That’s true. It also doesn’t invalidate it if I do waste it though. OK, bye

You are making a good example of a person who maybe thinks they can argue in good faith but very clearly doesn’t, with emotional pressure and such.

Well, this comment of yours doesn’t look like a good faith argument.

What I meant is that it takes two sides for one. And when two people are ready to argue in good faith, one may downgrade the level of contention from “argue” to “discuss” without any loss.

(For me and my sister it would still be “argue”, but we are just rude to each other.)

I already knew, it was compulsive

With my ADHD just cutting on sugar seems to be the best diet change in my life period. I mean, of course there’s sugar in lots of things, but at least not putting it into tea and not eating Snickers improves everything.

That would be try to attract people outside of social media, not try to divert them inside social media where you’ll waste energy

it necessarily widens the debate-space from an unopposed confident statement to a dialogue that the onlooker can take into consideration while making their own decision.

That part would be right if we weren’t talking about social media, which are designed to neuter this effect.

So who debates in good faith and how often?

he goal isn’t to sway the fanatics, it’s to publicly quash their arguments. To sway curious onlookers away from fanaticism before they become fanatics themselves.

Friendly reminder that the above is what I answered first.

Sorry, but this is a load of bollocks. It’s you putting yourself above some “gullible people” and still using debate skills to deceive them, just in some “good” direction. Maybe you are really right, but they believe you for the wrong reasons, and the process itself doesn’t reinforce that you are right in any way.

For my argument it’s sufficient that they are very much not the same.

This is similar to saying that a big company leading in some area can be benevolent and do good things. Yes, it can, like DEC, Sun, at some point even IBM. Doesn’t prove the statement that every social institution and mechanism out there must be replaced by markets.

As I’ve just said in two other comments, “changing someone’s mind” is just a return to barbarism and Middle Ages. When a few literate theology doctors would publicly “defeat” their opponents, the barely literate mass of their audience (monks, nobles and such) would watch and approve, and the illiterate mass would kinda get that those pesky heretics\infidels got totally owned by facts and logic.

So any person arguing with that emotion and visible goal should just be left to eat other such ignorami. Nobody worth arguing with has those.

The goal isn’t to sway the fanatics, it’s to publicly quash their arguments. To sway curious onlookers away from fanaticism before they become fanatics themselves.

As I’ve said in another comment, this is return to Middle Ages. Debating skills have not much in common with reasoning skills.

But - debates don’t better yourself. Only your debating skills in particular get better. It’s a return to Middle Ages with theologists publicly “defeating” heretic and Jewish and Muslim philosophy.

And “turn” is an interesting word, making the association even stronger.

because 99% of the time it was just a flat out lie.

What I don’t understand is why they lie about something directly causal to the resolution.

Yep, that one where the person on the peak starts lecturing you in abstract terms about trying the simplest hypotheses and such, while you are trying to solve their problem.

I know the philosophy part that asshole is talking about, only he has no bloody clue which part is simple and which is not here.

It was a hang port on a switch in that case.

People who write screen broke shouldn’t be working with technology more advanced than a shovel

Shovel gay, pen have, paper end, rock good.

This may happen, but not the same way, all I can say.

When it’s not E2EE, maybe they are right. What’s the point of encrypting something that gets decrypted midway by an organization with hundreds of employees, many of them with access, not even talking about law enforcement and accidental criminals.

EDIT: I mean, illusion of security may be sometimes worse that lack of that little security which comes with it. Everything is complex.

because of their deep and abiding fear of the Evil Russian Backed KDP party (god damn, everything old really is new again)

You missed the moment where NSDAP and German communists kinda had intersecting constituencies, as in “angry young people with nothing good to do”.

Many stormtroopers were members of both at different points of their, eh, path.

And then, what really kicked off martial law was the Reichstagg fire,

Which was almost certainly a false flag operation by Nazis.

Liberals, Conservatives, and Fascists all united under a single banner in their staunch hatred of German Communism.

Such parallels always suck. They didn’t really have liberals in the Weimar republic. It was all conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, and some fishy social-democrats. And it was kinda authoritarian at every point.

This was decades after German military police and Freikorps paramilitary groups under Hindenburg crushed the Spartacus League during the 1919 strike wave. The leaders of the movement - Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, and Franz Mehring - were executed by the police and the organizations disbanded under threat of further imprisonment/execution.

Yep. You might consider that such a republic shouldn’t be so readily compared to the US.

I’m not saying future is cool.

These fit under “state-level scams”.

EDIT: Still, while I wasn’t going to compliment them or something, it can be a valid strategy for survival to use anything to accumulate some operational power ; I can see a few nations (not all of them have recognized states) on the map for which it may be necessary to survive in the following decade. But Nazis didn’t have to take such risks, it was ideological for them that theft and robbery are better than honest work.