🇳🇱
I dont know who needs to hear this.. but you can actually disagree with someone, have a debate, remain peaceful, and if you still disagree in the end you dont have to actually rage quit and block them. You can.... wait for it.... just disengage and walk away.
Not everyone has to agree with you about everything.
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@freemo these hand wavy bullshit accusations like "whataboutism", "false equality", etc. are intellectual sloth. immediately disqualifies any point someone makes if they are resorting to those.
@bonifartius I agree, but you missed the point... she replied to me with that, said I was #2 then immediately got blocked. Never mind the fact that #2 doesnt remotely resemble my reply.
@freemo that's quite annoying indeed, and stupid because it's just wasting everyones time, yes :)
@freemo For some reason, believing they had the last word makes them think they won the discussion. That also explains the reaction of the covid dude earlier today.
Probably some truth to that. I wonder if they realize its all in their head. Like I still get to reply the only difference is they dont see it.
@freemo I used ‘believing’ on purpose. It's some sort of irrational, almost pathological, quasi-religious and childish notion. Their heads probably work like this: “If I can't see them, that means I've defeated them. I'm a hero(ine). The world is a safer place thanks to me.”
Yea, well its clear whatever is going through their head it is certainly something like that, very childish indeed.
@freemo @josemanuel i know it's just a figure of speech but i think it's not good to call this behavior childish. children have to (and are eager to) learn how the world works. they engage in such make-believe games as a means of learning about reality. it's the polar opposite of these people which have reduced the world to a delusion.
Thats fair.. honestly its an insult to children to compare them to most adults. As you say even most children are better than that.
Immature may be the better term.
It's tough to be humble though, because you have to admit you were wrong when what you thought was right doesn't turn out to be true. Folks who work in hard science and engineering end up taking their licks at some point even if they're really good.
> There's a big difference between trying to be true and trying to be right. You can "be" the latter while failing to be the former, and that's not good -- reality doesn't care that you won a debate if you're just objectively wrong about something.
absolutely, but if you feel the conversation isnt about truth but just being right, then you dont rage quit and block, you just walk away from the conversation. So my point largely stands.
> It's tough to be humble though, because you have to admit you were wrong when what you thought was right doesn't turn out to be true. Folks who work in hard science and engineering end up taking their licks at some point even if they're really good.
While its certainly a good quality of character to admit your wrong, people who are in it for the right reasons dont care if the other side admits being wrong or not. You worry about what you learned, and if its nothing, and that is legitimate, then you just move on.
Not allowed; you must become enraged to become a "keyboard warrior" and allow all that "engagement time" to be commercialised with advertisements and similar.
@freemo No we can't. RAAAARGH!
@freemo I'd say that's true if you disagree about opinion.
But if I debate someone online and they choose to ignore facts to maintain the narrative that's in their head, I know they're probably not going to be offering anything useful to further conversations.
@LouisIngenthron Sure, the problem is most people when they are wrong but passionate think the other side is ignoring facts when in fact it can be you. Thats the rub.
@freemo Sure, but that's when you bring receipts. If someone ignores evidence that supports your argument while failing to produce any evidence that supports their own, then this is not a person who seeks truth, and they should not be taken seriously.
@LouisIngenthron Generally I agree, but the debate witht he medical doctor is a good example.. he brought receipts, he cited things and quoted them... but he wasnt **listening** or understanding his quotes. He thought i wasnt reading because i wasnt drawing the same conclusions as him and he thought he was literally just repeating the authors conclusion, which in reality he wasnt, he was saying something very different.
So its not always so cut and dry.
Obviously when it is nothing wrong with devaluing a persons interactions.
@freemo did the covid thread escalate? :)