Artist’s instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rusty.creates/
Artist’s webtoon: https://www.webtoons.com/en/canvas/bummer-party/list?title_no=797667
Artist’s newsletter: https://rustycreates.substack.com/
You must log in or register to comment.
Ah, yes. Nothing better characterizes “internet disagreements” than two well-informed people who politely disagree with each other while providing all of the necessary background information.
And who are doing so in person.
“I’m not uninformed! I got all the information I need from qanonisright.ru”
As long as I am understood, I actually like it when this happens.
If anything, I feel like it pretty much makes for a good ending point for an argument, if played out completely. If two people are working with the same set of facts, and understand eachother’s positions, and understand why the other person holds that position, but both still hold to their different views, then the difference probably comes down ultimately to different values, and since those aren’t something one is going to simply logically argue someone onto or out of, there is no point in continuing an argument after that.
I feel like it pretty much makes for a good ending point for an argument
Same. “Agree to disagree. Have a nice day.”
Good point! The title is kinda misleading, I agree.
Just before anyone says that I wrote a bad title, it was an original title written by the author. :x
It is a spectacularly bad title, because the fact that they’re talking to each other in person automatically makes it not an “internet” disagreement.
I just liked the comic and changing the title doesn’t feel correct. Maybe I should do that for my future posts.
Nah, if you’re sharing comics non-transformatively, I’d say lean towards authenticity.
Maybe do something lik ““Titel” actually titel” or “Authors “Titel” but I feel “Your Titel” fits better”, for cases like this.
Then you both get the titel of the comic, but you make it clear its not your doing. You can also sometimes get some good discussions about how the authors titel gives the comic this meaning, but yours gives it this completely different meaning.
As far as I’m aware, an actual disagreement can only really occur in one place - opinions. I’ll explain what I mean, and I’m happy to be corrected on this if you disagree :)
A: “I think Pizza is the best Italian food, hands down. It tastes so good!”
B: “No way, I think pasta is better because it has way more variety.” ThisHere, A and B disagree because they value different things about the food, and both arguments are valid. I assume this is what the comic is referring to.
Now consider this other example:
X: “The Earth is flat because I can’t see any curvature and this ball doesn’t roll away when I put it on the floor.”
Y: “The Earth is round because we’ve been up high on mountains and in planes and seen the curvature. Plus, many aspects of physics simply wouldn’t work if that were true, like the day/night cycle.”Here, X has come to the wrong conclusion either by misinformation or just on their own, and while they believe themselves to be correct, they are not. On the surface it may seem like a disagreement, but the two sides are not equal, as only one side actually is actually correct. As long as X keeps an open mind and is willing to correct their view, there should be no problem, and they will have learned something new.
The problem arises when people refuse to argue their point in good faith and resort to other tricks/fallacies to appear right, even when they’re not. Using the example I gave, X could purposefully conflate fact and opinion by saying “let’s agree to disagree”, downplaying the correct argument as a mere opinion despite it being provably true.
Some might think I’m arguing semantics here, and that both situations could be classed as disagreements. Let me explain. The dictionary definition of “agree” is to have a positive opinion of something/someone. Opinions are therefore an integral part of agreement (and conversely, disagreement). knowing that, and knowing that facts are objective, the logical conclusion is that disagreement and facts are fundamentally incompatible. Following this logic, you cannot disagree with something that is objectively true.
I’ll leave you with this:
X: “The sky is green.”
Y: “No it’s not. Look up, it’s blue.”
X: “Well that’s just your opinion. Let’s agree to disagree.”Yeah, what we’re seeing a lot of lately is intentional ignorance, and manufactured intention.
“Just look up!”
“No.”
They even made a movie about it, it’s called Don’t Look Up.
my favorite experience with Don’t look up was /r/movies acting all snotty and uppity about how it’s too “on the nose” only for me to see a few weeks later seeing someone arguing in a different thread about how “Don’t look up isn’t about climate change, it’s about a meteor, are you stupid? they literally show it”
so yeah, it definitely wasn’t too on the nose for the target demographic
I think it was also a direct attack on the political environment of the time. Its core message is a warning about how we’re ignoring climate change, potentially with apocalyptic consequences, but there’s definitely a secondary criticism in there. I said “of the time”, but there’s a lot that hasn’t changed. There’s just a lot less screeching now that we don’t have a howler monkey in the Whitehouse.
I’d argue things are getting worse only in areas most dont necessarily travel. The same seething just below the surface that created the opportunity for Trump is still churning only now under a even more dystopian normal then it was before. Under the veiled racism we expienced in the George W days there was real racism. Under the veiled fascism we expienced in the Trump era there is real fascism. Next up is veiled genocide.
