speaking of which, does anyone else recognize nate's friend S here?
nate silver wrote:Flag-Wavers: Some months ago, I was being a typical Somebody-Is-Wrong-On-The-Internet type, arguing about some-or-another nonsense where I thought Democrats were being hypocritical. I don’t think it was the Lauren Boebert thing but let’s just use that as an example of an appropriately low-stakes controversy. An IRL friend of mine, first initial S. — someone who I lot of respect for, but we spar on politics a lot and he’s definitely to my left — was basically like “Hey man, don’t harsh our vibe here — we’re just trying to have fun, not everything has to be the Oxford Debating Society”.
It’s a fair point. Many people — probably the majority of people who argue about politics on the Internet on any given day, although not necessarily the majority of influential ones — are doing so primarily for recreational or hobbyist reasons, especially when it comes to minor, C-block on MSNBC controversies like the Boebert scandal. They are trying to have fun and signal to their tribe that they’re one of the Good Guys. Some of them are capable of serious political thought on more important issues, or at least have reasonably well-articulated priors, although others don’t.
But they’re not really trying to win arguments. Flag-Wavers are like the paper to us Somebody-Is-Wrong-On-The-Internet rocks; arguing against them is like punching a paper bag because they’re not really accepting our terms of engagement. To complete the cycle, they are susceptible to Country Lawyer scissors, however, because they can be drafted into adding manpower to an ill-advised argument.
bob dylan wrote:i hope that you die
steve albini wrote:i hope you choke
thom yorke wrote:we hope that you choke
ChudFusk wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2024 1:36 amI do hope you are a smoker and enjoy your red meat.