this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
648 points (95.0% liked)

Political Memes

1141 readers
1 users here now

Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 98 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

You don't debate for the sake of the person you're debating with, you debate for the sake of everyone reading/watching it who hasn't formed an opinion yet

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People's lizard brains will tend to favor the person on the right. Because their arguments are simple, spoken with confidence and often louder. Our primitive instincts interpret that as 'correct' because it comes off as strong. The person on the left looks weak and full of excuses.

People aren't biologically capable of handling modern propaganda well.

[–] Deiskos@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Confident bullshit wins over long-winded but factually correct explanations.

Incidentally, same reason chatgpt became so popular - it's optimized for sounding confident over being correct.

[–] quackers@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not the reason. It is an attribute it has, but the reason it's popular is it's ability to quickly summarize data rather than having to dig through many sources.

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 7 points 1 year ago

And it does that often wrong but always confident.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 75 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't wrestle with a pig, etc.

[–] keembre@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

never play chess with a pigeon

[–] Cjwii@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Never eat shrimp with a donkey

Well, now I have to reschedule my Thursday.

[–] negativenull@lemm.ee 66 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Brandolini's law

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 55 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Internet arguments cannot be won

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 80 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The only reason I argue on the internet (when I can be bothered) is so that people reading the thread will that an opposing opinion exists, not because I hope to convince the person I'm arguing with.

[–] Vampiric_Luma@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 year ago

I appreciate it. I've scoured an uncountable amount of debates over years and its helped me become aware of new ideas.

I doubt I'd have woken up without them

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Invaluable. Unchecked ignorance is contagious.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah.

That also means that when the other person starts resorting to personal attacks you can point it out and let that discussion go, as they're not going to be convincing anybody who is reading and thinking once have, by making it personal and insulting others, implicitly admitted that they don't have rational arguments backing up their strongly held opinion.

[–] Val@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I do it in order to understand my own viewpoint more clearly. It is a lot easier to figure out what you believe when faced with things you do not believe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I used to think otherwise but you’re probably right.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You probably can't get them to admit you've won, but you can convince observers and sometimes them, later, after they've had time to internalize.

Just accept that most people don't have the ego to admit they're wrong, or arguing against strawmen.

And, if I may be so bold:

Sometimes the person who needs to admit they're wrong is you.

(Not me tho)

[–] girl@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

I have won exactly one internet argument. I will remember it forever.

[–] assembly@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

They definitely can be won and I won’t be convinced otherwise! What makes you think they can’t be won man???? Cite your sources! I heard from my brothers dog walker that her sisters father in laws cousin wins them all the time. OWNED!!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 21 points 1 year ago

“If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

(Don’t look up who said that.)

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fucking truth.

They just keep smugly acting like they’re right and completely refuse to acknowledge anything presented to the contrary. Then act like they won.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They did win. It's tautological. They won because they think they won. If they loose they shift the goal posts so they win. You have to bring your arguments to them and they decide if they are valid. And when they get into a corner and can't possibly win they win the only way possible: by making sure that when they lose, you lose more.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Fascism is where it leads. If a fascist doesn't like what you are saying, they'll just shoot you and walk away knowing they have won. That's the natural extension of this dynamic.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They think we're doing what they're doing.

They think that's all there is.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Somebody was saying something similar about Russian propaganda.

The citizens know it's propaganda, but they just assume that Western media is also propaganda, and they prefer their own brand of it.

[–] jcdenton@lemy.lol 11 points 1 year ago

Chad "I made it the fuck up"

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is why I call them a moron and move on. Anything more is a waste of time.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

... and why forum rules demanding "civility" are an open invitation to cautious bullshit-peddlers.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Had this kind of shit happen, had 20 links backing up my debunk, he didn't have one... he claimed it was some conspiracy

I said "Okay, either it's a grand conspiracy that all 20 of these competing news sites are working together, or Trump really did save those orphans from a church fire set by communists. Which is it?"

[–] Commiunism@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 year ago

That's so nice of trump to do that

[–] Orbituary@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Everything you say is illegible without an Oxford comma. /s

[–] pascal@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's exactly how I feel when I read a comment on Lemmy about someone justifying the wrath of Israel upon Palestine hospitals.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 7 points 1 year ago

How did you get my sisters voice spot on?

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Chess with pigeons.

[–] w2tpmf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you thinl memes are supposed to be a source to get facts, then you are probably dumber than the ones getting their news from Fox.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago

They are only really funny when there is some truth to them so those seeing them find the humor when they agree, leaving it unchallenged leaves individuals to believe the "truth" that exists within the meme. Some people just don't like letting propaganda sit unchallenged.

All that said, yeah getting your "facts" from a meme is pretty dumb.

load more comments
view more: next ›