this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
41 points (100.0% liked)

chat

8587 readers
207 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'd have more success genuinely arguing with brick walls sometimes and I genuinely want to believe I am being baited because I would have more faith in humanity if that were true. The problem is it doesn't feel like bad faith when their arguments are so bad I can't piece together what part of my position they are even attempting to challenge.

I blocked most of the people who I encounter this with but I keep one around simply because of how much they perplex me. Also they have a silly username and I think that's chill.

Edit: what if they are just giving me a strawman to beat so my arguments look good? Secret comrade? /s

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Arguing with random chuds and libs on Twitter or whatever is usually genuinely bad for you (it was for me).

If you insist on doing it: ask questions and get them to define things for you. Make them set a standard for how what they are claiming could hypothetically be falsified. It is unlikely it will be worthwhile regardless, but it is nearly impossible to get a positive result otherwise.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I really don't normally. I used to but also came to the conclusion that it wasn't healthy. This is a rare exception and I think I handled it well.

get them to define things for you

[–] Athena5898@hexbear.net 8 points 2 days ago

All the time.

I have a rule now that I respond genuinely the first time. Response to it will dictate if I block and move on or not.

[–] supplier@hexbear.net 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Arguing online? Please comrade, from the bottom of my heart I beg you not to engage in this self-destructive behavior.

(I know it's ironic where it's coming from, but I'm being genuine)

[–] Ekranoplane@hexbear.net 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

All chuds have a subset of four or five of the ten possible brainworms, so all you have to do is figure out which one they're most upset about then give them an essay explaining it properly. It should take like two questions then a smug comment and then you're done. About 10% of the time they'll even ask for a list of more stuff to read.

If you're talking in person, you have to know the activation phrase for Americans - "lol that's propaganda" - this makes them actually listen and think but you have to able to explain how their ideas really are from the spectacle once you invoke this.

[–] SmokinStalin@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago

Now i want a spreadsheet documenting all the brainworms. American exceptionalism, china bad, etc

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

I'm actually not sure what we had was an argument