/lit/ - Literature

Because they're weak minded.

>>13175236
Pro tip: No human being has ever convinced another human being to change their mind about politics or philosophy

>>13175255
That's obviously not true. That's tantamount to saying that communication in general is false.

>>13175251
It must have something to do with the medium. Talking in person, or even over physical letters, is almost always superior. I think it has something to do with the need to post immediately.

>>13175236
You have to think about it from the individual's standpoint. They still need to have their opinions validated, and so will fight for them. Also, the anonymity gives an outlet for views that one can't express socially. And the anonymity of the other makes them abstract so not worthy of the same consideration of an individual would in reality. One doesn't become a disembodied neutral stream of impersonal consciousness just because they are typing something (something immediately reflected back to them) in a little box. That said, I find most threads here have at least one or two substantive discussions in them if they get enough traction. Often the aggression and contrarianism is just a type of discourse, one that exists here as a medium for more open or unusual perspectives among 'insiders' we can trust by their engaging in and withstanding the critical tenor of the language--like a password that isn't what's said as much as how it's said.

>>13175293
Good take, I think the abstraction of the other is totally correct. There's definitely the rare good conversation on here, but I notice that when it happens it's almost always because the people are injecting more of themselves, their actual identity and personhood, into it.
However I'm not just interested in the relative civility of online arguments, but the quality. People immediately jump into nitpicking and fallacy the moment they're challenged. There's almost an inherent unwillingness to reveal oneself as being human too, capable of making mistakes.

>>13175236
it's almost like the innate desire to be intellectually "correct" or to "win" against someone surpasses the joy found in the actual purpose of a debate, seeking truth

>>13175333
In niche fields we've become almost scholastic in how much depends on phrasing, assumptions, 'logic', etc so people leap on that stuff when it's about something the feel they know in depth. But look at it not just from their ego but yours: are you feeling put upon because they're mean or because you were wrong and have a hard time admitting fault in your own perspective? Ive had it happen where someone rips something apart and they are right and I come to grow because I look into it. (At the same time a lot of smartasses are wrong or just have a deadlock opinion with yours that has probably been deadlocked since the 14th century despite all our cleverness)

>>13175236

>>13175350
This is it OP

People come online and get sucked into the trap of feeling good about useless opinions, the only real correctives you can make is:
1. stress the impossibility of debate online
2. stress the possibility of debate outside of the online sphere

Some extremely online people actually forget that you can get along with people you disagree with, that's why it's important to both talk about the weaknesses of the internet and the importance of other spheres of debate outside of it.

>>13175236
>when it's so clearly evident that it's impossible to do so online in good faith?
This is not strictly true, I've had hours long debates with people online that have been very productive.

>>13175333

I would add that the degree of sophistication of any subject relies on the amount of quality time a person has spent on it, and on a random board that level of understanding is vastly different.

You also have the rare exception that new ideas unpublished can't get traction when one portion of the respondents are neophytes and the other portion stuck in the cannon or dogma.

Not a lot of room for contemplating differences in the story.

>>13175236
It doesn't work out because it's selective. You scroll past posts that blow you the fuck out and pinpoint the ones where you feel like you are educating the person with your views. That behavior is at least on par with an echo chamber, because even though you are in contact with the opposite viewpoint, you only really engage with the one that you can win against.

There's also something I've asked myself while sniffing around and reading material about Machiavelli. There's one thing Machiavelli allows you to do, to go completely apolitical. Just to fuck off if you don't like politics, so you are out of the equation and the ones who want to rule are free to do so. I've asked myself, in what part of the whole equation does the political discussion on the internet fit? Even though this is an American board, there are people posting from all over the world, so there is the option that the multicultural environment serves to recruit people for the respective ideological party in their own country, which then gets reflected as an increase of votes for the party. I can back up this argument with the right-wing chain reaction across Europe, but it would be a long shot because it's the equivalent of taking chances if someone really planned it.

It's interesting to think that the internet takes you out of the equation, making you politically irrelevant by letting you discuss politics. I can back this up a little with mentioning Leo Strauss's contrast of modern vs ancient politics. There's the rule of the wise in the ancient world and the concern of modern politics, the question of what the fuck to do with the intellectuals. The answer of modern politics is "Let them talk, no one is gonna listen to them." So they are, through the internet, letting the "intellectuals" talk.

