To me it is about gaslighting and arguing for the sake of arguing. We’ve long been in this realm of society now where nobody wants facts or truths, they just want you to be wrong. I have before, cited resources in arguments I’ve shamefully invested in, knowing that it will not matter in the end. Because I’m still going to be called a liar, I’m still going to be subjected to insults and be baited and gaslit.
And the same people still turn around and expect credible sources to be provided to them? Why ask when you don’t care?
It is one thing for someone to make outrageous, blatant and unclaimed arguments than it is another who talks of something and it has a resemblance of truth to it.
I have this happen a lot, so I know a thing or two about it from experience. That’s thanks to the Jesuit programming some people are subjected to, which I feel really bad for those who fall for it. I see this on Lemmy a lot, and my producer (Neigsendoig) had seen this happen elsewhere.
As a ritual performance before they ignore you anyway
I think it’s psychology. When people make politics or certain stances their entire personality, then by disproving those items it’s literally tearing apart their own identity. They are so unable to actually confront this that their brains will believe wild crazy ideas like conspiracy theories because even if it’s insane, they are able to keep their worldview.
Their minds have been so warped to protect their identity that they will believe whatever they need to to be able to keep these views - to the point where it must be true, because if it weren’t true the house of cards would collapse. So when you are arguing with them, you’re not actually going to ever be able to penetrate this, because they will build up whatever they need to in their mind to protect it.
An interesting way to think of this (to borrow from the video below), is that as if becomes it is. Feelings become facts.
Take gay marriage. To a conservative white christian, it means nothing to them logically. 2 separate people are getting married which in no way effects them. However, gay marriage makes them feel as if their straight marriage is less important and the meaning of it has been deluded. To protect this worldview, since it’s impossible for any fact or reasoning to back up their worldview, that as if becomes it is. To them, now gay marriage is diluting their straight marriage and it is less important. It must be. It has to be. If it’s not… then what is their worldview? Their entire personality, their identity is based around these core beliefs. If it’s not actually affecting them… then what is their identity? So their view isn’t based on fact at all, and thus no amount of facts will ever persuade them.
Philosophy Tube did a great video essay on this, and I think it’s completely worth a watch.
They want to confirm the information is from “the other team” before disregarding it
I have asked for sources when a post makes an extraordinary claim. It’s rare that I get anything meaningful as a response, but often I learn something or both of us do.
Because as much as they want to claim they’re logical and rational, no logical or rational argument would ever be the thing to convince them. Identity politics prevents people from accepting anything from the “other side”, so they ask for sources so they can point to it as biased and unfair etc. There’s really no point in arguing with someone like that using facts. The things most likely to change their mind is their own personal experience or writing an entirely new narrative about the world.
Bad faith, really, that’s all.
If you know they’ll be asses regardless, there’s no point in dealing with them further.
100%
Asking you to provide evidence in support of a position they’d never consider distracts you and keeps you busy doing worthless things.
I wouldn’t say you “shamefully invested” time into finding sources for your arguments. I see it as educating yourself. Don’t do it for them; do it for you.
Where I was going with that is if you’re going to bother investing in an argument you know is a waste of time with these kinds of people, it is kind of shameful. That is basing what you already know to be factual. Double-checking isn’t wrong either but again, doesn’t apply to people who’re not open-minded.
