150 Years Ago, a Philosopher Showed Why It’s Pointless to Start Arguments on the Internet

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Thought this was interesting....something we already know, i think..that argument rooted in emotion gets stronger when opposed:

150 Years Ago, a Philosopher Showed Why It’s Pointless to Start Arguments on the Internet - Quartz - Pocket

 

[Thunk]

The author is saying an argument rooted in feeling is equal to an argument on the internet.

Factually incorrect.

 

[fncceo]

Wait... I thought Al Gore invented The Internet?

 

[Auld Phart]

Wonder what browser he used?

 

[fncceo]

Wonder what browser he used?

IOS on an Apple Watch...

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The author is saying an argument rooted in feeling is equal to an argument on the internet.

Factually incorrect.

No he isn’t, I FEEL he is saying the exact opposite.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The author is saying an argument rooted in feeling is equal to an argument on the internet.

Factually incorrect.

No he isn’t, I FEEL he is saying the exact opposite.

I read the whole article..it's long..so I doubt if many will. What the author is saying is that most argument on the Net is driven by emotion..not facts..and further, that any argument against your position--simply makes the desire to defend your premise just that much more imperative.

Thus..attempting to change people's minds on the net...is futile..the more you attack..the more adamant become the beliefs of the person holding the attacked position.

We see this all the time...as posters will go to absurd lengths to defend indefensible positions..and factual evidence is either debunked with rhetoric or ignored altogether.

 

[waltky]

Mebbe Al didn't read the internet.

 

[whitehall]

The internet? When Mill wrote his opinion with a quill pen there was no telephone or radio or even electricity. I wonder what Mill might have thought about the possibility that the majority of information available to Americans might become propaganda designed to support of a particular agenda and a particular party?

 

[Thunk]

We see this all the time...as posters will go to absurd lengths to defend indefensible positions..and factual evidence is either debunked with rhetoric or ignored altogether.