• Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is unbelievably convoluted. You’ve talked yourself in knots but also somehow believe that your argument is so airtight that any attempt to refute it only invalidates my beliefs.

    Your argument is circular, self-defeating and also missing some really obvious things, one of which I already pointed out.

    The only thing left to do is to ask if you’re actually curious to understand what I mean.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        So to be clear, you’re not curious to understand because you believe you can read my mind and understand the secret motivations behind my words that renders them invalid?

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            I very much didn’t lay out my motivations, I think you may have me confused for someone else.

            But again, you’re not curious to understand because you think you already know everything you need to know about me.

            For what it’s worth, I am actually curious to understand what you mean, but I’m struggling to for reasons I’ve laid out. Your reasoning is very circular and self-contradictory and also a lot of the sentences are very hard to parse out.

            I am asking about whether you are curious to understand because I would like to have a real discussion, and I want to know if you are willing to also have one. So far you seem so convinced I would never actually listen to you that you therefore won’t listen to me. Unless and until that changes I don’t see this particular conversation achieving much.

              • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                So what you’re saying is that you personally can’t be convinced by a post, and you’re extending that out to everyone else.

                This seems like a form of solipsism. If you don’t believe the posts you’re surrounded by are authentic, then nothing anyone says can convince you otherwise.

                Like for instance, I could tell you I’ve been convinced by things people have said online. Sometimes it’s in a context of debate, sometimes not. But if you think I’m only cynically saying that for the points, then I’m obviously just lying. It’s a perfect circle of protection.

                Ultimately only you can decide if you’re open to being convinced. The problem comes when you decide that’s everyone else’s problem. I can’t say what’s in your head and it’s hard to figure out what you mean here.

                I’d be interested to know what your online media diet is, because honestly I think most debate bros out there aren’t doing much of any worth, except again maybe performing to an audience. I don’t know what to say here. You say your head’s a mess, and I tend to agree. I can’t make head nor tails of what you’re saying. It sounds like you’re monologuing to yourself, and I’m not really qualified to interpret it. Only you are.

                  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    At this point, you’re just kind of bloviating. Like, none of the points on their own is particularly confusing - although if you don’t see the inherent contradictions I wonder if you’re even listening to yourself, you seem to explicitly acknowledge them - I just don’t know what the point of it all is. Like, you need to do some work to help me understand what you’re actually trying to say. I’m not your therapist. Either you have something you want me to respond to or you don’t.

                    The initial response of “you must believe posting can change minds or you wouldn’t be posting”…you understand that’s the point I started focusing on correct?

                    That is literally not what I said. I could repeat it, but you would have to tell me you’re curious to understand me or I’m not going to bother at this point. I’ve already asked you that and you ignored it, but you seemed troubled so I let it slide. I’m done with that. If you won’t meet me halfway in this conversation then you can carry on wanking in the corner, but I’m not going to watch.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            If you can’t see how your behavior isn’t a real discussion I don’t want to have one.

            You literally said it’s impossible to have a real discussion online, and now you’re criticising someone for not engaging you in the way you want to have a “real discussion”?