Ask Lemmy

No but I have been the other party who was convinced. Not in a big philosophical way but convinced that I didnt know what the hell I was talking about and that I had drank the proverbial kool aid.

Early Gen X here, been on line since 1992.

I've had the interwebthingies change so many bad ways of thinking of mine. And I was (relative to the normal Lemmy/Piefed user) already a pretty lefty liberal. And I used to adore a defending my "point" in a good internet argument.

I don't debate or argue to win. I debate and argue just to get my points across and to be heard.

Have we not learned as to what you look like when winning is your top priority in online arguments?

Yes, I believe I have and recently too.

A post came up about sexism and someone mentioned the wage gap. Men always go to the talking point of “well women don’t want the hard and dirty jobs, men do all that work”. So I mentioned my experience as a woman trying to become an electrician:

I overheard another electrician and the foreman talking about my body in a way that made me know I was unsafe around those men. Speaking about how I’m not “woman enough” because I have short hair or the things they would do to my body without my permission to make me a “real woman^tm”^.

I received a direct message from someone saying that they reached out to women they knew in the trades who confirmed my experience was not unique. It was just not something they thought about and it’s not talked about enough or pushed back on when talking about the gender wage gap.

Women enjoy working in trades but we are sexually harassed and assaulted out of these spaces and it has nothing to do with “men do all the hard work”.

Debates aren't always about changing the mind of the person you're debating, they are about presenting your ideas to an audience.

yes, a lot. but it was a decade or two ago.

there were a few subreddits long time ago where I was popular precisely for debating people and ideas and regularly got messages about how interesting my comments were and how they made people re-evaluate things they believed or thought. after I left there were some posts about 'where did he go?'

but post 2016 or so anytime I do that it just results in name calling and being labeled and demonized. open and civil discussion in general is just harder to facilitate online or in real life... because more and more people perceives it as an existential threat. i have noticed especially the past few years all the toxic online attitudes are filtering into the real world.

I think it depends on the tone. I've had my mind changed and view adjusted many times in online discussions. Does the other person come at me in a "debate" mindset, very aggressive, dismissive, hostile, or calling me names? Bye, I'm probably going to block them and move on with my life. But if they come at me with a spirit of discussion, education, and kindness as a fellow human with a differing opinion, I'll consider what they say. I may not agree with it, but many times I have adjusted my views or even completely changed them.

I remember years ago I was completely against legalization/decriminalization of drugs. I thought that it would never be a good thing and didn't understand why people would support it; why would you want to give people MORE access to heroin? I had commented on a website making a statement along those lines, and someone responded with a well educated comment about how a certain country (was it Brazil? I can't remember, it was so long ago) had either legalized or decriminalized drugs and how not only did it allow them to put in place systems to help addicts, but the crime rate dropped substantially because the cartels no longer had a market to operate. I ended up doing some research and realized that this person was right, and ever since then I've been firmly on the side of decriminalizing drugs and putting efforts towards healthcare and helping addicts rather than punishment.

Have you ever perused a thread on a subject and had your mind changed without engaging? Maybe you had the wrong perspective and changed your mind or didn't know enough to have an opinion going in but came out with a more informed stance?

That's why I do it. And I've had that happen numerous times.

I forced Ben Shapiro to change his views on gender with well-thought-out counterpoints.

He was literally saying sex and gender were the same. After a spelled out comment on why they weren't, he changed his tune on the next show.

I have a conspiracy theorist at work that (I think) I got to shut up a bit.

He started going on about how leftists are getting chips implanted and that that’s the mark of the beast. I basically told him no one knows what the fuck he’s talking about with these chips, but a real, visible, example of the mark of the beast is the MAGA hat. I think I cracked him a bit with that one.

I also told him that I’m down to hear his thoughts about Bigfoot because I think cryptozoology is fascinating even though I’m not a believer.

So now he tells me about his camping trips looking for Bigfoot.

I’m ok with that. It’s harmless. 🤷‍♂️

As person who use to be anti gay and racist I was changed.

Now I'm bi and have admitted to having it bad for women of color.

Which has led me to a happier life overall. Loving people is a lot easier than hate I can tell you that.

It's rare to straight up change someone's mind. But most change is about planting a seed that will grow over time as they remember what you said and start seeing patterns that align with it. I've had a few more of those, and they are still productive.

I have had my mind changed, or at the very least been introduced to new ideas that I then went on to explore, which led to me changing my mind.

Online arguments are for the audience, anyway. This is more obvious if you watch some old debate videos from the mid 2010s, especially involving right wing "intellectuals" like JP. He is clearly uninterested in convincing his opponent. Most of the time, his aim is to (a) confuse and (b) enrage his opponent, and then adjust his suit and tie, lean back, and smugly tell them to calm down.

It's not debating to convince your opponent (or even the audience) of your ideas, hence his tendency for useless tangents and unnecessarily esoteric language. It's debating to look like the smart and collected guy, while making your opponent look unhinged in comparison. It's not about the substance, it's about the show.

