I briefly considered responding to him but then remembered my "don't argue with idiots" rule
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
Conversation
I try to imagine every possible way that conversation could continue and every single one of them was more depressing than getting myself to shut up then and now, which was also bad but like, least bad in context
1
8
I usually avoid doing it with politics since it's pointless to argue about people's religious beliefs. I'm still easily drawn into long arguments with idiots though. The main reason is it bothers me that they're misleading other people. It doesn't happen in a private message.
3
1
right. my view here is: changing minds of people in public (where many people may read what you're saying and be affected by it) is essentially propaganda, because none of us are driven purely by logical inference. so you essentially want to do counterpropaganda. /
1
6
is arguing with an idiot in a public forum an *effective* way to do counterpropaganda? sometimes it actually is, so sure, why not. but usually it isn't, and your time would be more productively spent doing something else.
1
6
I can resist doing it when it's about politics but when it's a topic where I'm actually an expert it's hard to resist. The strong compulsion to do it goes away as it becomes clearer no one sane is going to read that deeply into the thread, or it's already effectively settled.
is there any real difference beteen propaganda on political or technical topics? I feel like you'd be the person to know it works basically the same, cf. your recent thread on Firefox's approach to privacy. Or maybe you do and I misunderstand you.
1
2
The best recent example would be B_r_e_n_d_a_n_E_i_c_h showing up and throwing a fit over me having an issue with B_r_a_v_e using SafetyNet. There wasn't any possibility of actually spending my time on a debate since he flipped out whenever I tried to elaborate on my thoughts.
1
Show replies
