That’s true. It also doesn’t invalidate it if I do waste it though. OK, bye

You are making a good example of a person who maybe thinks they can argue in good faith but very clearly doesn’t, with emotional pressure and such.

Well, this comment of yours doesn’t look like a good faith argument.

What I meant is that it takes two sides for one. And when two people are ready to argue in good faith, one may downgrade the level of contention from “argue” to “discuss” without any loss.

(For me and my sister it would still be “argue”, but we are just rude to each other.)

That would be try to attract people outside of social media, not try to divert them inside social media where you’ll waste energy

it necessarily widens the debate-space from an unopposed confident statement to a dialogue that the onlooker can take into consideration while making their own decision.

That part would be right if we weren’t talking about social media, which are designed to neuter this effect.

So who debates in good faith and how often?

he goal isn’t to sway the fanatics, it’s to publicly quash their arguments. To sway curious onlookers away from fanaticism before they become fanatics themselves.

Friendly reminder that the above is what I answered first.

Sorry, but this is a load of bollocks. It’s you putting yourself above some “gullible people” and still using debate skills to deceive them, just in some “good” direction. Maybe you are really right, but they believe you for the wrong reasons, and the process itself doesn’t reinforce that you are right in any way.

For my argument it’s sufficient that they are very much not the same.

This is similar to saying that a big company leading in some area can be benevolent and do good things. Yes, it can, like DEC, Sun, at some point even IBM. Doesn’t prove the statement that every social institution and mechanism out there must be replaced by markets.

As I’ve just said in two other comments, “changing someone’s mind” is just a return to barbarism and Middle Ages. When a few literate theology doctors would publicly “defeat” their opponents, the barely literate mass of their audience (monks, nobles and such) would watch and approve, and the illiterate mass would kinda get that those pesky heretics\infidels got totally owned by facts and logic.

So any person arguing with that emotion and visible goal should just be left to eat other such ignorami. Nobody worth arguing with has those.

The goal isn’t to sway the fanatics, it’s to publicly quash their arguments. To sway curious onlookers away from fanaticism before they become fanatics themselves.

As I’ve said in another comment, this is return to Middle Ages. Debating skills have not much in common with reasoning skills.

But - debates don’t better yourself. Only your debating skills in particular get better. It’s a return to Middle Ages with theologists publicly “defeating” heretic and Jewish and Muslim philosophy.

And “turn” is an interesting word, making the association even stronger.

This may happen, but not the same way, all I can say.

When it’s not E2EE, maybe they are right. What’s the point of encrypting something that gets decrypted midway by an organization with hundreds of employees, many of them with access, not even talking about law enforcement and accidental criminals.

EDIT: I mean, illusion of security may be sometimes worse that lack of that little security which comes with it. Everything is complex.

because of their deep and abiding fear of the Evil Russian Backed KDP party (god damn, everything old really is new again)

You missed the moment where NSDAP and German communists kinda had intersecting constituencies, as in “angry young people with nothing good to do”.

Many stormtroopers were members of both at different points of their, eh, path.

And then, what really kicked off martial law was the Reichstagg fire,

Which was almost certainly a false flag operation by Nazis.

Liberals, Conservatives, and Fascists all united under a single banner in their staunch hatred of German Communism.

Such parallels always suck. They didn’t really have liberals in the Weimar republic. It was all conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, and some fishy social-democrats. And it was kinda authoritarian at every point.

This was decades after German military police and Freikorps paramilitary groups under Hindenburg crushed the Spartacus League during the 1919 strike wave. The leaders of the movement - Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, and Franz Mehring - were executed by the police and the organizations disbanded under threat of further imprisonment/execution.

Yep. You might consider that such a republic shouldn’t be so readily compared to the US.

I’m not saying future is cool.

These fit under “state-level scams”.

EDIT: Still, while I wasn’t going to compliment them or something, it can be a valid strategy for survival to use anything to accumulate some operational power ; I can see a few nations (not all of them have recognized states) on the map for which it may be necessary to survive in the following decade. But Nazis didn’t have to take such risks, it was ideological for them that theft and robbery are better than honest work.

They’ve also ran a few state-level scams and Ponzi schemes to have the funds for that military and other spending.

Their business model was - step 1, cheat to have money, step 2, use money to rearm, step 3, conquer and loot, thus get funds that way, step 4 probably would be to force some peace, then rearm, then rinse and repeat, but they didn’t manage to capture a few strategic areas they needed in time. So they had fuel shortages, food shortages, and ultimately lost.

Wtf I wrote in the end…

What do you expect, people think Hitler was good for most Germans and restored economy and made trains run on time, and the defeat part oh well. Because that’s what movies show. And that’s because for commies Hitler was just a variation of the west, probably less capricious, while for the west Hitler was bad, but good against commies. So both would show Nazis as being better than their opponent.

It’s the usual catch - the leader of the losing side doesn’t get the post, but keeps power of his faction.

While if that leader is no longer a leader, their personal power would be less even if the faction wins.

Western Roman Empire had a similar story with Stilicho’s conviction and execution. The empire loses, but those who ate him get some power.

I can’t blame people for not wasting energy on a child that needs a lot more structure, support and training.

Nah. Just different choices in all of these. I have ADHD. Most of the problems are not about trying to achieve the same things as others do, but trying to achieve them the same way others do. After solving that there are still downsides, but these are not qualitative.

It takes very little to notice which things don’t work and don’t try them again. A parent who doesn’t care about this is a bad parent, and an educator who ignores this is simply malicious. At least in my experience people would very easily change their approaches.

Including very traditional-minded people and those denying the condition itself (“you don’t have a disorder, you just need to do things your own way” is ignorant, but really better than using others’ conditions to attack them, and I’ve heard this really often ; definitely better than “oh, it’s so sad, I really hope everything will be good with you, I really like your imagination and hope you’ll give it more attention, but it seems you won’t change, we are too different, don’t write me anymore”, said in 20x the amount of words, in relationships).

Those who wouldn’t were either insulted by some perceived lack of respect and tried to prove that I’m stupid, needless to say that lack of respect became genuine then (like a few school teachers and university professors, but not all of them ; or peers of the “dumb and uninventive, but proud of being capable of stealing something” kind), or ignorant idiots of the Soviet generation afraid of anything connected to mental health (like my dad, what’s even dumber I’m confident he was autistic too).

With such carelessness or lack of awareness, I cannot blame someone for not thinking and just running away. If someone is seemingly shortsighted, unreliable or uncaring, why stay with them? Or starting a relationship with them with no certainty things will improve? It’s wrong to believe you can change or fix someone, it is foolish to try when you don’t.

Humans have invented words to discuss all those things. If it’s about spending possibly the rest of your life alongside someone, being reluctant to talk is just strange. Yes, if the other person thinks they know better and this shouldn’t be discussed in detail, then no chance.

Unless that other person is too autistic, ha-ha. Then that particular kind of problems one can just write off.