Why do people on this site always use the exact same argument every single time? "You hold X opinion. You must be Y person." They never address the point, they just accuse you of being something and sit back smugly like they've won the argument, because they feel safe if they compartmentalize people in these neat little categories. I'm sure there's a name for this fallacy but I can't remember it.
Yeah people are different, but we're all just people. Everything's in a state of evolution. I can only speak for myself.. I have those times where I feel the world that way and I can't help but see my way as being the right way, but then there's other times when I can see outside the box and be wiser. It's a flux, nobody's to blame because it's natural.
>>519481
Also sorry if you got caught on the losing end of it.
>>519481
It's a combination of 2 things.
1) Valid points are usually brought out when an issue is somewhat fresh. As time goes on and they encounter and endless wave of new people asking them the same questions over and over they get sick of it and instead resort to small comments that imply the person new since they haven't seen all these arguments going on. Probably hoping that this accusation will make them go look up past arguments in the archives or something.
2) Some people abuse it by just immitating the final behavior described above to give the impression that it's something that has been debated to death (whether it really has or not) and their side ended up being the obvious winner in the end.
So some people do it for legitimate reasons and they might actually have very good reasons even if they don't feel like explaining it for that 100th time. While some people really just don't know what they're talking about at all. Unless the person is just a total idiot it's not always possible to tell the two apart.
Probably the only way to solve this problem would be to have some sort of database of arguments. So people can just post a link there and say "read all the points made for this side of the argument" and be done with it.
But I don't know if it would be even possible to maintain such a database.
>>519495
Samefag here. #2, you talking about me, buddy?
>on this site
Post on better boards (after lurking)
Twist it's OP arguing with himself
>>519481
I agree. There was a time on 4chan where
>"You hold X opinion. You must be Y person."
was not an argument, it was just an insult. And if you just insulted without addressing the argument, you were a faggot. Of course, if you engaged in an actual argument, this being 4chan, it is perfectly acceptable to insult people, but it used to make you look even more the fool if you lose.
Hell, I posted a joke about Trump and immediately got 30 people calling me Hillary Clinton, even though if I were to vote for one of the two I'd probably vote for Trump. People just always think they're fighting this war where they have to "call out" everyone as being a member of the opposition regardless of whether it's true or even relevant. They just want to feel like they've "won."
>>519481
Sounds like you're mad because you got BTFO
>>519666
They always say things like this too.
>>519740
They say them because they happen to be true.
>>519743
Generally, no.
Yeah OP don't argue with people here. They just want to be agreed with. As much as people cry against other websites for it, 4chan is just as much of a hugbox circlejerk.
Because they're delusional or just bored shitposters. Sadly, it's usually the former. You see that tribal attitude on the big boards.
>>519771
There's a big difference between the community acting that way, and the website itself enforcing and encouraging it through site features.
and there's plenty of healthy discussion going on in 4chan too.
>>519817
There's less and less of it as people spam "You disagree with me so clearly you are from Reddit and/or Tumblr" more and more. This whining about websites instead of just addressing the point is killing discourse on this site.
>>521770
To be fair I'm not really interested in discourse on this site.
Every once in a while I have a question or want to discuss something, some people are helpful, some aren't. But that's to be expected, and I almost never get mad at the people who aren't helpful, usually I just find them funny.
I really don't think this site was ever made to be for discourse. Moot called it a "hobbyist" site for a reason. It's just supposed to be people hanging out and talking about stupid shit.
Boards that don't actually represent any hobby at all should never have been made (namely /pol/ and /int/)
>>519620
>sacred cows on 4chan
What a sad day to be alive
>>521785
>there's plenty of healthy discussion going on here
>umm, no, not really
>to be fair I'm not really interested in discourse on this site.
Literally cannot make this shit up.
Megumin is the absolute cutest
>>521829
I don't think you have nearly as much of a point as you think you do.
>>521844
How so exactly?
>>521860
For starters, by starting the post with "to be fair" it should be understood that it wasn't exactly a refutation of the other anons post. Just a side comment.
and secondly if you meant to imply the 1st and 3rd quotes you made were contradictions, they're not.
I said "some people are helpful, some aren't" which doesn't contradict the statement that healthy discussion still exists.
and thirdly, In that last post I made I said "some people are helpful, some aren't"
>>521867
disregard that last sentence.
>>519481
You're a fag, OP
>>519666
I remember when BTFO was grounds for ridicule, too.
it started as a meme about how redditors argue.
Back in the day people came here purely for the edge factor, now they come solely to argue.
>>521906
I think it's more or less always been both to an extent
>>521869
See what I mean?
No, YOU'RE the fag.
>>519481
>"You hold X opinion. You must be Y person."
These are usually age old ideas that were established long ago. This is why lurking is important, try it OP.
>>521985
You hold this opinion, you must be retarded person.
Even if you "lurk" no one'should changing the fact that you can't really tell for shit who is who in 4chan no matter how hard you try unless they're nameretards.
>>519516
Good post, but the database of arguments thing has been tried before.
The people who tried it? Rationalwiki.
>>522024
>nameretards
Spotted the newfag. Using aliases and tripcodes was the norm in early 4chan.
>>519481
I honestly don't know
some people just love being assholes. It can also be due to prolonged circlejerking.
>>522034
>that having anything to do with current 4chan and the retards who think they can single a person out of 100+ anonymous people without being able to see their IPs
Point proven.
>>521916
The main problem is that "the edge factor" has changed and people think that saying "fuck off reddit" makes them look edgy. It's weak as shit.
Because people NEED identity to argue most of the time. They apply a label so that you're just as easy to attack as if you had an account or name on another site. Anonymity forces them to address arguments as is without any assumed bias from the person who made the post so they attempted to undermine it.
>>522952
This. It just shows you're not originally from 4chan, unless a gaiapost really just screams gaia.
>>522957
>unless a gaiapost really just screams gaia.
This should be good. How exactly would you identify a gaiapost?
>>522960
It usually involves penguins and waffles. I don't think a legitimate gaiapost has happened in maybe 10 years. And it's not an argument. It's just an insult.