I have some more to say about the topic, but I forgot at least half of it while writing this. I'll chime in once I remember.

I wonder if part of the trend stems from a seemingly universal trend to reintroduce intellectualism into the public sphere. I think that explains at least part of the popularity of Shapiro and Peterson (not that they're even actual intellectuals.) The press likes to say that the alt right is anti intellectual, but I think it might be the opposite, albeit in a corrupted form ( >>13175350 and >>13175395 nail it). Populism, at its core, wants more public interaction with politics.
>>13175433
This is why I'll have to disagree, if I'm reading you right. I think everyone agrees that the internet has become more political than ever before and, as you say, has more political influence than every before. Argument might now most people's way of interacting in the social-political realm, as avenues to do so in real life are increasingly vanishing. In other words, a strange combination has propped up argument as one of the few ways to be social today, while feel that you're actually thinking about things.

>>13175236
It's because of liberalism, unironically. Liberals love the idea of debate because they truly believe that if everyone would just be reasonable and look at "the facts" that the whole world would agree with them and they could build a utopia or whatever. This is clearly demonstrated by liberal shows like "the west wing" and liberal projects such as "fact checking". The reality is that debate serves no purpose in itself, the whole thing is spectacle with the aim of humiliating the other side and causing them to lose support.

Bump

>>13175489
What I mean to say is, the internet has become the CENTER of politics for some.
If you developed your political opinions mostly online then you could call yourself a communist, a conservative or a centrist, but what's important is that you start to view opponents and human being in general in a different light than the actual origins of these ideologies.

Conservatism online is not old conservatism, Socialism online is not 1950's socialism, they are both conservatism and socialism, with online characteristics.
This does not instatly mean they are false, but I think that people should be more well-rounded and the best approach is making them interact in as many different spheres as possible, thus gaining more perspectives on what politics and people even are.

The internet is taking over more of the political debate space as time moves forward, and it seems to favour populism and rhetoric more than long, thoughtful and delayed debate, instead living in the moment and creating tribes.

It is possible to get good debate going online, but that would require a cultural shift that would recognize and fight back the nature of this medium.

>>13175489
Is there a chance that the internet will develop, or, maybe, it currently has developed, an abstraction that is equivalent to the democratically elected representatives of countries.

I see Peterson's or Shapiro's success as a sign that people need someone who is able to formulate things that the people can't put into words. They need someone to cheer for. Sort of like an online Hitler, but that's not unique to one political spectrum. So you get parties forming around personalities who's value is determined by the number of followers. The people who should participate in the discussion to develop their own argumentative abilities in order to push the general level of intellectual discourse are hiding behind the personalities who ostensibly know it better.

>>13175584
Yeah Zizek talks about the all the time, but you run into problems when you look at the tradition of the philosophical dialogue. Although the fact we call them dialogues, rather than debates or arguments, is pretty telling.

>YOURE ALL FUCKING PSEUDS
I think it's probably losing its effect. Personally, I don't get too upset about getting called a pseud when people here constantly refer to some of the best writers and philosophers in history as pseuds.

>>13175598
I think that's certainly the case. It's just strange that even among, say, online libertarians, there's still this cult around these figures. The broader question returns to why the internet, in theory *the* individualist medium, seemingly forces people to hero worship. Maybe it's just another legacy of liberalism, as the other anon said, but I get the impression that this kind of dynamic wasn't the case in the internet of the early 2000s

>>13175598
Do you mean that Peterson and Shapiro aren't trully representing the full message of their communities? I disagree, I think that Peterson and Shapiro fans are mostly normies and they hold the same general beliefs.

People already have others to cheer for. It actually becomes ridiculous when any rando online which posts "a stream" who talks the same tired lefty points goes "up against" a right winger with his own set of similar talking points. The audience splits into 2 camps and It's like nobody notices the fact that both speakers would probably be hellish people to interact with IRL. The leftist audience member looks at the screen, sees that the guy with the lenin pixelated sunglasses icon is the leftist, and he cheers for him. They create a whole reasoning as to when and how to engage with the "enemies".

People don't need someone to cheer for, what they actually need are people who either actively sabotage every and all opinions(which is the worse option) or people who engage with everyone but with a leg to stand on.
Either way, the internet is not a good enviornment to base your entire politics on.

