this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
543 points (99.6% liked)
Not The Onion
21122 readers
1330 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
meh, i was hoping it might be a bit more fun later on but it's been lacklustre so far.
You can't reason someone out of a position they've not reasoned themselves in to but it's sometimes interesting to see if they genuinely believe the positions they tout and hear how they got there.
There are easily understood ways of measuring fitness for a position, an easy answer to the actual question of how evaluations could be possible is to use the criteria for what would be considered a successful run as a school board member, historically and ideally.
Use those criteria to evaluate who has a track record of achieving these things, or the potential/skills to go on to achieve these things during the allotted time.
Does this happen? rarely. Could it potentially work, absolutely.
Personal likeability/popularity is probably a part of those criteria (as with any position involving any politics) but it's not the only one.
Not at all, there's nothing to indicate any kind of space for an adjustment in their view, if they even have an actual perspective beyond trolling.
I'm not sure random internet replies legitimise clear bad-faith troll takes.
As i said, my point here wasn't really to change minds it was more interest in the mindset and reasoning skills of someone who'd post something like that, think of it as internet anthropology.
I don't really have any rage, it's like being angry at a chihuahua for barking.
I'm not expecting good-faith or well reasoned arguments, so I’m not disappointed or angry when they don't appear.
So you waste your time for the sake of it? I'd say something about not being able to reason someone out of a position they didnt use reason to get into in the first place but I guess its repetitive.
You can spend your time as you want but the trolls do build their world by the responses of others. It makes them more real and let's useless conversation bog down better ones. They are seeking answers they know they won't get to make it seem like their world is more figured out for waving away other thoughts.
I dont know. I dont get any joy out of arguing the minutia of nonsense. It feels like it just fills my own head with it and doesnt make me more empathetic to understand that. Personally I am upset to find that someone doesnt want to talk but use me as a springboard for their own stuff but oh well.
Glad you are ok with it I guess.
I stated exactly what my reasons are for engaging,
I think the word you are looking for is recursive, i could be wrong though.
Genuine question, why would i care how they build their world ?
If they want to build a mental echochamber, who am i to deny them their delusions ?
The argument about bogging up otherwise useful conversations has merit though, I’ll consider that going forward.
Though, my side of the argument is still written as a good faith reply so there might be benefit in seeing actual replies, if only from one side...hmm..i'll think on this.
It's not really joy and i'm not really arguing the minutia expecting coherent replies, as i said it's interesting to me to try and understand different kinds of people, it helps me better communicate in situations where the other party is conversing in good faith.
I'm not really looking to build empathy for that either, perhaps some pity in some really tragic cases where you can see they are truly struggling, but those aren't usually trolls, just people struggling with people things.
A lot of the time the useful bits aren't in the bad faith nonsense itself but how it's structured, the way in which the "logical" pivots occur, the word choice or something else that isn't the actual content itself.
I get that it might not be like that for everyone.
I think we might have fundamentally different perspectives on what a conversation can be, but in this case I wasn't expecting genuine engagement, so I’m not upset or disappointed to find out there wasn't any.
I'm also not worried about them being upset by my approach, because bad-faith trolls deserve no worry.
I think to a degree you can see our different styles in just our replies itself, I do care about conversation. I like it and think it's best when it shares information or opinion about people who care to do so. I also dont think to think I can control it but add my opinion so it is seen and move on when it is obviously not productive.
Practical but aware that I am not infinite. Or maybe I am just more tired than other people.
And I dunno I care about others. I think frustrated yipping at each other isn't fun empatheticly but I could be wrong about it. If you find interest in this conversation I am not meaning to stop you just wanted to know you were not stuck in that recursive loop (that was the word, thank you) against your own better judgement.