me_irl

You're viewing a single thread.

192 comments

Here's a tip for how I've improved my social media experience greatly:
Stick to a rule of 1 comment and no further replies.
Strangers online are not going to be convinced by your point of view and there is nothing to gain from getting into a back and forth conversation. Unless it's a particularly positive or productive conversation about a particular interest you share....there's nothing to gain from arguing online and lots of potential mental damage you risk.
- Proposal for an exception: Where the comments/discussion revolve around something non-controversial with people who are OK with partaking in a conversation without needing to win it.
  
  Alternatively also:
  If the topic is controversial and everyone is level-headed and talk calmly.
  (Almost impossible on the internet, unless if there's real good moderation).
  
  I agree, but this scenario is purely hypothetical and so far not proven to exist. The Caps Lock was invented for a reason.
- 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.
- My stance is: when arguing on lemmy, you're not only trying to convince the other one. You're also trying to convince future readers. Even if the other one is an asshole, people see that and that has an effect.
- Actually a great tip, thanks! I will take this into my memory.
- This seems great but I wonder what the point is then.
  If I can’t convince someone right of centre to come to my side and they can’t convince me to come to theirs what’s the point in conversing with people?
  Furthermore why do we keep having a circle jerk about how right we are on things and calling out dumb stuff in the world if it’s all futile? Like we know the world is shit and getting worse so why do I relish in it and not just go climbing more.
  
  You're welcome to do that, but learn to do it properly. If you're just looking to preach and be outraged, then you're part of the problem. You can't change others, but you can change yourself.
  I personally love podcasts. I'll always be able to recommend from there:
  You Are Not So Smart: 306 - I Never Thought of it That Way - Mónica Guzmán (rebroadcast). Episode webpage and Media file
  If a black man can make friends with the most racist KKK members, and actually get them to change their minds through conversation, then there's hope for anyone.
  
  You’re not gonna convince me of your rule if you break it.
  
  I think that's the only recommendation I've ever seen for You Are Not So Smart and that episode is particularly good. Daryl Davis is a truly amazing person.
  
  Ah second comment! Got ya!
  
  This is what pisses me off by left wing debate bros who basically just make their brand "trigger the conservatives." They're no better.
  (I am not advocating for some sort of friendly both sides thing as an alternative.)
- I do this but I've come to believe it isn't an admirable quality. I know I should probably strive for a different answer.
- My rule is: nothing of value happens beyond the third level of nested replies. Lemmy's (and reddit's) format is about not just conversing with others, but the conversation being public and other people having a chance to interject with their own thoughts. But unfortunately, after a certain level, the UIs have to collapse or hide replies and comment, and almost no one clicks to see more or follow a thread, unless it's a controversial discussion. So, if it is so far away from the OP that every single interface will hide it by default, and it's not something positive, then it is not worth it to keep the convo and it doesn't warrant a reply.

192 comments