It’s a hobby.
1000% worth it.
If you don’t challenge things, you let bullshit flourish and that influences societal views.
yes.
There’s a weird dynamic to arguing online, particularly when it comes to political topics. Most of the time, you won’t convince your counterpart. Maybe some point sticks with them later and you’ll never know, but either way they’re not really the target of the arguments. It’s the (potential) audience that the argument is supposed to be for: People less emotionally invested in the conflict may take away something useful from the arguments, people on the fence about an issue might come around to your point, and people sharing your opinion will see that they’re not alone and feel affirmed.
Essentially, it’s a performance on an public stage for the sake of discourse. Phrased strongly, you don’t want “the other side” to dominate the public opinion, so you engage them. In the process, you may hone your own arguments, or you may find them wanting, perhaps even see them start to crack.
I used to enjoy it a while back, now not so much. As long as people understand this is not how you change the world, you are doing this for yourself.
i think that’s true in large social media spaces, but not so much in smaller focused forums.
but since the latter doesn’t really exist anymore, it is kind of irrelevant.
People mostly respond to your presentation and how it makes them feel, not the content of what you are saying. Hence why most people objecting to you won’t even object to what you say, they will object to their interpretation of what you said and how it made them feel.
Pro tip: Never open your inbox.
Not as powerful as you but I’m working on it
That’s a strong magic right there.
Screw feelings. The truth is worth discovering.
tell that to everyone who thinks their feelings are the only truth there is.
Yeah, I like to piss off Liberals and Nazis.
What’s the difference?
Other people in this thread have already said it better than I could but in brief: Yes
Was it worth it?
Well, we’re clearly sitting on a picturesque beach on the Spanish Med, so… yeah? Sure, getting SWATted was no fun, and the bogus restraining orders were a real hassle, but ever since we had no choice but to leave the US things got a lot better.
Now, how about some sunscreen babe? You’re gonna burn like that.
I want her feet
arguing, no. discussing, sure
That’s the key to human interaction in general online or offline. Don’t argue with people, communicate with them.
it doesn’t matter if you do that, if they don’t.
this is like the classic ‘just tell them’ reply to relationship issues… what people forget is that people don’t listen. and if you tell them, they don’t listen, well then you’re going no where. it also assumes people aren’t trying to win, when often, they are. some folks regard communication, understanding, and compromise, as themselves losing.
it requires two parties standing on the same ground and working from the same place, which is rare to find.
If I win it’s worth it
Before I realized there was no point 99% of the time, I didn’t think it was a waste of time. Now if I’m feeling generous I think, at least on a platform like Lemmy, best you can hope is like 10% of the time you plant a seed for the person with a wrong idea or opinion that will eventually lead them to a better understanding. I certainly know that’s happened to me before when I was wrong. So often, people make the online exchange feel awful though. There’s a prominent attitude in many extremist/wrong viewpoints that not only are they right, everyone who thinks differently is an evil asshole.
It’s not just for the person you reply to, but also for anyone else who may come across this thread. That’s how I see it anyway.
Right, that’s also how I think of it
It is fun arguing with people you disagree with as long as both argues in good faith and has uses good etiquette. Both needs to be open minded to a certain degree.
The goal of a conversation is not to convince, but rather to explore your own and their mind. To grow together. A conversation is not a competition, we should not aim to “win” a conversation.
No it isn’t. I win!
You’re never going to win, and that’s not even the point. The point is to provide pushback to people who rarely receive it so that everyone else reading the exchange has a chance to see accurate information.
For example, it’s staggering how many people insist they want socialism when what they’re actually describing is social democracy, yet they have no idea what either term actually means. They’ll argue, foaming at the mouth, that humanity’s only hope is “socialism,” while demonstrating they don’t understand the ideology they’re advocating for.
The same goes for the abundance of anti-American rhetoric. Some criticism of America is absolutely justified—I have plenty of criticisms of my own country. But it’s interesting how many people who endlessly denounce America never mention what country they’re from or hold their own country to the same standard.
So no, the point isn’t to win the argument. The point is to apply enough pressure that the other person starts making obvious mistakes, exposing the weaknesses in their own position. That’s the entertaining part.
We must be on different lemmys because it seems pretty well understood here that the whole point of socialism is that the workers democratically control the means of production, only liberals from the USA act confused about that
So no. This is exactly what I’m talking about.
Socialism is not “democratic ownership of the means of production.” Where did you get that from? What YouTube channels are you watching?
Socialism is social or public ownership of the means of production. Democracy is a method of governance, not an economic system. The two are not synonymous.
In fact, there are companies right here in the United States that are run democratically. They’re called worker cooperatives. The employees collectively own the company, elect management, vote on major decisions, and often have much smaller pay gaps between executives and line workers. They’re successful examples of democratic workplaces operating within a capitalist economy.
Socialism, by contrast, is an economic system in which the means of production are owned socially rather than privately. That ownership can take different forms, including state ownership or worker ownership, depending on the model.
Capitalism is the opposite: the means of production are privately owned, and profits accrue primarily to the owners or shareholders.
And thanks for proving my point. What liberals have to do with any of this, I have no idea. You pulled that completely out of your ass because you heard it on conservative talk radio or somewhere similar.
It’s badly phrased but I think that “workers democratically control the means of production” translates to “workers own the means of production”.
So I think you are ranting over nothing.
As for worker co-ops in capitalist countries I would argue that those are indeed bubbles of socialism within a broader capitalist system. Just like you can have communes inside a capitalist country. Have you heard of socialist market economy or economic democracy?
No, I’m objecting because you’re collapsing multiple distinct concepts into the word “socialism.”
A worker co-op is a company where the employees collectively own that particular business. That does not mean the economy is socialist. It is still operating in a market economy, competing with privately owned firms, buying and selling goods, and responding to prices. That’s capitalism permitting an alternative ownership structure.
Socialism, in the classical sense, is public or social ownership of the means of production across the economy. How that ownership is administered, through the state, municipalities, public trusts, or some other institution, is a separate question. “Workers democratically control the means of production” is one proposed implementation, not the definition itself.
That’s why economic democracy, market socialism, worker co-ops, and socialism are related but distinct concepts. You’re treating them as interchangeable.
Ironically, this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. People hear the word “socialism” and start attaching every form of worker participation, workplace democracy, or cooperative ownership to it, even when those things can and do exist inside capitalist economies.
And the reason I’m ranting is because you are the exact thing I was talking about in my original comment.
I agree with you.
Oh no, is this an echochamber now?
/s people!
I disagree. This is not an echo chamber.
Horray!
I agree, yes. I always try to have that conversation, even if the other side seems to be arguing, since at the beginning I am interested in their thoughts and motives, and trying to get them to understand mine. I do enjoy getting people angry though, so at certain point, if they are clearly arguing in bad faith, the calmness becomes a tool, to make them look like morons.
Arguing with trolls is probably more likely. People who serial reply lies in posts for whatever reason. You can never gain ground on them. Maybe 1:5 times you might silence someone with logic and truth. Maybe. 1:100 times you might get someone to actually think and adjust their perspective.
