know how to change people's minds, and it's paradoxically by not confronting the misinformation. Instead, present an alternate but real fact about the root cause of their mis-belief.
I gotta say, there's a sentiment that nobody has ever said anything on the internet that's ever changed anyone's opinion about anything. And it is not a damning indictment of the internet nearly as much as folks who live by the theory.
But maybe they're right enough that it doesn't matter. A thousand hours of posting could be spent doing something more productive in swaying public opinion. Maybe "Ender's Game" is a lie and you cannot actually post your way to the Presidency. I mean, I certainly can't think of anyone who went so ham on social media that they reshaped an entire nation's political philosophy.
But also, maybe there's a negative valiance to posting. Perhaps it's just harder to post your way into people's hearts and fill them with love. But its comparatively easy to post your way into their amygdalas and drive them insane.