Argument about why an instance doesn’t want to federate with another instance that’s devoted to political trolling. Apparently that kind of behavior is simply a core tenet of the belief system, and to criticize it is to reject the whole ideology.
Argument about why an instance doesn’t want to federate with another instance that’s devoted to political trolling. Apparently that kind of behavior is simply a core tenet of the belief system, and to criticize it is to reject the whole ideology.
Doesn’t work, if you source anything they don’t agree with they’ll do mental gymnastics to find a way to discredit it in their mind and for their audience.
It’s part of what you mentioned but it’s deeper. Even evidence is viewed through the lens of my side or their side. They will only every engage with the evidence that agrees with them. People who push this point get ad hominemed, then the communist commentator (there has to be a shorter word for that) will play victim when this person inevitably does it back.
It’s the same playbook every time, and it’s clearly a community thing.
That’s the path to victory though. As soon as you draw out the ad hominem, you’ve forced them to pivot off of the main topic, withdrawing from an untenable position.
You can’t actually expect a zealot to admit they’re wrong (edit: on an issue of core belief), that’s not realistic. You need to be comfortable accepting something else as the conclusion of the argument, by necessity.
Removed by mod
I understand, but I’m not so sure that’s a viable long-term strategy in the modern, digital world. Perhaps you could argue it’s the best we’ve got, but I think the jury is still out on that.
Removed by mod