90% of social media comment sections.
How to Lose Friends and Annoy People
By Kale Darnegie
Let’s be real nobody’s making friends on internet debate spaces anyway
I honestly love when people screenshot memes and accidentally draw random ass lines on them
It’s there to piss you off.
Critical miss
xkcd 47
I meant to reference
Do you mean https://xkcd.com/1683 ?
Whoops! no, I meant https://xkcd.com/37/
It’s the Venom pouring down on his head, a clip from Spiderman 4
And here I was thinking it was the recycled industrial oil that Rudy G uses as hair color.
I was unaware of this even being a thing.
I don’t think it’s an accident. It’s an attempt to fool repost detectors.
This is basically the alt-right approach to debate. They don’t care about being right, they just want to own the libs.
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.”
🙄
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.
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.
One inaccuracy in a historical report allows detractors to call the whole thing a lie.
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.
the card says moops
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.
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.
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.
That Guys, especially when they have misguided friends backing them up, are the death of campaigns.
How to have a discussion in bad faith 101
Something most of us have done one way or another. We’ve all been dickheads sometimes.
Im usualy trying to be friendly at the same time.
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.
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?
Was it that long ago? Pretty much that same thing happened, like, earlier today.
I found the post I was thinking about. It was a /pol/ Nazi and funnier than I remembered.
CW: censored slurs.
I thought their entire mythos was that nothing offended them and that they were the bleeding edge of the internet.
Nazis and not living up to their own mythos - name a more iconic duo.
Hitler and total failure.
Jokes on them I was trolling the whole time. /s
What’s with the black streak on his face though?
you got a problem with something being black ?
Yes, you have described the concept of a troll, well done.
OK but why is it called sigmaposting?
It’s an ironic glorification of things idiots do to be “sigma” (like arguing just to win even when they realize they’re wrong) but just makes them unpleasant combined with a self-awareness that we all do this shit from time to time
sigma nuts
layers of irony
Sigmaposting your mom
This is on point, the number of debates in good faith on the Internet are… Not common
@ lemmy.world users
All while complaining it’s just like Reddit, and they thought it would be different.
Yeah, that really doesn’t make you look good in any sort of way with anybody except yourself maybe.
It really isn’t hard to admit your mistake and move on.
Only losers can’t do that.
That’s what this meme about ‘sigmaposting’ is poking fun at. The sigma wolf is supposed to be the lone wolf who doesn’t need nor care about anybody else, and for some reason some people look up to that as an ideal to pursue. But wolves are social animals, so in reality the lone wolf is a failing loser.
