Got a few insightful responses from this post! Here are the themes I saw in those responses:
- It’s not about convincing the other person. It’s about convincing all the silent people in the audience.
- “You’re not trying to convince the other person, that is a hopeless pursuit, it’s all a performance on a stage; you’re trying to convince the neutral people reading that what you’re saying is technically correct.”
- “It is important to not leave the online battleground to certain parties, in particular when extreme voices are the loudest. You may not convince them, but /others/ can see that there is another view. It’s about bystanders, in particular ones that would blindly follow anyone.”
- Growth comes from practice.
- “[I do it] for my own benefit, to sharpen my argument against the whetstone of another’s.”
- “I sharpen my argumentation online not to convince those randoms that might be bots, but rather to find myself making compelling points with ease in person.”
- It’s a fun way to spend some time if you don’t take it too seriously.
- “It’s done in good spirits. I like to see people’s unconscious biases and delusional claims in their arguments. And, also, try to see after how many posts – do they go into personal and racist attacks.”
- There’s always hope that maybe you’ll be the one to get through to them.
- “Hope dies last and there is (potentially unreasonable) hope that you may be the one that finally gets across the message or some understanding.
- “There is a huge gap between good and bad explanations and a passionate person explaining vs a non-passionate one.”
All fair points! Thanks for the responses folks.