Oh yeah, im familiar, crossed is top tier.

Dropped off of my radar a while back, but I'll pick up again eventually

From your post history there are so many wins I’m surprised i lasted as long as i did.

I should really research before i try and take on the champ.

So you waste your time for the sake of it? I’d say something about not being able to reason someone out of a position they didnt use reason to get into in the first place but I guess its repetitive.

I stated exactly what my reasons are for engaging,

I think the word you are looking for is recursive, i could be wrong though.

You can spend your time as you want but the trolls do build their world by the responses of others. It makes them more real and let’s useless conversation bog down better ones. They are seeking answers they know they won’t get to make it seem like their world is more figured out for waving away other thoughts.

Genuine question, why would i care how they build their world ?

If they want to build a mental echochamber, who am i to deny them their delusions ?

The argument about bogging up otherwise useful conversations has merit though, I’ll consider that going forward.

Though, my side of the argument is still written as a good faith reply so there might be benefit in seeing actual replies, if only from one side...hmm..i'll think on this.

I dont know. I dont get any joy out of arguing the minutia of nonsense. It feels like it just fills my own head with it and doesnt make me more empathetic to understand that.

It's not really joy and i'm not really arguing the minutia expecting coherent replies, as i said it's interesting to me to try and understand different kinds of people, it helps me better communicate in situations where the other party is conversing in good faith.

I'm not really looking to build empathy for that either, perhaps some pity in some really tragic cases where you can see they are truly struggling, but those aren't usually trolls, just people struggling with people things.

A lot of the time the useful bits aren't in the bad faith nonsense itself but how it's structured, the way in which the "logical" pivots occur, the word choice or something else that isn't the actual content itself.

I get that it might not be like that for everyone.

Personally I am upset to find that someone doesnt want to talk but use me as a springboard for their own stuff but oh well.

I think we might have fundamentally different perspectives on what a conversation can be, but in this case I wasn't expecting genuine engagement, so I’m not upset or disappointed to find out there wasn't any.

I'm also not worried about them being upset by my approach, because bad-faith trolls deserve no worry.

Yes, but you have to go slowly or it'll overwhelm them.

meh, i was hoping it might be a bit more fun later on but it's been lacklustre so far.

You can't reason someone out of a position they've not reasoned themselves in to but it's sometimes interesting to see if they genuinely believe the positions they tout and hear how they got there.

Do you expect to find a nuanced new way to handle elections of the school board?

There are easily understood ways of measuring fitness for a position, an easy answer to the actual question of how evaluations could be possible is to use the criteria for what would be considered a successful run as a school board member, historically and ideally.

Use those criteria to evaluate who has a track record of achieving these things, or the potential/skills to go on to achieve these things during the allotted time.

Does this happen? rarely. Could it potentially work, absolutely.

Personal likeability/popularity is probably a part of those criteria (as with any position involving any politics) but it's not the only one.

Or perhaps, do you honestly expect this troll to say something that changes the whole context of this conversation or make you feel that they have changed in some dramatic way?

Not at all, there's nothing to indicate any kind of space for an adjustment in their view, if they even have an actual perspective beyond trolling.

I say if you look at it, you are legitimizing a pointless conversation where they weaponize apathy and make it look valuable by comparison to complex issues on a topic you aren’t knowledgeable enough in to argue against, “no u!”

I'm not sure random internet replies legitimise clear bad-faith troll takes.

As i said, my point here wasn't really to change minds it was more interest in the mindset and reasoning skills of someone who'd post something like that, think of it as internet anthropology.

They never expected an authority figure on it and wouldnt accept one either. They just want your rage and your attention. They aren’t fun enough to play with for you to give either.

I don't really have any rage, it's like being angry at a chihuahua for barking.

I'm not expecting good-faith or well reasoned arguments, so I’m not disappointed or angry when they don't appear.

Corner

Do you mean this ?

popularity as the only criteria or as one of many criteria ?

It’s not an argument. It’s a fact.

That seems definitive, good to have a rock solid source.

My local school board anyone can run. The only requirement is you are a resident of the district you represent, and you are over 18, and you are a registered voter. That’s literally it. There are no other requirements, qualifications, or criteria for running for school board.

Useful information , eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.

Technically, i suppose it could be considered an initial screening, so you're not entirely incorrect, just incorrect that it's the only evaluation mechanism.

If it were , there'd be no need for votes, first person to apply and be eligible would automatically get the job.

..because of the last sentence or the word choice in general ?

I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.

I have directly responded to almost all of your replies, line by line, if that's what you consider cherry-picking your standards as significantly higher than mine.

i mean, if you're going to pick a deflection to disengage because you have no responses at least pick one that isn't easily disprovable by just looking at the chain.

Or you could just say you don't want to continue, without an excuse, like an adult?

Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?

As with most of your responses you're going to need to be a bit more specific if you want an actual answer, the vague deflections with no specifics can only get you so far.

Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn’t understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?

See , now this is better, no pretence of sense to counter, just straight up, entirely absent-of-context sentences. Not much i can do with that.

I mean, you still haven't actually answered anything directly so far, but at this point It's more impressive than anything.

It's absolute garbage as rhetoric, but who says art has to conform to reason or expectations?

oh damn, we can sigh? i didn't realise that was on the table, i've been missing a trick this whole time.

ok, here i go.

based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; natural justice. 2. a : being in accordance with or determined by nature; natural impulses.3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical.

I'm glad you agree, none of those definitions imply an objective "natural" exists, so having them quoted helps, thanks.

It’s funny you claim a limited, special definition that’s more semantics than substance.

definition of what ? citation ?

Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue.

Yes and i stated my reasons why.

And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.

I do, again, my reasons are stated.

but seeing as were are doing definitions now:

3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind

Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you’re made in God’s image nonsense but I genuinely don’t believe that. I’m more a deist than any kind of theist.

sigh (this is fun) , so let me get this straight, you considered replying with a straight up lie ?

For any particular reason..or ?

Also i didn’t mean religious fundamentalism, though it is on me that i didn’t specify.

Thanks though, the definitions thing is super useful:

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that’s a good look into harm reduction.

I will have a read, does it outright reject the idea that psychological harm exists?

I do get it, you have your opinions, i understand what you mean by them , I’m just saying they're inconsistent, arbitrary and unnecessarily rigid to me.

for example:

So god=nature=universe, and we’re part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!

and

Uh. None of those rituals are natural.

Are contradictory.

If we are part of nature, anything we do is natural, as reprehensible as it can be, it's still a part of nature because we are a part of nature.

To be clear I’m not stating a position on the objective morality/ethics of those rituals (i do have opinions, they just aren't part of my argument) , i was using them as an example of why the term "nature" is ambiguous and useless as a baseline because of it's subjective interpretation.

Yes, cliques and cults(religions) and subjectively malicious groups exist, but it's a false dichotomy to suggest it's either complete self sufficiency or cult membership, nuance exists.

If you don't think it's possible to have a tattoo or piercing because of a personal decision, that's your call, to me that sounds like a small distance from fundamentalism but as long as you aren’t forcing it on others , you do you.

Pave Paradise is reference to a song… Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. It’s similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.

I understand the reference, i was saying that whole sentence didn't make any sense as an argument in this context.

You also still haven't addressed the harm reduction conversation.