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.
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.
Who can run is not the only criteria for who is qualified for a position.
Ok, so leaving out the subjective argument of who should be qualified, let's go with straight up logic, i'll bullet point it for you.
I'll even start with your very correct assertion that anybody who can run, can win.
Anyone eligible to run, can win.
To win, a candidate has to be voted in (by whatever voting system is used, it doesn’t matter for this)
A vote is cast by an individual who has their own set of criteria for qualification.
Unless every single voter's only criteria is whether or not the candidate is eligible to run then there are other criteria at play.
I'll also requote myself from an earlier reply.
Perhaps "evaluated for" is more accurate.
Eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.
Perhaps the disconnect is that you think everyone who is eligible is qualified for the job and it's just the winner of all these qualified people that is determined by the vote ?
I have no idea what you are saying now. You’re saying, you should dictatorially be given the power to appoint school board members, and you’d do so solely on a first come, first given, basis?
I mean, not at all , read the reply again.
OK, so you are saying you want to be a dictator of school board members, because you are the one who should have sole authority in this area. And you would not judge people based on qualifications or merit?
Ah, i see, you don't have an actual response so you weaponise ignorance, that's actually pretty clever.
It's hard to argue with someone not using reason as a basis, you neither have to present a reasonable argument nor support it, that's downright devious.
In case that reply was serious and you just missed what i was saying, i'll try and simplify for you and leave out the extra words around it so there's nothing to be confused about...ready ?
Who can run is not the only criteria for who is qualified for a position.
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.
That's not even required (though it would most likely be more accurate ) , there are some easy , low-hanging fruit answers to this question that don't need expertise.
I'm just interested in seeing if they really think popularity is the best option here.
it can’t be judged without well-defined critical, no.
That's a partial answer at best , a nice deflection though.
So your argument is that there is no possible criteria by which competence/ability can be judged for a school board position so popularity is the best option ?
seriously, what is the qualification or criteria for being a good school board member? tell me. I’d like to know because as far as I am aware, there absolutely is none.
Once you answer the original question or the newly revised version above i can give you some idea on this.
anyone can run for school board.
Who can run for a school board and how a school board member is evaluated for the position are unrelated.
I'll assume you pulled that mental gymnastic routine out of the same place you store how you think the word literally is supposed to work.
At no point was "pull requests deserve death threats" even hinted at.
Semi-reasonable takes wrapped in logically dubious arguments is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Doubling down with a retort that only requires you to read 5 lines to see it isn't true is wandering in the fields of free and easy victory and choosing to drown yourself in the 2 inch puddle of defeat.
I stated exactly what my reasons are for engaging,
I think the word you are looking for is recursive, i could be wrong though.
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.
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.
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.