On 8/21/2012 1:05 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 20/08/2012 09:34 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/08/2012 8:59 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 20.08.2012 21:07, schrieb Stephen:
>>>> On 20/08/2012 2:34 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>>> There are many, many arguments that can be used against the conspiracy
>>>>> theory
>>>>
>>>> IMO there is only one:
>>>> F' off you idiot.
>>>
>>> Well, it seems to be the only /effective/ at least.
>>>
>>
>> Doing anything other than that only encourages them. IME
>
> DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.
>
> Seriously. Anybody stupid enough to believe this in the first place
> clearly /wants/ to believe it. quod enim mavult homo verum esse, id
> potius credit. If somebody /wants/ something to be true, it is pointless
> to try to prove that it is false.
>
> (Alternatively, some probably don't /believe/ it to be true, but pretend
> they do just so they can argue about it on Internet forums... It is
> equally pointless to try to win that argument.)
>
Actually, it depends on the moron. Some people don't change their 
opinion, and/or look for real facts, until ***after*** they realize 
that, "Yeah, I guess a lot of people don't agree with my, I wonder why 
that is?" But, its hard to tell the difference between a sheltered fool, 
and an internet troll, since they both tend to babble the same BS, often 
even persistently. Its not until weeks, months, or even years, later, 
when one comes back and says, "You people where the first ones to really 
challenge me, and come right out as say I was being an idiot.", that you 
can tell which is which some times.

And, no, this isn't just anecdotal. There are people that have admitted 
it was being so challenged that led to them to really looking at why 
people disagreed with them. Its often the first nail, or the last, in 
the coffin, of their "assumption" that, since everyone is being so nice 
every place else, some subject is an matter of opinion, not fact, and 
that their side of it might actually be right. As some have described 
it, "Not everyone can be reached the same way." Some, I would argue, 
have been so sheltered in their own, and semi-related, communities, that 
the mere fact that someone not only doesn't agree, but flat out denies 
the reality of their position, and doesn't take it seriously at all, is 
a complete shock to them.

This is hardly a surprise, when everyone from the news media, to most 
"discussion forums" try to be fair, and "balanced" to the point of never 
calling anything what it really is, and treating every assertion as 
something they either can't have an opinion on, as moderator, to 
actually serious enough to bother talking about.

Its like the moron recently, Akin, and his nonsense about rape. The 
utlra-liberal magazine Huffington Post slapped "sparks controversy" in 
the title of their article, at least in the Email blurb for it. As 
though, somehow, the fact that some high ranking theocrat said it made 
it "possibly true, therefor its worth reporting it as a possible 
argument, not as the pure third hand bullshit, that came out of yet one 
more 'family first' religious group, who are promoting an idea that has 
been both argued, and refuted, over and over again, since some moron 
first proposed it, two centuries ago."

No, have the guts to say what is the truth in such case, "You are 
talking bullshit, and an idiot for believing it." Give them links, 
evidence, facts, etc. to back it up, but don't pull the BS position of, 
"Lets sit and chat about it." Because, if you are dealing with someone 
that has any hope of being swayed by evidence, pretending that their own 
arguments are worth examining and you are merely sharing a different 
"opinion" of reality, will only leave them walking away with the false 
sense that either a) they won points, or b) you are the one with the 
inability to see reality. Any chance you had to present them with the 
uncompromising reality that you don't think their opinion is worth 
squat, and that their sources are either wrong, misinformed, delusional, 
or lying, just walked out the door (or went to find some other 
blog/discussion group, where they can be, again, treated like their 
opinion is worthy of standing toe to toe with reality).

And, it does work. But it doesn't work with everyone, which is why you 
also need to people willing to sit down and, (shudder!) treat some of 
them like they have something worth arguing against. It all depends on 
who you are dealing with.

Post a reply to this message