Don't know about changing my opinion while actively arguing with someone, but I have had opinions that formed for the first time when I read through comments of other people arguing. So, there's still some value in arguing your own points for a third person observer. :)

Once, maybe 3 years ago or so, I had the ignorant belief that if the US went to war with Iran, it would be a walkover. (Mind you, this was at least a couple of years before the US was dumb enough to do it.) Someone on Lemmy made very logical and cogent arguments as to why it would be orders of magnitude more difficult than I thought. I read their points and was actually fully convinced that their standpoint was correct. And now here we are in this shittiest of timelines, and that individual was proven correct by, of all things, reality.

I used to be pro death penalty, but I have been convinced that the state really isn't up to the responsibility much of the time. So many cases have been proven to be wrong over the years, there are lawyers that just go through old murder cases and prove innocence with DNA.

I can think of a view times I that have changed my position through conversations online, but always with accompanying facts, an article or study, footage from multiple angles, and so on.

I generally don't argue long enough to "convince" people, that's just banter really to pass the time like if I am stuck in a line.

I don't participate much in online debates, so I don't know if I've ever convinced someone with my words. However, what I can tell you is that sometimes a person writes something interesting, and then it gets stuck in my head for some time until I have to read something about that topic, finally causing a change of opinion in me.

You've got to figure out your audience. You can't change people unwilling to change. Since most people online prefer an echo chamber to reasonable discussion, you'll overwhelmingly encounter those that won't change their mind.

That said, I still find it mostly worthwhile to have SOME back and forth with those people because others will read it. I feed some trolls a few scraps in hopes that lurkers will be able to discern the better argument from it. Don't go in too deep, and once the ad hominems come nonstop from them, or you can't keep your next reply from containing them, stop.

I've had my mind changed plenty of times, but I'm also open to the idea I can be wrong. If you are talking with people that can't manage that much, you won't feel like you've "won" any arguments because it's coming down to two people saying the other is wrong without allowing themselves to be the one in the wrong.

All that said, I've had way better discussion here than reddit.

You could never know. A lot of people are not self confident enough To admit they were wrong. Even of they do, they may not tell you.

Yes, I have changed a mind or two. Low single digit percentage, I'm sure. I'm more focused on countering bad information information or presenting a perspective that hasn't been represented yet. I don't really expect to change the mind of the person I'm arguing with.

As for not getting sucked in, does the Lemmy app you use have User Tags? Best feature reddit was completely missing (aside from, you know, the whole FOSS federation thing). I use the feature to apply a tag and color to users. I use yellow to warn myself about someone who I think previously argued in bad faith or might be trolling, a "proceed with caution" warning. I use red for "do not engage"; on reddit I probably would have blocked them but just red-tagging them, I can still see the rest of the community respond to them. Any time a post or comment comes up from someone I've red-tagged, I know not to get sucked in. I use Voyager app on Android. I don't block much, just spam, bots, and full Nazi/CSAM apologist types.

The main problem is that people don't even know how to talk to each other, much less make a convincing case to have someone change their mind. It is possible though. If a black man can convince dozens of KKK members to abandon their racist beliefs through conversation alone, then there's a reliable and repeatable way to change deeply hardened ideas. But no one wants to bother to learn this, they would rather shout at others and try to "own those retards" to make themselves feel better.

Daryl Davis

Podcast with Daryl Davis

Different podcast on changing people's minds on polarising social topics with deep canvassing

Also worth considering how open you (the royal "you", not OP specifically) are to having your own mind changed; before getting worried about the minds of others.

I can’t remember changing anyone’s mind, but I've changed my mind when someone has given me more information than I previously had. “Oh, huh, I hadn’t thought about that. I think you’re right” type of thing.

Not in an actual argument but reading a back and forth between two people as long as at least one of them is giving solid info and the other one is semi coherent, it's changed my mind.

In his book Synergetics , Buckminster Fuller points out (don't have the exact quote) that you almost never hear a politician say, "you know, the evidence and logic of the other side are now overwhelmingly persuasive; I must change my political affiliation" -- but among scientists, you hear the equivalent all the time.

I try to. Debates aren’t (or at least in an ideal world shouldn’t be) a victory to win over the other party. It’s to present your ideas and convince. Because of that I try to do it for a few reasons. Namely:

I would wish the other party to hear me out, I should do the same. Especially in a debate with emotional stakes putting yourself in there shoes can help

And considering the other party’s point of view puts you in a position to understand them, and if you’re going to be debating against it then that’s important to know

Plus, especially in politics, I feel as if I become naive enough to become convinced by an idea of moral dubiousness then that is partly a failure on my part to be fooled by it

I convince myself I convinced them.

Yeah, several time on lemmy. Maybe like once ever for 7 years of reddit lol.

I've both had my mind changed and had others change their mind when talking online, but I don't think it's the norm if I'm being honest. Most people don't seem to enjoy having their views challenged and someone feeling defensive will very rarely approach discussion with an open mind. I say this as someone who gets defensive and struggles at times with this very thing. We're all flawed. 🙃