Arguing with people: I think I should stop. Thoughts?

[RedZero]

For the longest time, I have argued with people online. I try to link to articles to back up what I say, but even then, people aren't going to change what they believe. It's just going to be an endless cycle of back-and-forth bickering. I don't know why I do this. Call it insanity, call it a waste of time. I suppose I have done this in hopes that more people may change their stance with their view of politics or economics...just the way our country operates in general.

I'm by no means some "expert" on any issue. I simply point out what I think are social injustices or just shit that goes on which should piss people off. I say all of this to point you towards a specific argument that I had recently. It isn't orderly or anything, it's me bickering with random people on some silly forum. However, two posts really made me question myself. Two posts really made me feel kind of "down" about my own life. I still feel like there is a lot of shit that needs to be dealt with, but this post stung me in a way. It made me think, "maybe I should stop this. Maybe I should simply read about history and current events and just keep it all to myself."

If you want to read the entire thread, which consists of about 25 posts, here it is (my username is "anon"): http://www.topix.com/forum/city/marion-nc/TTN3R1BU7B4RIAS2D

But if you want me to try to sum it up, I'll do that below:
I started off by posting this link, with no commentary of my own: http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-do-not-create-jobs-2011-12#ixzz1gAQoc4OC

I'm skipping quite a few posts, but here is the first reply that really struck me (comment #17): http://www.topix.com/forum/city/marion-nc/TTN3R1BU7B4RIAS2D#c17

This is my reply (comment #21): http://www.topix.com/forum/city/marion-nc/TTN3R1BU7B4RIAS2D/p2#c21

Here is the second reply that bothered me, personally (comment #22): http://www.topix.com/forum/city/marion-nc/TTN3R1BU7B4RIAS2D/p2#c22

Maybe some of my arguments or "facts" were wrong. Maybe I'm standing on the wrong foundation to be arguing, anyway. I don't know. Those replies, though, really struck a chord with me. They made me feel bad about myself, as if I'm a failure. Yeah, I know, maybe that's just because we live in a capitalist society in which if you don't have some outrageously-paying job, you're scum.

Could someone point out to me anything that I've typed on that forum that I should reconsider? What do you think about my position? Be honest. I'm new and still learning, so of course I plan on shaping and molding my own views. Also, what do you think about the people who replied to me? Finally, should I even argue with people online? It truly seems fruitless. It only makes me annoyed, not happy. I'm thinking about just keeping to myself for the most part, and reading. I don't know. On comment #21, I state that "I've said outright that I'm not a socialist or communist." I don't know if I typed that because, as you know, when those words are out in the open, people completely denounce your entire message. I don't know if I don't adhere to those labels out of fear or simply because of the fact that I do not know what I am. I'm a beginner to all of this, and still trying to find answers.

Maybe this post comes off as *****y, but I am young and I'm trying to figure out my place and my position in this world. Constructive feedback would be helpful. Thanks.

[Le Rouge]

I don't argue with people online. It's just a waste of time. Even when you are right and your opponent is wrong, well he'll just say BS to change the topic.

But arguing with people IRL ain't a waste of time. It's not the same thing.

[Misanthrope]

The problem is, you're looking at it as a competition. It's really a tool for learning.

[La Comédie Noire]

As long as you are honest, open, and willing to learn from your mistakes there is absolutely nothing wrong with losing an argument. Every argument I've lost has resulted in me reading a fuck ton about a subject and coming back stronger than ever.

As the person above me said you should treat it as a mutual learning experience and not a contest.

[Sputnik_1]

My advise? Don't argue with people you know personally online. Didn't bring me much popularity in Uni. Not even because of what I say, but because I dare criticize their opinions, what I have to say doesn't matter.

A healthy discussion would be cool but can hardly ever get any. Evidently it's not so easy, not even on communist forums.

[Firebrand]

I have found that unless you genuinely enjoy arguing with people it isn't worth arguing with people online. Nearly all online arguments start off with the mutual acceptance of the fact that neither of you is going to change your minds. The main benefits come from being able to refine your arguments and work out exactly where you stand on issues. Also there is always the chance that undecided bystanders will read your posts and be persuaded by them. Don't be disheartened, you win some you lose some. Some people just honestly don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the world the way it is and there's nothing you can say that will convince them.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I suggest you never argue with people online. Maybe correct them if they are wrong, but don't let them drag you into a long back and forth ordeal. It is simply tiring and in the end it usually gets nothing accomplished.

