[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.

  • GalaxyBrain [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

    • Cowbee [he/they]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.