136 replies to this topic

[The Lorcan Nagle]

My lawyers have advised me to state that I was not thinking of anyone here when I read this article

[Miqque Loveland]

Familiar with this. I just call it "probable client" behavior. Psych or E.R. - sooner or later, that's where they end up.

Got a friend who tends to reply to any statement or question with "No! blah blah blah" Challenged him on last road trip to pay a quarter each time he started in with "No!" and I'd chip in a quarter to his cup every time I said "fuck". End of the day I had twenty-two bucks, he had fifty cents. (Both on one curve he entered at 90mph or so with signs that suggested 30).

[al-x]

Hello:

...

Lorcan, I have NO IDEA who you are talking about.


Al...

[Will]

I didn't know Gretchen lurked here.

[Ogul]

I'm unfamiliar with the concept myself, although I do have a few points of disagreement with this article, from a perfectly hypothetical perspective, of course.

I noticed this for the first time in a conversation with a guy a few months ago. We were talking about social media, and before long, I realized that whatever I’d say, he’d disagree with me. If I said, “X is important,” he’d say, “No, actually, Y is important.” For two hours. And I could tell that if I’d said, “Y is important,” he would’ve argued for X.

Just considering this scenario, I should think it far more likely that, rather than engaging a position opposite his own purely to be contradictory, it would be more likely that this "oppositional" fellow would instead ignore or pass off comments that he does not sense a position in, and only engage comments that are of interest. If you say "X is important" and he disagreed, he would say that Y is important, but if you said that Y is important, then if it were a face to face he would likely say something non-committal like "sure, ok," and the conversation would pass seamlessly to the next topic with no fireworks. If it were in a medium where response took any particular effort, such as typing up a post and hitting "post", he'd be likely to say nothing at all, I should think, and wait for a comment to come around with which he did disagree, because that would be a comment in need of correction.

I would assume, of course.

The contractions are infinitely more memorable than a non-response, so the confirmation bias leads one to believe that they would contradict anything.

Of course, that's just my take on it from an outside perspective.

[craggy]

not sure if self parody or not?

[stephanie familiar]

i read the book that the author of that article wrote, the happiness project, and it sucked. that is all i have to contribute to this thread.

[Ogul]

i read the book that the author of that article wrote, the happiness project, and it sucked. that is all i have to contribute to this thread.

You're just being contradictory, clearly it was a masterpiece.

[brucegray666]

[Will]

not sure if self parody or not?

A compulsion.

[Elliot Balson]

Millarworld, don't ever change.

[David Meadows]

Remember, if you're arguing on the Internet, you've already lost.

That makes no sense. The only way you can be arguing is if the other guy is arguing back, in which case he's lost too, but if he's lost you've won. And vice-versa. So again, the conclusion of that entire cartoon is nonsensical.

[brucegray666]

David, remember, when talking about internet arguments, it's more than likely the term "loser" can be applied to both parties.

[Ogul]

Yeah, some people just take Internet arguments way too seriously, like "how dare people disagree with me, on the Internet! They must be terrible people with bad moral fiber, but being superior to them, I will scold them for disagreeing with me, and then take my ball and return from whence I came, along the high road. Good day to you sir!" If you aren't having fun in an Internet discussion, sure, leave, but don't assume that just because you aren't enjoying the conversation that the other party is equally as annoyed. So long as you're enjoying yourself, you can't lose.

[David Meadows]

David, remember, when talking about internet arguments, it's more than likely the term "loser" can be applied to both parties.

Logically so can the term "winner".

[brucegray666]

Logically so can the term "winner".

Logic has no place in an internet argument.

[craggy]

A compulsion.

so I'm wrong...and I'm wrong?

that does sounds like most of my arguments

[Mike]

Hey, Elliot's hair grew back!

[Chris Fenton]

You're all worse than 13 hitlers!!!!!!1!!

[Christian U]

I'm unfamiliar with the concept myself, although I do have a few points of disagreement with this article, from a perfectly hypothetical perspective, of course.



Just considering this scenario, I should think it far more likely that, rather than engaging a position opposite his own purely to be contradictory, it would be more likely that this "oppositional" fellow would instead ignore or pass off comments that he does not sense a position in, and only engage comments that are of interest. If you say "X is important" and he disagreed, he would say that Y is important, but if you said that Y is important, then if it were a face to face he would likely say something non-committal like "sure, ok," and the conversation would pass seamlessly to the next topic with no fireworks. If it were in a medium where response took any particular effort, such as typing up a post and hitting "post", he'd be likely to say nothing at all, I should think, and wait for a comment to come around with which he did disagree, because that would be a comment in need of correction.

I would assume, of course.

The contractions are infinitely more memorable than a non-response, so the confirmation bias leads one to believe that they would contradict anything.

Of course, that's just my take on it from an outside perspective.

I think you've said something along those lines before, so let me reiterate how important it is in any conversation - whether it be on the internet or in real life - to also identify the areas of a discussion in which you agree. Because from there, you can build a consensus. Which would make such a discussion constructive, as opposed to the endless arguing of just two never-changing positions.