I don’t argue or “debate” online. Most online back-and-forth feels pointless and often intentionally inflammatory or in bad faith. I read all the replies I receive, but I rarely respond.
I don’t argue or “debate” online. Most online back-and-forth feels pointless and often intentionally inflammatory or in bad faith. I read all the replies I receive, but I rarely respond.
Don’t feed the trolls.
I like this better than not arguing or debating.
I think you can absolutely have a good argument or debate online, but you have to be doing so in good faith, as does the person you’re discussing a topic with.
Trolls of course are not. Learning to not feed them is sometimes difficult. But if you ignore/block them you’ll be just fine.
Yep. One can definitely have a heated debate about the merits of one process over another, when the outcome is constructive. That’s a rational argument.
Trolls on the other hand get “you’re not arguing in good faith, this conversation is over” and a block.
I use Voyager to access Lemmy, which, because it’s based on the long-dead Apollo for Reddit, has a feature where it tells you if an account is new. For example, I can see that your account is 4 days old.
It’s a really handy shortcut to ascertaining whether someone just holds a different viewpoint to me, or whether they’re just a troll account arguing in bad faith on yet another new account, because the previous one got banned. It really is a handy tool that helps provide a little friction between seeing a shitty take and responding to it. It gives me a chance to assess whether it’s worth it. And almost always, it’s not.
Obviously I’m not suggesting you’re a troll.
This is one of the best and most ignored rules.