It’s not about convincing the person toy are directly opposing. It’s about getting the counter arguments in a bigger forum so less brainwashed people might be able to avoid getting brainwashed.
I would describe this as the epitome of “bad faith” commenting.
You are not replying to their actual comment, you are grandstanding to the echo chamber.
meco03211@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Except literally not the echo chamber. The intent is to get the message to those not yet brainwashed so they don’t end up in an echo chamber. You can still directly and genuinely rebut their dumbassery. That’s not “bad faith”. The fact that I know the idiot won’t be swayed by the truth, doesn’t change the fact it’s the truth. Addressing idiotic points explicitly is not bad faith.
WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
You aren’t talking about “good faith” comments.
You’re imagining someone has already made a bad faith comment and you now have justification to be bad faith in return.
naught101@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Considering the value of a comment on the internet ONLY in relation to the person the comment is in reply to seems weirdly blinkered and bizarrely individualistic.
WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
I think that’s a bit of a false dichotomy.
I never intended to imply you only have to consider this one thing, but I think if a good faith comment exists, it’s one that respects the human on the other side of the screen they’re talking to and assumes good intent.
As human beings in good faith we give the benefit of the doubt and when someone crosses that line well then we do the calculus on how to respond without being a pushover
I would agree with you there are certain bad faith comments out there that aren’t worth responding to in good faith and that’s the scenario OP was trying to point out.