You’re right that mockery is a terrible way to convert anyone. I think the real issue is that you’re not going to reach everyone, and that means we have to be strategic about where we put our energy. When someone is genuinely asking questions or wrestling with ideas in good faith, that’s where patient, respectful dialogue is essential.
But a huge amount of online discourse isn’t that. It’s just bad faith concern trolling, sealioning, or just repeating liberal pieties. Engaging with that on its own terms is a trap because it wastes time and gives legitimacy to arguments designed to waste our time.
A sharp dismissal or ridicule draws a clear line, shows others they don’t have to entertain every bad argument, and prevents the conversation from being derailed. The target is the audience, not the provocateur. So while it’s useless for persuasion, I’d argue that it has a role in defining the boundaries of the discussion.
I will say the dismissiveness to an outside viewer can come across very poorly as well. I agree with your stance overall though, if nothing else it gets frustrating to argue with bad-faith or closed-minded people and can be liberating to tell them off, outside viewers would then just likely fall along the side they already had tho.
Yeah, you kind of have to play it by ear. I find a big red flag is when somebody just starts regurgitating well known tropes that have been discussed to death. That’s usually a clear sign they’re just here to stir shit up.
You’re right that mockery is a terrible way to convert anyone. I think the real issue is that you’re not going to reach everyone, and that means we have to be strategic about where we put our energy. When someone is genuinely asking questions or wrestling with ideas in good faith, that’s where patient, respectful dialogue is essential.
But a huge amount of online discourse isn’t that. It’s just bad faith concern trolling, sealioning, or just repeating liberal pieties. Engaging with that on its own terms is a trap because it wastes time and gives legitimacy to arguments designed to waste our time.
A sharp dismissal or ridicule draws a clear line, shows others they don’t have to entertain every bad argument, and prevents the conversation from being derailed. The target is the audience, not the provocateur. So while it’s useless for persuasion, I’d argue that it has a role in defining the boundaries of the discussion.
I will say the dismissiveness to an outside viewer can come across very poorly as well. I agree with your stance overall though, if nothing else it gets frustrating to argue with bad-faith or closed-minded people and can be liberating to tell them off, outside viewers would then just likely fall along the side they already had tho.
Yeah, you kind of have to play it by ear. I find a big red flag is when somebody just starts regurgitating well known tropes that have been discussed to death. That’s usually a clear sign they’re just here to stir shit up.