Comment on Never give up
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 months agohe goal isn’t to sway the fanatics, it’s to publicly quash their arguments. To sway curious onlookers away from fanaticism before they become fanatics themselves.
Friendly reminder that the above is what I answered first.
Sorry, but this is a load of bollocks. It’s you putting yourself above some “gullible people” and still using debate skills to deceive them, just in some “good” direction. Maybe you are really right, but they believe you for the wrong reasons, and the process itself doesn’t reinforce that you are right in any way.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
If they’re already going to believe the wrong things for the wrong reasons, why not present the right things for the wrong reasons? Those who need the right reasons to change their mind are beyond the scope of this approach.
This is outreach to the gullible for harm reduction when they might otherwise filter themselves into a dangerous pipeline. This isn’t using debate skills to deceive, it’s using them to counter those who do use their debate should to deceive. Even if the content may possibly be wrong, by presenting it in contrast to preceding content it necessarily widens the debate-space from an unopposed confident statement to a dialogue that the onlooker can take into consideration while making their own decision.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
That part would be right if we weren’t talking about social media, which are designed to neuter this effect.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
All the better to counter-act that neutralizing force at every potent opportunity.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
That would be try to attract people outside of social media, not try to divert them inside social media where you’ll waste energy