Of stones rolling downhill
Mar. 13th, 2013 12:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davvI've heard that YouTube comments are particularly inane. I've even seen a comic parodying it. However, I've watched obscure enough YT that I haven't been exposed to those kind of comments.
Well, now I know what they're like. Not from YouTube itself, but from another site (and in my native language, not English). And now I understand what is meant by "inanity". This will probably sound a bit arrogant, but teaching these people logic is like bailing out the ocean.
It has further shown me that what appears to be factual argument rarely is. It takes the appearance of factual claims (e.g. "[political group] has sponsored [organization] to the order of billions of dollars, so you can't trust [organization]"), but the core is not really there. Thus, if you demand evidence for this supposed connection, the person claiming it would say something like "don't get obsessed with detail" or "okay, not billions, but I know they're connected". It's not an interest in knowing more about the world that produces the factual claim. The factual claim is instrumental: the purpose is to show just how bad the political group is.
Unfortunately, being around these kind of people can tend to make one think all claims of that sort are instrumental. This is too bad if one later finds someone who genuinely means what he says. Like logical fallacies, one can't just assume X is false because X is fallacious (or said by people who use statements as ammunition).
There are no easy solutions! Although for the equivalent of "YouTube" discourse, perhaps the best solution is a big /ignore :) Unless one enjoys bailing out the ocean.
Well, now I know what they're like. Not from YouTube itself, but from another site (and in my native language, not English). And now I understand what is meant by "inanity". This will probably sound a bit arrogant, but teaching these people logic is like bailing out the ocean.
It has further shown me that what appears to be factual argument rarely is. It takes the appearance of factual claims (e.g. "[political group] has sponsored [organization] to the order of billions of dollars, so you can't trust [organization]"), but the core is not really there. Thus, if you demand evidence for this supposed connection, the person claiming it would say something like "don't get obsessed with detail" or "okay, not billions, but I know they're connected". It's not an interest in knowing more about the world that produces the factual claim. The factual claim is instrumental: the purpose is to show just how bad the political group is.
Unfortunately, being around these kind of people can tend to make one think all claims of that sort are instrumental. This is too bad if one later finds someone who genuinely means what he says. Like logical fallacies, one can't just assume X is false because X is fallacious (or said by people who use statements as ammunition).
There are no easy solutions! Although for the equivalent of "YouTube" discourse, perhaps the best solution is a big /ignore :) Unless one enjoys bailing out the ocean.