>tfw read about politics and realized that most of the political discussion on the internet is bullshit

people don't even know their basics, misuse terms, misunderstand terms, mix things with one another that aren't compatible

reading about political philosophy was probably one of the best decisions of my life

>>13175661
Are you sure you didn't just absorb a particular political perspective and now think everyone who disagrees with you is uninformed? because I see that constantly, the autism over how to define certain words, which have meant various things, and for which there can necessarily be no authority, ruins many discussions

>>13175648
I'm not going in the direction of whether they truly represent them or not. I'm saying that their audiences are not utilizing the full potential of the platform by backing up those personalities.

>>13175669
I see the same thing. People insisting that others don't know basics when they don't know themselves.
The only solution is basic logic captcha. Answering problems from Plato's dialogues.

Just a friendly reminder that any "discourse" on the internet is not actually discourse. On 4chan you have people using meme arrows as actual arguments, posting a link without having read just to support their point, and dumping images with sources they've never checked to support their point. The system of political discussion online from both the left and the right is honestly just sad.

>>13175669
I'm currently reading about Herder and the next one will be about Alexander Herzen. The next on my list of lectures is John Stuart Mill. My aim is not, and was not from the start, to pick a political perspective, but to get an overview so I'm less likely to get trapped in bullshit, like it used to happen.

The internet has supplanted actual study and actually reading books, actual conversation and actually engaging with another human being. People instantly create physiognomies of whoever they happen to be talking with based on constructed stereotypes, and privilege this impression over the actual content of your small text box. This is why, especially in political arguments, people greentext and post memes strawmanning a position that barely even exists: because people, for some reason, can't seem to envision an actual person who's talking to them, so they create a character that simultaneously makes the other poster into a person, but also fundamentally a false person they can "DESTROY WITH FACTS AND LOGIC."

This is even self-imposed, which may be why there are countless thread games where you guess another person's identity based off their possessions, taste, location, and age. It's caricature building. And this I think is the essence of the problem: nobody actually feels as though they're talking to anyone, and in argument hardly anyone actually talks to each other but past each other, into memed and completely fake personas.

>>13175715
>This is even self-imposed, which may be why there are countless thread games where you guess another person's identity based off their possessions, taste, location, and age
Is that really a bad thing? I can guess a person's political views just from their looks and the content they consume. All stereotypes are derived from some truth.

>>13175715
It's funny because one part of the political discussion is how we define our relationship with society itself. For example, Rousseau's social contract. Reading about freedom and the concepts of positive and negative freedom seriously brought me a little bit closer to people, or maybe it was just the author who accomplished that.

Put that discussion on the internet and it's splitting everything apart.

>>13175236
do we do things only for the (you)'s?

>>13175735
I think it's a big reason why internet arguments so often devolve into memes. The basic problem is that, for one, stereotypes are by nature exaggerated, either for idealization or debasement, and imagine a person as little more than a series of exaggerated gestures, opinions, attitudes. A person becomes shallow and abstract. They are also always made by someone else, and never the person/group itself. This is why when arguing online people immediately jump to "critique" assumptions they think you have but you yourself never posted (let alone believe), because they're not talking to you but a constructed image. I think maybe one reason why arguments online turn out so poorly is because, again, they aren't actually engaging with you yourself, but some imaginary and vague other.

When it becomes self-imposed it's almost like the opposite of the stereotype effect, when people become anxious that they're supporting/becoming a stereotype, in that people start to view themselves as just extensions of caricatures, or caricatures coming into being, evident on 4chan by the endless [x]-pill lists. It denies a person the possibility of being themselves, and subsumes them into ready-made memes. As this guy points out: >>13175703

What I'm trying to say more basically though is that caricature and meme reflect/reinforce the dynamic that the internet might actually be making us lonelier, and that these tendencies are self-destructive attempts at making genuine interaction possible, at least on large anonymous forums like 4chan. (Voice chats are of course completely different.) We think we can "guess" someone based off of a few details, and we might even be right in pinning down those details, but it's at the risk of turning a person into nothing else ""but"" those details, denying them (and ourselves) the room to actually change and, well, be human beings.

