"don't forget the russian bots.
if you disagree its all bots."
- sun tzu
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
257 points (100.0% liked)
Curated Tumblr
5312 readers
360 users here now
For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.
Here are some OCR tools to assist you in transcribing posts:
-
FOSS Android Recs per u/[email protected]: 1 , 2
Don't be mean. I promise to do my best to judge that fairly.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If you don't like genocide, you're probably a russian bot
- Sun Tsu
I thought that the Russians liked genocide. They have been pursuing policies of russification for centuries
It's from the perspective of a liberal that can't imagine the idea of refusing to support genocide out of realpolitik
debate me
I think NO
ad hominem
Strawman
wishful thinking
Fallacy fallacy, or, just because I called you a moronic dweeb doesn't make you right.
Appeal to katana
Fellatio ad hominem fallacy!
You're wrong, you have no evidence. Burden of proof is on you.
"Your argument doesn't completely make sense, can you explain more and give an example?"
"LOL I guess some people are just closed minded"
Sounds like Sun Tzu guy would be right at home on Lemmy
I don't think they were really asking for an example.
Immidately jumping to the conclusion that something is rage bait is closed-minded.
I don’t think they were really asking for an example.
They literally did. They really asked for an example. It's in the words that they used, which is the only relevant factor for determining whether or not they asked for an example.
I mean they weren't shy about saying also that they were having trouble understanding the thought process to such an extent that they felt like it was ragebait. I mean maybe that's not productive to do. But staking out your own point of view while also asking honest open questions about the other person's point of view and asking for clarification and details is pretty much how productive conversation happens. Just coming out of the blue as "do you have an example?" and only that, can be mischaracterized in exactly the same way and met with the same 100% unproductive response (and often is), so why bother shying away from it, is my feeling.
To me it came off as rethorical.
The other person could easily have listed out a bunch of center-right policies in answer to the question. Whether or not the question was rhetorical is (in addition to being impossible to determine) kind of irrelevant to me. The fact that Sun Tzu guy specifically ignored an easy opportunity to take the conversation in the direction of facts and logic, and justifications or lack thereof, is the heart of the issue. Instead they went for the snarky dishonest comeback, which benefits no one and doesn't help anyone learn anything or pick a side.
SunTzu - lists a bunch of center right policies
Person in Purple - Those aren't center right! god you leftists take anything that isn't stalinism as right wing!
Yes, but it's conversation. The two people may or may not agree after any amount of conversation, maybe they won't even agree on the reality of what policies she even enacted or talked about enacting, but they can talk about specific policies and realities. It moves people towards understanding, especially the people watching who can sort of identify patterns of who's consistent and is willing to provide evidence for what they're saying, and who's just kind of gibbering and changing the subject and making attacks.
If both people are just doing the gibbering, or doing pure accusations (like you're doing) about what the other person would have done with a reasonable response, then that never happens, and no one learns anything. To me, the most relevant part about the whole thing is that one person at least seems roughly open to the idea of talking about the underlying facts, and one person is just ignoring questions and making accusations with no pretense at all of being open to backing up what they're saying.
Which is why I said the person who is explicitly rejecting the idea of even approaching that kind of factual or reasonable exchange would be right at home on Lemmy.
What I posted isn't a conversation, it's a waste of time for the person running a shit posting account where they post fake quotes in the name of SunTzu.
it’s a waste of time
I disagree. I've learned a lot about politics by talking with people I disagree with, on and off the internet. Sometimes they know stuff I didn't know, and if they actually have backing for it, they're worth listening to and often learning from.
Of course, that may or may not apply to what you or OP posted. Those, I think, are wastes of time (because of the conduct of one person in the conversation), yes.
And you left out the context that the account is shit posting, they aren't in this to engage in pages of discussion, they are there to put a few words next to SunTzu, and maybe laugh. This is why this discussion has been pointless for me though.
A: Shit posts about Kamala Harris
B: Asks question about Kamala Harris because it seems like they're talking nonsense about Kamala Harris
A: "WHOA man uncool"
I put this in the same category as people who instigate a fight and then claim they were only kidding around and why are you taking this so seriously, it's not that deep, WTF man why are you acting crazy, when someone responds with aggression to their aggression. In this case it is literally asking a question. If you don't want to talk about politics, don't post about politics, it is easily done.
So you don't understand you aren't supposed to try and get a conversation from gimmick accounts?
If the gimmick accounts start talking about Kamala Harris, talking up Tucker Carlson, whatever, I’m absolutely going to “try and get a conversation” with them, I.e. respond to the shitpost.
Don’t try to turn this around like I’m the one who’s being weird. Like I said, if someone wants to run a “gimmick accounts” that doesn’t insert weirdly incongruous commentary on politics that doesn’t really hold up if you examine it, this kind of problem where people start having suspicion about the politics they’re airing and the way they’re participating, will not happen, and they can just make their shitposts free of people responding to it or having opinions on it.
Go to a stand up comedy night, when a comedian makes a joke about politics, begin asking them questions about it. Tell us how it goes.
Yes, you are right. In that totally different and unrelated context it would be weird. Since this is the internet where replying to people is pretty normal and expected I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say.
I will no longer take part in this conversation. I wish you the best with coming over time to understand things better though.
It is a very similar set up, someone doing a bit, on a virtual stage, for the purpose of telling jokes, and not having a conversation with their audience. Gimmick accounts are something that have been around for a long time, and there has never been an expectation of interacting with them on a serious level.
There's a person on lemmy using the name. They're a bit off their rocker tbh.
I think I know the person you mean lol
And yes, they're nuts.
But still above par, considering the competition...
I saw someone using the name Genius, though I don't recall the instance, and they were a certifiable dumbass.
lemmy.zip?
CHAPTER XIX
That one should not avoid being despised and hated
Machiavelli, Niccolò . The Prince