People see these sort of tweets, they make fun of their authors for being really stupid, and they entirely miss the point.
It's a game. It's an *old* game, of wits. It's called sophistry. Can you argue a stupid position well enough, that you force your opponent to do work?
It's a game. It's an *old* game, of wits. It's called sophistry. Can you argue a stupid position well enough, that you force your opponent to do work?
See, baby prisons are really stupid. Stupider, really, than flat earth theory -- you have to learn the Earth is round, whereas we know baby prisons are dumb before we can talk.
But, it's work to map out this stupidity safely. And any error you make, causes the sophist to win.
But, it's work to map out this stupidity safely. And any error you make, causes the sophist to win.
So getting lots and lots of people, to argue stupidly (incels) -- causes lots and lots of other people, to counterargue badly.
And the idiotic position gets more and more credible.
"That's how you win in 2018 -- not by arguing well, but by making the other side argue poorly."
And the idiotic position gets more and more credible.
"That's how you win in 2018 -- not by arguing well, but by making the other side argue poorly."
This concept -- that public argumentation will lead to a reasonable global consensus -- is, at minimum, visibly exploitable. There's a reason there's overlap between trolls and hackers.