>>13175811
Might have it right in thinking that online interaction has become little more than useless currency. I think the (you)s speak to the fact that there's something about online interaction that feels incredibly fake. Only in the brief moments when you see a (you) one **almost** gets the satisfaction of someone else actually being present here with you.

>>13175283
Communication in general is false.

>>13175881
I feel obliged to point out that the first three paragraphs are not something that is unique to the internet. I've caught myself stereotyping people (not based on any external ideology, but based on the way I get to know them) and, what's actually worse, finding it strange once they don't act like their representation I have in my head. I've also have been on the receiving end of that.

Which brings me to the conclusion, that the internet brings nothing new to the table, but is just a castrated version of human nature that always existed. Castrated in the sense of, being limited to text post, basically the lack of voice/face etc.

>>13176017
The internet is new insofar as it prevents those realizations, and keeps most interactions, and through memes discourse itself, solely on the level of stereotype. Stereotypes are broken the moment one recognizes the other's particular and individual humanity, something that, to me at least, seems completely impossible on anonymous forums.

1. it's fun to argue
2. you sharpen your blade
3. the harsh tone on the chans are at the end of the day, just bantz
4. you get proven wrong and have to adjust accordingly all the time, even if you don't want to announce it to everyone in the thread

>>13175236
People (arguably haha) have an instinctive drive to argue. Online interactions offer a limited set of exchanges between participants, and arguing is one of the most obvious,

Online people don't discuss the details of their private lives like they would with their friends. They discuss topics that the general public wants to discuss and around which many hold opinions.

In online forums where the main outlet of expression is text, the tendency to argument is reinforced. It's not like people are going to dance or play cards with each other when their only option is to type.

I think most people have unrealistic expectations going into an argument. Nobody changes their mind on a dime but many of you seem to expect it which is the primary source of your frustration. I usually have a good time talking to people online because I'm only setting out to sow doubt and chip away at peoples beliefs. I rarely get the last word because I don't need it, and losing gracefully is worth it if it causes only one person to keep thinking about whatever was being talked about.

>Make a thread
>Get into arguments with people
>Give no quarter, defend my opinions to the death as they attack me from all angles
>Call them retards and faggots and idiots while I refute their arguments
>Lay in bed later that night and consider things from their point of view, to see if my own opinions stand up to scrutiny and whether I'm just talking out my arse or not because they had some really good points

>>13176115
I do this all the time. I'll say something stupid and get called out for it, but I will never give in while actually arguing with people.

>>13176115
>>13176130
The worst is when you realize the whole thing is pointless but still can't stop

>>13176115
And then you come back two weeks later and do the same with the opposite view you previously argued against, because you changed your mind.
The people in this thread underestimate how much people change their minds through this site, it's just the tone of the discourse here. It's harsh, memey and over-the-top and unmoderated but that is what ultimately makes these conversations possible in the first place. The discussions here are the most fruitful of all places, which is why we come here, though it seems to be the opposite at first glance to the uninitiated.
tl;dr: this thread is full of uninitiated newfags who can't handle the bantz

>>13175236
I've been BTFO'd so hard I've literally left threads in shame. I've never admitted being wrong while discussing something, but I'm honestly wrong A LOT.

>>13176157
People who think the harshness of 4chan is unique need to look at more normie sites. There are comment sections on The Hill that rival Chan and YouTube discourse. It's an internetwide problem

>>13176184
The difference is 4chan is 100% pure.

There's the argument, there's name calling and that's it. There's no names, no reputations, no hard feelings. You can call some guy a retarded faggot and tell him to kill himself with his shitty opinions and then open a new thread and be agreeing 100% with the same guy.

>>13175236
Because the clamoring for "debate" itself is a bad faith argument done by 14-year-olds who project being logicians but don't know the difference between sound and valid.

>>13176209
>but don't know the difference between sound and valid
Sound is when it's logically consistent but you're too salty to admit it.

Valid is when you agree with them.

>>13175236
This is a very insightful observation, OP. Not kidding. The paradox of having anonymity, and therefore "you can express your true feelings honestly," seems to create the opposite result. Furthermore, I'm sure we've all noticed the discrepancy between how our arguments sound here, even if they're said in good faith, and how they sound in person, speaking to someone who isn't ME. Several times, I've got caught up because halfway through an argument, I felt unnecessarily cruel, blunt, or short-sighted about the topic at hand, and spent the next two minutes backpedaling and hedging.