I am a good debater, but online I can't physically project myself there and hence can't express myself to my full potential. I find it extremely frustrating.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't argue with people online. It's just a waste of time. Even when you are right and your opponent is wrong, well he'll just say BS to change the topic.

But arguing with people IRL ain't a waste of time. It's not the same thing.


Our general position in society as revolutionaries is one of "proto-management" -- if you will -- for all of the world's major issues. It just so happens that we're currently not past the rule of capital yet, *and* that 1917 didn't last for the revolutionary camp, but that doesn't mean that the people of the world gave up on being revolutionaries.

*My* advice would be to do a material "cost assessment" and determine -- as best you can -- if it's worth your efforts to take that time with any particular person, either face-to-face or otherwise.

There are pros and cons to each medium, and I personally appreciate the message board format as being an empirical evolution in social communication since it is asynchronous and allows for a point-by-point addressing of political points, no matter the topic or timeframe.

I'll agree that face-to-face can have more *emotional* affect -- as the corporate media's talking heads use to full effect -- and so can be more impactful, but at the cost of dramatics over content. Hope this helps.


Ideologies & Operations -- Bottom Up

http://postimage.org/image/1d4wy29dw/

[ckaihatsu]

I have found that unless you genuinely enjoy arguning with people it isn't worth arguing with people online. Nearly all online arguments start off with the mutual acceptance of the fact that neither of you is going to change your minds. The main benefits come from being able to refine your arguments and work out exactly where you stand on issues. Also there is always the chance that undecided bystanders will read your posts and be persuaded by them. Don't be disheartened, you win some you lose some. Some people just honestly don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the world the way it is and there's nothing you can say that will convince them.


I'll add that it's important to establish *some* basis of personal commonality for a discussion in the first place -- and this is where the emotive / social aspect is a plus -- so that there is *some* degree of 'togetherness' and 'cohesion' at the beginning.

We see this all the time in the establishment community where there is a distinct dichotomy between one's general official basis, and the day-to-day ins-and-outs of issue-by-issue positioning that reveals clear differences in politics among associates.

If you can't get your opponent to send you a video of their knee touching the ground, don't despair -- it might help to remind your counterparty of what the original topic is if they stray. Objectively speaking, either the both of you are going to agree or there will be some difference between your positions.

In the best of all worlds you would be able to get someone to admit "defeat", but in reality you can use the revolutionary's position's strength of objectivity to demonstrate that you are correct and that your opponent is arguing from a place of misconception and/or vested interests.

[Enragé]

discussing online, especially when its in english (since more than half of the internet-having world will be able to join in) usually isnt good for much except a good way to learn to debate and actually develop your own ideas more. That is why i have 3414 posts here. I spent a good part of my teenage years on internet forums when i was bored, from islamic fundamentalist to rightwing to revleft. Also because i dont like reading long things (i hate big fat books! and like Plato apparently said, "books dont talk back").

Anyway, if you ever want to give it another go, try reasoning from the standpoint of the individual you're talking with, and try to stay as concrete as possible. Avoid words like 'justice', try more like 'wouldnt you like to..', 'dont you think that people should be able to...', and never forget that our greatest strength lies in the fact that communism/anarchism has at its center the realisation of the dreams of many good-hearted liberals and even ouright conservatives: Equality (or 'equivalence'), Freedom, Brother/Sisterhood (or solidarity).

If you're talking to a conservative, start from the family. If you're talking to a liberal, talk about kids growing up in poverty and how this system doesnt give each individual a fair chance in life. If you're talking to a capitalist libertarian, talk about how wageslavery (but dont use that word!) undermines people's freedom just as much as the state does, and how the system reduces his freedom in general.

oh and speak from the heart, not from abstract dogma (not that im saying you did that, actually i cant access to posts you link to)

[RedZero]

Thanks for the input, everyone.

[MotherCossack]

it is a shame that we cant all unite to face our common foe/enemy.they are the real bad guys and they probably enjoy our bickering. it keeps us busy and means they can get away with murder.

[Erratus]

I wouldn't say that internet discussions are useless. Most are, but when you engage enough you do find some people who can talk calmly, know how to take a point, and listen. I think you did a good job keeping your head too.

As for post 17, I always hate those too. They do have a way of making you doubt yourself by claiming you have motives that you are unaware of, and that your beliefs are baseless without you knowing because of it. That the reason you are for welfare (or socialism) is just because you want money without working. But random internet people really have no clue who you are, and are usually horrible at guessing (I often get mistaken as rich, sometimes black). He than tells a story of how hard he worked and how awesome he is, and that he deserves his 260 thousand salary. Deserves.

