It's so easy to genuinely engage with them and expose the fact that they actually don't know anything about the topic.
For most of us here, who have an understanding that goes waaaaay beyond that of reading a fucking wikipedia article, it's super easy to get into details that simply aren't covered by them and make them feel out of their depth.
I take this approach because the silence many of them leave is deafening and exposes a lot. But, for a rare few, it makes them actually think about how they don't know anything. For some of them they simply have never had it exposed to themselves that their entire understanding is derived from quickly glossing over a wiki article. The ones that cite wikipedia are the most obvious examples of this, these are the ones with the lowest understanding.
And if they do engage? Well some of them actually end up doing some critical thinking. I find people tend to be more willing to engage over China things than Ukraine. I think people feel more self-assured that what they know about China is true so their confidence levels to engage are higher. It's the lack of confidence that causes them to ignore me @Raebxeh@hexbear.net
I'm not really engaging earnestly with them. I go through the motions fully expecting nothing. I do this because one, it exposes them for lurkers and two, on very rare occasions it sets a person on the path to deprogramming.
The appearance of earnest engagement is just an aesthetic I pull off because it is necessary to achieve both of the above outcomes. Authenticity is the quality I am for but deep down I am jaded and bored of doing this all the time. However I can never bring myself to stop, not given that I've seen first hand the creation of new comrades from it.
It's so easy to genuinely engage with them and expose the fact that they actually don't know anything about the topic.
For most of us here, who have an understanding that goes waaaaay beyond that of reading a fucking wikipedia article, it's super easy to get into details that simply aren't covered by them and make them feel out of their depth.
I take this approach because the silence many of them leave is deafening and exposes a lot. But, for a rare few, it makes them actually think about how they don't know anything. For some of them they simply have never had it exposed to themselves that their entire understanding is derived from quickly glossing over a wiki article. The ones that cite wikipedia are the most obvious examples of this, these are the ones with the lowest understanding.
And if they do engage? Well some of them actually end up doing some critical thinking. I find people tend to be more willing to engage over China things than Ukraine. I think people feel more self-assured that what they know about China is true so their confidence levels to engage are higher. It's the lack of confidence that causes them to ignore me @Raebxeh@hexbear.net
deleted by creator
I'm not really engaging earnestly with them. I go through the motions fully expecting nothing. I do this because one, it exposes them for lurkers and two, on very rare occasions it sets a person on the path to deprogramming.
The appearance of earnest engagement is just an aesthetic I pull off because it is necessary to achieve both of the above outcomes. Authenticity is the quality I am for but deep down I am jaded and bored of doing this all the time. However I can never bring myself to stop, not given that I've seen first hand the creation of new comrades from it.
Modern day Socretes.
Nooooooooooooo
Please change your avatar picture to a condescending bust.