You may have heard of Julia Galef from the Rationally Speaking podcast.
She has shared her four “reasons for arguing with people on the internet, even if you have no hope of changing their minds.”
1. To change the minds of less-committed onlookers.
2. To give relief and comfort to onlookers who share your view and wish someone would stick up for it.
3. To get an example of “sharing one’s opinion even if it’s controversial,” a valuable norm to reinforce even if you don’t change anyone’s mind on that particular issue.
4. To set an example of “polite and reasonable argumentation,” again a valuable norm in its own right.
Welcome to the forum. Are you Julia Galef?
Thank you. No, I’m not. I’m a fan of Sam Harris. I subscribe to his podcast and use his app.
Well, I don’t have any problem with what you posted. But my experience with internet arguments is that they are endless and no one is ever convinced of anything. But I suppose the exchanges can be helpful to someone.
If you looked around the forum, could you find an example of an argument that conforms to one of the four types you listed?
Interesting question! Not so easy to determine just like that? But I imagine participants here hold a higher standard on average than most other places online. If you were making a point, may I ask what it was?
I imagine participants here hold a higher standard on average than most other places online.
On the one hand, I have to agree with that.
If you were making a point, may I ask what it was?
On the other hand, public discourse has deteriorated. Gonna need a bigger list. Some suggestions…
to hone clown-spotting skills.
to find something alive and hurt it.
to hold a last glimmer of hope.