Comic Strips

16536 readers

2038 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
The comic must be a complete story.
If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
You may post comics from others or your own.
If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
Politeness.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
!memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lawrence@lemmy.world

1273

Nice Guy (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 2 days ago by diffaldo@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world

128 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You said this:

Arguing without the understanding that they have alternatives facts is wrong

I'm asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.

Honestly, it makes me wonder if you’ve actually interacted with these sorts.

Not the MAGA people since I don't live in the USA, but French conservatives, mostly through the diversity of background that exists in sports activities.

The best approach that I’ve found is to beat them to the punch of saying things. Basically, make points before they can say stipid shit, they’re very easily manipulated if they haven’t already taken a stance in the conversation

I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

I'm asking you why would you think that is not already integrated in my way, since I think it is implied by what I explained.

Your way is assuming they will question the things with your push statements. What I'm saying is they believe they have solid foundation, and their alternative facts account for most pushes. They'll bring up reasons. They'll say "facts"(obviously not real ones, but they have them). They'll feel they're knowledge. Those things cause them to effectively counter soft pushes, in my opinion.

I think this could work, but it limits the number of opportunities quite a lot. I see no reason to not try both.

Fair enough that there's not really a good reason to try both. I feel like a key to it is not being condescending, ehich soft pushes ring as to me.

My method has limited opportunities, but since I primarily utilize it at work, I'm meeting this people frequently