[Transcript]
Charming people. /s
I can tell you from experience that Cowbee is by far the most abusive person to argue with online I have ever encountered. And I love arguing online so I’ve met a lot. I blocked them a long time ago and seeing them in a screenshot still makes me shudder. Terrible humans
Cowbee is frustrating, but he’s easy to counter once you realise his spiel.
Extremeists rely heavily on gish-gallop, bombarding you with nonsense. You need to focus on the weakest claim, point out the bias or flaw in the source, and play for neutrality and impartiality; they’ll crumble every single time.
For example, when presented with an obviously biased source like Prolewiki or Redsails, or whatever copy-paste nonsense they have, ask for something more neutral and professional in tone, such as Reuters, AP News, or a neutral article.
You are biased, your source is biased, I am intimidated by BBC, here is a far more reliable source from suckingstrongmansdick.slop that shows the T-14 Armata will solve world hunger.
Or something along those lines. I try from time to time. But am very quick to give up. So I do my part by making fun of them and donate to a good cause, which somehow makes them sooooooo angry. I wonder why.
(Source.)
I have witnessed some truly nauseating toxicity on webshites like Argue With Everyone (rot in piss), 4chan, Facebook, and so on, and to call @Cowbee@lemmygrad.ml, of all people, ‘by far the most abusive person to argue with online I have ever encountered’ suggests that this user has not been on the Internet for a long time.
Oh, and I love the dullard who ridiculed us for disliking the BBC, never mind mediocre capitalist media like Reuters and the Associated Press. /c/MeanwhileOnGrad, you fucking suck.
Thank you! And yea, the point on bias you made is spot-on. Bias doesn’t mean something is wrong, just that it was made from a certain viewpoint, and that the information presented conforms to that viewpoint in presentation. Bias can be helpful for identifying weak spots, but someone presenting factual information inevitably has their views color how they present it.
I hate how online debate bros dont understand how debate works, pointing out a source is flawed isnt pointing out the argument is flawed, just the basis for it, the conclusion can still be sound and regardless, must still be addressed in an argument. A source claiming to be unbiased is also way less trustworthy in my eyes than one who admits to having a perspective theyre reporting from cause the ones claiming to be unbiased have already lied once cause there is no such thing as unbiased reporting.
Yep! Debate-as-bloodsport style liberals often make the most basic errors in media literacy, which comes with a whole host of issues. Media literacy itself is one of the most important tools of the modern era due to the sheer volume of information available.