That is what is really at the core of this post, and most others like them. That the rich worked, and still work, hard and so they deserve their large paychecks. The people who do not work so hard do not deserve to get as much money. And those really lazy people deserve to live in poverty. Their fault for being lazy and not working so hard. If they worked hard and didn't complain like this guy, they wouldn't be poor.

Coat in in a anecdote of personal success, put a ribbon of insults, and then finish with a pinch of straw-manning an opposing view point (socialists don't "think [they] are entitled to everything and don't want to work harder for it". )

The other post does still have this hint to it (anyone can climb up the economic classes if they try), but is a lot more personal. I mentioned a above how crappy guesses tend to be in these circumstances. They don't say things based on what it likely true, but what would make them look the best (or you the worst). They are just trying to belittle you by making you out as some whiny teenager. And you lack the confidence in yourself to say where your beliefs stem from (just being a non-conforming teen or a genuine belief in these things). He doesn't actually say much of anything about your point, just trying to belittle you. Which is a little bit pointless, because regardless of what your motives of saying something are, if they are logically sound and right, they are logically sound and right. Your age really doesn't change that.

This post is getting long, so I'll cut it off before it turns into a rant.

[o well this is ok I guess]

You could always just surround yourself with piles of books on whatever subject and insulate yourself from their demonstration
You'll become a raging alcoholic in no time but at least no one can say you don't know what you're on about.

[RedZero]

I wouldn't say that internet discussions are useless. Most are, but when you engage enough you do find some people who can talk calmly, know how to take a point, and listen. I think you did a good job keeping your head too.

As for post 17, I always hate those too. They do have a way of making you doubt yourself by claiming you have motives that you are unaware of, and that your beliefs are baseless without you knowing because of it. That the reason you are for welfare (or socialism) is just because you want money without working. But random internet people really have no clue who you are, and are usually horrible at guessing (I often get mistaken as rich, sometimes black). He than tells a story of how hard he worked and how awesome he is, and that he deserves his 260 thousand salary. Deserves.

That is what is really at the core of this post, and most others like them. That the rich worked, and still work, hard and so they deserve their large paychecks. The people who do not work so hard do not deserve to get as much money. And those really lazy people deserve to live in poverty. Their fault for being lazy and not working so hard. If they worked hard and didn't complain like this guy, they wouldn't be poor.

Coat in in a anecdote of personal success, put a ribbon of insults, and then finish with a pinch of straw-manning an opposing view point (socialists don't "think [they] are entitled to everything and don't want to work harder for it". )

The other post does still have this hint to it (anyone can climb up the economic classes if they try), but is a lot more personal. I mentioned a above how crappy guesses tend to be in these circumstances. They don't say things based on what it likely true, but what would make them look the best (or you the worst). They are just trying to belittle you by making you out as some whiny teenager. And you lack the confidence in yourself to say where your beliefs stem from (just being a non-conforming teen or a genuine belief in these things). He doesn't actually say much of anything about your point, just trying to belittle you. Which is a little bit pointless, because regardless of what your motives of saying something are, if they are logically sound and right, they are logically sound and right. Your age really doesn't change that.

This post is getting long, so I'll cut it off before it turns into a rant.

Thanks Erratus. Great post. Yeah, I guess you're right; he didn't actually refute my arguments or point me to some information that contradicts what I was saying. He simply typed out a personal success story and belittled me with a post full of assumptions.

[Erratus]

Also, this: "As far as you not affording education, sacrifice, work a minimum wage job until you can afford it."

Clearly, he did not have to pay his way through college. I am a student right now (and not at some ivy league either) and I am here on nothing but the mercy of scholarships and financial aid. Which I would lose most of by not going to college right out of high school. I cannot image just paying my way through it all. It is over 25 grand a year all and all. And I am at the cheapest one I could go to too.

[Dimmu]

For years i have been arguining with people on the internet, but now i learned thats its useless.

Instead make a good impression and think of convincing other viewers rather then the person you are arguing against.

[roy]

Arguing on the internet is stigamatised way too much... I think it can be pretty fun, especially if it's just petty back-and-forth bickering.

Anyway, that's not encouraging a very intuitive, sensible attitude. Sorry.

If it's causing you stress, it's probably best you stop. People will believe what they wanna believe, especially on the internet.