I have just tested a method that I have already applied sometimes on forums, the "betting technique".
The situation is this: You are engaged in a discussion where you are 100% sure that the other person is wrong, but they stubbornly refuse to admit it. Worse, he claims that it is you who are in bad faith, that you propagate fakenews, that you do not give any reference - in fact he accuses you of evils which you are convinced that he suffers himself; but since he claims otherwise, all discussion is blocked and boils down to endless ping pong.
Any resemblance to a situation experienced on the forum would naturally only be a simple coincidence ... or not
.There have been some interesting videos on "how to discuss with a conspirator", explaining that one should not try to impose his views, that one should get him to think for himself, etc ... (thibr has some posted several for example). It's interesting but not necessarily applicable, already you have to master the techniques and it still requires a minimum of cooperation from your interlocutor,
In fact the question is to know if your interlocutor is mistaken in good faith, or knows very well that he is wrong but for psychological reasons which are proper to him, remains in bad faith and continues to deny the obvious.
I therefore propose a tactic to get out of it: that of betting. You say that you are ready to bet a large sum (but realistic, like 1000 €) on a bet which bears on the point of divergence (you can also give him the choice in the exact wording), and you observe his reaction .
The first thing is of course that it is unlikely that it will go as far as a real bet, which would involve giving personal information or organizing a meeting, things that we do not necessarily like to do on the internet. Therefore, the objective risk that the bet ends with an actual payment of money is low.
But he's not completely zero after all. It could be that the two prick the game and continue their cockfight to the end ... And 1000 € is still a sum!
So someone who is sincerely 100% convinced of being right (for example against a terra-flatist) has no reason not to push the game as far as possible. There is a great probability that it will not work. at all, and a small probability of winning 1000 €, and then that gives the opportunity to laugh. There is therefore no reason to escape the bet.
Whereas a type of bad faith will still sense a little danger. Even if there is still the greatest probability that nothing will happen, there is a small risk of losing 1000 € if deep down we know that we are in bad faith and that we are wrong. The reaction will not be the same at all, we are going to tackle, say that it does not prove anything, say that if we had to bet on everything we would not get out ... in short, come out with a whole bunch of arguments to especially not not enter a cycle where the bet could be held to the end. OR quite simply continue to treat his interlocutor of all the names and to post animated gifs, but especially not push the idea of the bet.
As there is not much choice between attitudes, it will quickly settle, and it is a good test to know if the other is in good faith or not.
I am also expecting reactions from some who will explain in this thread why my idea is completely stupid and can only be the result of a sick brain ... type "2" reactions so ... let's wait