In Reddit it doesn’t really matter. You can cite the best sources ever, use a pristine logic, and the local irrationals will still find some excuse to believe in whatever.
You do see plenty of that in most places, but I feel like it’s way worse in Reddit. As if there was something there reinforcing it. (Perhaps the local culture? I have no idea.)
I don’t disagree that the voting system (specially karma) plays a role, but I think that Reddit embraces oversimplifications a bit too much, and that’s part of the problem - because then you get both sides discussing if 2+2 is 3 or 5, and if you say “it’s 4” nobody will bat an eye (except to screech at you).
In special, three types of false dichotomy:
no gradation: 50 is either 0 or 100.
no third category: since apples and bananas are different from each other, then grapes must be either a type of apple or a type of banana.
no superset or subset: if all bananas are fruits, then all fruits are bananas.
You do see those things in Lemmy too, but nowhere as much as in Reddit; and it has consequences everywhere, including political discussion. Or in 4chan - as much as their userbases hate each other, they fall for the same logical traps.
The other key factor is to not be an insufferable dickhead when you’re posting. You can post the truest facts known to man but if you come across as a smug asshole then people will naturally be inclined to think your wrong.
I feel like your tone plays next to no part on that. If they agree and you’re rude, your rudeness becomes “justified”; if they don’t agree and you’re rude, they’ll play the victim, assume (yet another sign of stupidity) that you’re angry, or even “u rude than ur rong lol lmao”.
Same deal with explanation length; make it succinct and to-the-point and they’ll assume words on your mouth, make it verbose and well-explained and they’ll distort it.
In my old community (here, in Lemmy - showing that the problem is not exclusive to Reddit) I scolded people like this, even when I happened to agree with them. I could’ve banned them, but I have no idea on how to approach this in large scale.
All that matters is whether you’re speaking for or against the prevailing assumptions of the site/the subreddit. Most people on the internet are not experts on the topic but somehow already have their minds made up.
I’ve cited nonexistent sources before. It seems convincing and nobody actually checks, so the other guy got downvoted because I got sources. I can imagine they weren’t happy about it, seemed like they actually knew their shit.
Gotta cite your facts when it’s about such controversial facts.
In Reddit it doesn’t really matter. You can cite the best sources ever, use a pristine logic, and the local irrationals will still find some excuse to believe in whatever.
Just like literally everywhere else
You do see plenty of that in most places, but I feel like it’s way worse in Reddit. As if there was something there reinforcing it. (Perhaps the local culture? I have no idea.)
It’s the voting system. Truth is not democratic.
I don’t disagree that the voting system (specially karma) plays a role, but I think that Reddit embraces oversimplifications a bit too much, and that’s part of the problem - because then you get both sides discussing if 2+2 is 3 or 5, and if you say “it’s 4” nobody will bat an eye (except to screech at you).
In special, three types of false dichotomy:
You do see those things in Lemmy too, but nowhere as much as in Reddit; and it has consequences everywhere, including political discussion. Or in 4chan - as much as their userbases hate each other, they fall for the same logical traps.
reddit attracts a certain special kind of moron, it’s like a honey pot for them
Source?
The other key factor is to not be an insufferable dickhead when you’re posting. You can post the truest facts known to man but if you come across as a smug asshole then people will naturally be inclined to think your wrong.
I feel like your tone plays next to no part on that. If they agree and you’re rude, your rudeness becomes “justified”; if they don’t agree and you’re rude, they’ll play the victim, assume (yet another sign of stupidity) that you’re angry, or even “u rude than ur rong lol lmao”.
Same deal with explanation length; make it succinct and to-the-point and they’ll assume words on your mouth, make it verbose and well-explained and they’ll distort it.
In my old community (here, in Lemmy - showing that the problem is not exclusive to Reddit) I scolded people like this, even when I happened to agree with them. I could’ve banned them, but I have no idea on how to approach this in large scale.
[Sorry for the rambling.]
I’ve seen threads just like that on Lemmy, too. People will act like people.
All that matters is whether you’re speaking for or against the prevailing assumptions of the site/the subreddit. Most people on the internet are not experts on the topic but somehow already have their minds made up.
Bold of you to assume that they can read.
I’ve cited nonexistent sources before. It seems convincing and nobody actually checks, so the other guy got downvoted because I got sources. I can imagine they weren’t happy about it, seemed like they actually knew their shit.