I’d have to disagree with you on one point, which is that competing sets of facts or evidence do exist in many situations. In a murder trial, for example, the defense team may have evidence that points to innocence, and the prosecution presents evidence that points to guilt. Now weighing one body of evidence against the other, the judge or jury must decide where the line of “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “preponderance of evidence” lies. This is a matter a comparing one set of facts to another set of facts as objectively as possible against known standards and precedents, which, to me, is different than arguing pure opinions (“red is the best color” “no, I like green better”) and also different than inarguable bare facts (“12 people are in this room right now”). Idk, just my 2 cents on it, but to me there can be shades of reasonable debate on differing sets of evidence that aren’t covered by an opinion-fact dichotomy.
I would agree with this if all disagreements were as definitive as math, but a lot of the time the things that people disagree about are things where knowing the truth beyond a shadow of a doubt is wildly difficult, impossible, or far off in the future. It often time comes down to peoples opinions about how to best guess at the absolute truth - intuition, statistics, provable action, etc.
The problem is that some opinions aren’t just a matter of opinion but incompatible with other opinions. Like everything in morals and ethics.
Some days ago there was an interesting discussion in a thread on Lemmy about whether or not certain moral axioms exist that are objective. Or if all moral standpoints are purely subjective.
On this meta level, we can’t even agree whether those discussions are concerning opinions or objective facts.
In that cases one side would think it’s a matter of difference in opinion while the other would think it’s a matter of someone being uneducated or ignorant, for example.
I disagree
/s
you cannot disagree with something that is objectively true.
Have you ever read about quantum mechanics or academic politics. Objective truths are socially manufactured realities.
For your last disagreement, I just want to mention as someone that likes the colour turquoise especially the darker version. I have gotten into a lot of disagreements with people, about if something is turquoise, blue or green. So I can definitely guarantee that there is some people, for whom the sky is objectively green.
So it’s not the best example, but I did understand the point you were trying to convey.
This can go either way. I’ve literally been the person declining to watch something as I immediately saw it was some conspiracy nut job piece. Why yes Kevin, I’m sure your pixelated Whatsapp video titled “ever wonder why almost all people in power are Jews?” is a completely normal and factual essay that will totally change my mind.
“What do you mean you won’t read an article from racism.org? That’s very communist cultural marxist of you!”
In the fifth panel, they wield pitchforks and torches
Right after they start hurling personal insults
“Who’re you calling a cootie queen, you lint licker?!”
What the french, toast?
Me, when a hexbear tells me the reason I don’t agree with Lenin is because I haven’t read enough Chomsky.
“You’re not listening to what I’m saying.”
“You’re not getting my point here.
“If you would just stop [insert logical fallacy they heard on Reddit recently] then we could have a real discussion.”
Now, now. Sometimes they are not listening and respond to what they assume you meant instead of what you said.
Sure strawman arguments are a real issue but I often find some people just can’t believe there is a world where somebody just disagrees with them even if they understand their position. It’s a lack of imagination/humility.
I mean, those first two can absolutely be the case though, if for example someone’s response is very clearly responding to a position that is not the one you were arguing for, but which one’s words could easily be mistaken for.
deleted by creator
Not sure what you linked there, sorry, it’s broken for me
deleted by creator
“If you would just stop gish galloping then we could have a real discussion.”
“Bud, my post was 2 sentences.”
“I’m not gonna read all that”
“Here’s a source that says I’m right. You don’t have a source, do you?”
“You’re sealioning!”
“I did do my own research, and that’s how I came to this conclusion.”
They often don’t have a good response to that.
“OH YEAH FROM THE LIBERAL MEDIA!?!”
Wow, the mobile version of that webtoons site is pretty terrible.
The app doesn’t differ that much from their site if anyone’s curious.
Absolutely not pertaining to any current events.
Change my mind
Brain transplants are impossible.
I can swear I saw a BBC or Discovery documentary about a UK guy who got a new brain. I saw it some time around 2010 -2 +5 year range.
But I can’t find anyting about it. I remember very clearly him having difficulty to walk in a room and the narrator explaing that he was in an accident and had this new surgery. And his mum talking about how they needed to reteach him all the basic things again.
If anyone knows what I’m talking about do tell, I would like to see what it was actually about. Because transplanting brains are apparently not possibly.
It has never been done. Not even partial brain transplants have been performed in humans.
What you’re remembering could be taking undamaged cells of your own brain to replace damaged brain tissue elsewhere. That has been done successfully, but I don’t know how the procedure is called.
…I don’t get it. Isn’t this how all disagreements anywhere work?
I disagree with you.
