• Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is basically the alt-right approach to debate. They don’t care about being right, they just want to own the libs.

    • Iusedtobeanadventurer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This.

      I had someone the other day tell me the Tiananmen “tank man” incident never happened. We were discussing cognitive biases and she used this as an example of confirmation bias. But naturally she was arguing that anyone who didn’t share her world view suffered from confirmation bias.

      When I said “the incident did happen and there’s photographic evidence” she told me "Google it there’s no photo "

      Well, we googled it and there is, in fact, a photo. There’s more than one, actually.

      I decided that presenting facts no longer was the point of the conversation when she shifted to the argument “that photo is known to be staged.”

      🙄

      • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It sounds like they got a bit confused. Tank man is real, but I’m reasonably sure he was not actually crushed by the tank which was the lie we were all told by our textbooks growing up, to bolster the “China bad” position held by the Western world.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’ve never seen it claimed he was cruched by the tanks?

          I’ve seen it claimed the bodies of the student protestors were run over by the tanks repeatedly until they were mush and there is photos to support this.

          But the story of tank man was that he stood in front of the tanks and they tried to go around him, but he moved in front of them again.

          Also fuck off tankie

          • InputZero@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can’t think of it off the top of my head but I’m certain something like The Simpsons or Family Guy used it as a joke where they did get run over. I don’t think it’s claimed anywhere but it did become part of the story for some people. I can easily see how someone who doesn’t quite understand the situation, but is also sceptical to truth would think that.

            Take someone who assumes he was run over, tell them ‘well actually he wasn’t, the perspective of the picture makes it look like he’s about to be.’ and some of those people will jump to the conclusion it was fake. Especially in the past 40 (?) Years where a lot of people get their history from TV.

        • Iusedtobeanadventurer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you’re right and she was confused but that sort of illustrates the point. If someone is arguing a fallacy that is easily proven a fallacy then it indicates to me that they are generally going to be an unreliable source of information.

  • Bak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I honestly love when people screenshot memes and accidentally draw random ass lines on them

  • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sheesh, that reminds me of a D&D group I had. One guy started arguing about crap. For example: Group got injured, got brought to safety in town, I described how each group member woke up and asked each one what they want to do in the morning. The problem player complained he should have woken up before the other guy, because he has higher initiative. I didn’t go along with it and said nah, your character got knocked out in the last fight, it only makes sense you get up later.

    He kept arguing and arguing and arguing and derailing the entire session. And then brought up “Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it”. So pretty much admitting he’s just arguing for the sake of it at that point. Ended the session there, half the group wanted to kick him out, the other half (as they were friends) wanted to give him a second chance. I did the latter and regretted it in the next session, that’s where the campaign ended.

    • emolr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly in a way that kind of thing kind of ruins any chance of trusting the guy, mostly bc you can’t trust him not to completely nuke the campaign bc he’s being an utter dick (which by the sound of it he totally did). The first time someone starts shit for fun, how do you know they won’t do it again every other time you hang out with them? Now you just have to assume they’re a bitter and immature enough person to always think that it’s fun to shit on everyone else’s day.

      • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. And this was for a super super unimportant detail in a campaign. Like which character wakes up first? Holy shit, who cares? Imagine coming to a critical decision, which character dies? Or something goes wrong (like an important roll). That kind of player would derail everything at that point if they already argue for over an hour over bullshit.

        I just wanted the guy out, but it was on Roll20 (4 players total, one friend of mine, 3 other online players which were friends), even his friends told him it’s annoying, stop it. But they still wanted to give him another chance (and me kicking him straight out would have killed the campaign either way then). Such a waste of time.

        On top of that: The moment a player keeps second guessing the DM, like starting to argue about decisions outside the roleplay, you’re already doomed. Because one dumb thing gets brought up and that leads into another player chiming up “Npc A doing this also didn’t make that much sense…” and then the entire campaign gets dissected.

  • Norgur@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Something most of us have done one way or another. We’ve all been dickheads sometimes.

  • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does anyone have the copypasta from /r/chapotraphouse that was a Nazi complaining about how we were all psychopaths because he tried to concern troll debate us and we just kept telling him to post hog?

    Good times.

  • bug@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, you have described the concept of a troll, well done.