I think we’ve evolved from that to “being gaslit is the wallpaper for most conversations.”
Seemingly any point will be contradicted by someone, no matter how untruthful or outright wrong to malicious the counterpoint. It’s as though people are live action role playing the worst of the internet in person at times.
Edit-source for the 1984 deletion: https://slate.com/technology/2009/07/how-amazon-s-remote-del...
I’d start questioning your own circles if that’s your experience of “real life”. Can’t say I’ve ever experienced anyone I consider a friend, family, or a colleague of note acting like that.
No, not really. Unless you're surrounded by bad people
Arguing for argument's sake is annoying, but echo chambers that reinforce agreement are force multipliers for inaccuracy, falsehood, and extremism. I'd rather be questioned than told I was wrong with no agency in my defense.
The worst people of the internet differ based on who you ask. For me, moral absolutists and people who spew out hot takes and twisted arguments for likes are pond scum on the rational discourse totem pole, tied with ad folk.
For others, it's whomever fails their loyalty tests by not agreeing with every view they may hold at any given time.
Malice implies intent, and a lot of people don't see what they're doing as intentionally causing another harm. I find the most annoying people usually think that their behavior is excluded because they believe that they're /helping/.
If you are unwilling to accept scientific discovery as a significant indicator of something, then no amount of scientific work will convince you, and will just feel like someone trying to disprove your entire world view, while if you are unwilling to accept ideology and dogma as significant influences, you will feel like you are taking crazy pills as a large group denies reality in front of their very eyes