• VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 month ago

    Look, I am a big believer in attempting to educate other people and better the world around you by trying to change harmful or hateful outlooks, but I also realize that some people cannot be changed. Trying to engage these types of people in real life is just putting yourself in danger. Engaging them online is fine but there’s a limit to how long you should spend having dialogue with someone who could probably argue their irrational viewpoints for weeks on end without stopping.

    • underwire212@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I try to keep an open mind and engage in conversation when I can too. Tbh the fallacy I find to be the most irritating (and probably most common) is when the person already presupposes your entire argument and crafts straw men arguments against you. To me, that tells me they’re just unwilling/unable to listen to me and listen to my actual arguments. No use in debating someone who doesn’t even know what they’re debating against.

      Having to keep saying “but that’s not what I said” every time I try and explain myself gets exhausting after awhile lol

    • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yep.

      My entire family is conservative. They eat up every drop of shit from the shit fountain. I can disprove anything they give me in about five seconds, and no matter how absolutely cratered their opinions are and decimated their egos in an argument, a week later, they’ll start right back up again with some insane shit they heard online.

      It’s like trying to patch a dam made of mud.

    • sketelon@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      “Their irrational viewpoints” because our viewpoints are all rational. Unfortunately, that’s what everyone who’s hard-line on their views and won’t consider discussion with others seems to think.

      The meme posted here comes off as super dumb to me, not only will we not listen to anyone else, we are so closed minded that we won’t even listen to people who agree with us but also see where the other side is coming from.

      Lemmy is a strong echochamber for leftists sadly, it was my hope that Lemmy would have a thoughtful userbase who recognises both sides are equally problematic for their extreme views and hard headedness.

      Majority of it is bullshit anyway, biggest joke on earth is the political system, the world functions because of all the people who don’t give a damn and get on with living their lives and being useful.

      • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        You are in a queer friendly community talking about “… recognize both sides are equally problematic for their extreme views …” That is incorrect. The most leftists are not pushing or perpetrating the genocide (or removal, or subjugation) of my people (the queer, disabled, and other social minorities). I know from experience the same is not true of the right. Just like the OP and like many of the comments, I do not tolerate “both-sidesism” because it is not an equal scale. The right creates a platform built regressionist practices. I think some leftists are annoying, but at least they aren’t trying to kill me.

        • abbadon420@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          “equally problematic for their extreme views” means you look at all the extreme views of each side and compare how problematic they are. Genocide on social minorities is an extreme view. Accepting social minorities for what they are is not an extreme view, so these two things cannot be compared in this equation.

          The genocide of social minortities thing from “the right” could maybe be compared to the excusing and denying of Chinese genocide from “the left”.

          In this case, both are problematic, but the right side thing has a personal impact for you, so it weighs heavier for you. Someone with a Taiwanese background may find the other side’s problem to weigh heavier.

          It s not a very good measure to base your political beliefs upon, but it’s rather a measure to support the centrist view and illustrate that extremism happens on both sides.

          Finally, political views are a spectrum. There is no true left or right or liberal or conservative, or rather there is, but there shouldn’t be. The left/right debate only polarizes society. I think most centrists are against that polarisation and think that the centrist view could be a way to bridge the gap and find a way to reunite society.

          • wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I see the common mistake of associating the left with authoritarianism.

            China and such are not left. They’re even further right to the point of fascism labeled communism.

            Remebere communism/socialism is about the workers relation to the means of production. Chinese people do not own the factories they work on, so I’m not sure you can call them left.