>>13176209
>bad faith argument
I swear this doesn't mean anything at all. People use this term when they don't like that they can't control the frame of the argument

>>13176184
The harshness is not unique, but the end result of that harshness is indeed unique on 4chan. On youtube, people just call each other faggots and move on. On messageboards, people have a nickname, an identity that they feel they have to stay true to. On reddit, everything just gets deleted anyway, so why bother posting anything that won't get well received. On 4chan, you can post an opinion you are not entirely sure of (or even one you are 100% certain is correct), get called a faggot and get a hundred links proving you wrong. Then you can come back the next day, a reformed man with newer and more refined opinions with no harm done to your online "identity" because there is none. People on this site form their views through trial and error by defending their views to the death, and adapting them after defeat to defend their new views to death another day. That's how this site always has functioned, and it is indeed unique.

>The thread about shitposting is the thread with the least amount of shitposting
/lit/ is contrarian to a fault.

>nu-uh
>burden of proof reiterated ad nauseum in every post
>asks for source despite de novo hypotheses, thinks the absence of one supports his counterclaim

>>13175932
this

Just make a post saying something like "Actually, I've never considered that. Your post gave me valuable insight about this topic and I should definitly reevaluate my own standpoint."

It doesn't necessarily have to be conversation you are part of. The anonymity takes care of this fact.

>>13175236
I enjoy debating on 4chins because the anonymity makes it impossible to to argue anything but points. Every post has a sort of self-contained identity. Which might be why so much emphasis is placed on phrasing and the correct usage of words; because in essence the words are what you're debating. Ad hominems are just a feeble attempt at putting yourself at ease by humanizing the posts; reassuring yourself that you are in fact talking to other people. Because when you don't know where one person starts and the next begins, it will start to feel like a war of attrition where you constantly have to stay on the defensive with little room to attack.

>>13175251

I see you put a dot there. You must be deep.

>>13176354
>ust make a post saying something like "Actually, I've never considered that. Your post gave me valuable insight about this topic and I should definitly reevaluate my own standpoint."
That's mega gay, what a fucking faggot you are.

Never admit defeat in front of others, even anonymously, wait until you're alone at night before admitting to yourself other people sometimes have valid points of view and maybe you should revise your own beliefs.

>>13175255

You just changed my mind about you having any potential for intelligent discourse whatsoever

>>13176164
>feeling shameful on an anonymous imageboard

>>13176395

mega gay is someone who thinks openly considering a different point of view in front of others makes you in any way vulnerable

>>13176409
reddit

>>13176400
I don't really understand it myself. While you are anonymous, your post are not, at least not to yourself. You often post your own viewpoints which makes them feel as if they're a part of you. While your name is anonymous, your identity is still placed within the words. So because I know who I am and what I said, it still feels shameful when someone proves you completely wrong.

>>13175236

In western society "debate" has never been for the masses but only for the chosen few who can entertain different ideas without being committed to them. Masses were spoonfed worldview to cope with meaninglessness and they accepted them with religious zeal. Now, religious zeal has been criticized in the last two centuries as fundamentally toxic for "debate", whether projected by actual religious views or by non-religious ideologies. Thus there has been an attempt, enhanced by the velocity of communication possible through the internet, to extend "debate" from the philosophical/scientific elites to the masses of barely evolved hairless chimpazees roaming through the streets. The results is that after several thousand years of religious zeal and non-critical thought by the vast majority of human beings it will take still a very long time before the rest of them catch up and can finally join the "debate" - assuming they are even capable of doing it.

>>13176415

wait until you're alone at night before admitting to yourself other people sometimes have valid points of view and maybe you should revise your own beliefs

>>13176409
It's not about vulnerability.

It's about conviction. You do your research, you put on some fake tan and you go out and flex on those faggots, you shove your thick, girthy opinions all up in their faces and you stand there and dare them to say something. And then you flex some more, until you're all flexed out for the day and you take a rest and reflect on their harsh criticisms of your bulging opinions and how you can build upon your stunning intellectual physique to make something even more sturdy and impressive for tomorrow.

You should never back off. I don't think I've ever successfully changed someone's perspective. With this I mean in real life. They agree with me and later they act contrary to that what they agreed with. I don't even give a shit. I don't care if you agree or disagree with me.

I'm developing ideas that I think are worth developing and I'm using various literature to do so. Once it took me a whole year to add one paragraph to a topic I was thinking about and then another three months to realize that it was based on nonsense. I thought five months about a topic that was for me done in another book, but I've forgotten that I've read it. And the wheel keeps spinning.

I pick literature on random. I literary got refuted a dozen of times in the span of ten pages that paralyzed me for 2 hours only to realize that the eleventh page lead the argument in a direction that was not talking about what I was thinking about.

On top of all this, I allowed myself to get lectured by people who base their viewpoint on fucking YouTube videos never picking up a book in their life. (not people from /lit/)

>>13176420
And whats worse is that that shame is completely isolated. You are alone in that feeling. No one else knows or cares. No one in your entire social sphere gives a shit. Its horrible to cannibalize emotions like that.

>>13176443
Admitting you're wrong is a sign you are not giving everything in the discussion, which means you'll never let the discussion reach the fever pitch where you are forced to admit you are wrong and hide your head in shame. You will never achieve enough cognitive dissonance to change your views with the fake "respectful" dialogue you find everywhere else on the internet except for this place. It's a technique for honing your opinions and sharpening your proverbial blade, and the fact that you don't get this despite being on this site suggest you are indeed, reddit.

>>13175236
All the shitposting and name calling is what convinces me that many anons speak their true opinions. Any man would feel strong emotion when someone challenges their honest beliefs. The difference lies in that on an anonymous site, as opposed to real life, you can let emotions show freely. Conviction doesn't detract from conversation, it adds to it.

>>13176555
Are you a Muslim? When debating them you're supposed to act in an opposite way than you would in the West, where losing control of your emotions during a conversation is frowned on. In the Middle East if you're not getting angry then you must not really believe what you're saying.

Bumo

>>13175283
>It must have something to do with the medium. Talking in person, or even over physical letters, is almost always superior. I think it has something to do with the need to post immediately.
No it has to do with no being shamed for your opinion or information being faulty. Without consequences for your actions even if its just simple commitment to the words you say you believe you do not need to actually give up anything when you lose. Without cost winning and losing mean nothing.

>>13175236
>You'd think that an anonymous forum would actually facilitate discourse, because there aren't any stakes involved whatsoever attached to your identity, but it seems to do completely the opposite. If anything, it's as if the anonymity actually makes it easier for you to not think, and to see "debate" as just another way to be misanthropic, again strange given that you know nothing about the person you're talking to.
Or, you can fuck up whatever discussion could be possible because you want to laugh at people who earnestly believe that such places like this one are genuinely good platforms for debate.

Good thread

my two cents is because of the anonymity of the internet, you often can't accurately imagine what the person you are talking to is like - when if they were right in front of you, you might more easily be able to tell whether they were someone with wisdom, or a complete and utter fool. most of human communication is not words, after all, but once you remove everything but the words, i think it kind of fucks the natural process up. if you knew what a lot of the people on 4chan looked like as they were typing their response to you, heard what their voice sounded like in real life, you probably would give a whole lot less of a fuck what they think, especially in response to or about you.

>>13175236
formerly wingnuts of various persuasions did not encounter one another very often. nowadays, thanks to the world wide web, they constantly do.

>>13176555
I think those passionate emotions don’t have their place in debate. The strength of an argument lies solely in rationality, and conviction might stir up the heart, but in debate emotions are irrelevant.

>>13177976
I agree, but I think it’s interesting that when two posters are debating, there is only the strength of their arguments. No reputation, only logic and words. Ironic that it devolves into name calling.

>>13176047
this

>>13176115
>defend your opinion
>call other opinions stupid
>admit errors only to yourself
>change opinion
>deny you ever had a different opinion
>defend your opinion
>...
>???
>profit

why have debates when being contrarian is more fun

People have disconnected from status in the real world. Where everything can be valuable today and worthless tomorrow, status and its pursuit are meaningless. That's why discussions as a whole and online discussions in particular have become a means to the end of dominating and acquiring dominance instead of finding truth.

People who participate in debates aren't doing it because they want greater truth.

It's just fun to shit post with an opponent basically.