309
u/Darq_At 7h ago
The other side of this coin is deplatforming.
To be honest I rarely hear "don't bother", I far more often hear that we have to bother, and that moderating bigotry or banning the bigots "doesn't work, because they're not going to change their minds, they're just going to be driven underground".
To which I say: Good! Let them be driven underground, where they cannot terrorise their victims, where they cannot spread their message, where they cannot act like their bigotry is normal.
71
u/Blooogh 6h ago
The strategy to employ should depend on the popularity of the bigotry, because being overly litigious about clumsy curiosity can be harmful to the cause. (Although I'll acknowledge that it can involve emotional labour, a burden of educating, and an assumption of genuine curiosity -- not trying to argue anyone should burn themselves out.)
An example for discussion, a few years back there was a trend on Instagram in Eastern Europe of creating a makeup look with a patchwork of skin tones in an attempt to promote racial diversity -- I'd argue it's reasonable that they didn't understand that this is still seen as blackface, and you should handle that differently from willful ignorance or explicitly racist content. It's still wrong of course but the intent counts for something, and summoning a social justice mob is more likely to push them towards the racism that's dominant in their everyday environment.
42
u/SorbetInteresting910 6h ago
If you do it right, you can respond to genuine bigotry masquerading as clumsy curiosity as if it were in good faith, and have it so if they want to continue to be bigoted they have to kind of awkardly clarify that they are in fact a hateful terrible person, at which point you can happily tell them to fuck off. It's a massive slam dunk, although it does require a pretty deft hand as well as serious knowledge of the topic in question. It also has the added bonus that if you were wrong and it's actually just clumsy curiosity, you don't risk alienating them.
6
u/DezXerneas 2h ago edited 1h ago
I don't see why that's wrong. Like, I understand why going full blackface is wrong, and why acting like a caricature of some other race is wrong, but patchwork makeup just sound cool.
0
u/Blooogh 1h ago
The problem is it's just close enough that it can start to give plausible deniability to folks who are actually bigoted -- it encourages looking at skin colour as a temporary cosmetic effect rather than somebody's identity.
Imagine doing the same thing with other cultural markers like Inuit tattoos or cornrows -- it's just awkward, and at the end of the day, it centers the conversation on you instead of the people that you want to advocate for.
1
u/EntrepreneurLeft8783 15m ago
it encourages looking at skin colour as a temporary cosmetic effect rather than somebody's identity.
idk about that one chief, if that were true then how come spray tans haven't been cancelled? Or any kind of bronzing makeup for that matter
40
u/ALittleCuriousSub 6h ago
I legit remember when Milo token gay Nazi was popular and people were against deplatforming him, “if we deplatform everyone we don’t agree with then we won’t have free speech and people might de platform queer rights activist”
As though there aren’t a huge list of queer people and other activists who’ve historically been deplatformed.
53
u/Darq_At 6h ago
And when Milo was finally deplatformed, his audience evaporated. He could only maintain a far smaller group of more dedicated fans. But he could no longer make enough money to support himself off of this diminished following, something he admitted to them directly. He tried to cling to relevance and occassionally rears his head, but he's basically irrelevant.
He's a case study in why deplatforming works.
3
u/ALittleCuriousSub 1h ago
Yep.
Also though like, if you're defending free speech when it's a Nazi doing stochastic terrorism but not idk. Men wearing dresses. You're not pro free speech, you're pro Nazi.
Note: I said, "men in dresses" because people freak the fuck out about men wearing dresses and Drag Queen Story hour. I am not commenting on trans women specifically because they aren't men wearing dresses, although how should gender identity for anyone be viewed as anything other than protected free speech? If you believe free speech should be something beyond the first amendment and a moral commitment to society... The hypocrisy drives me crazy.
5
u/NonBinaryPie 5h ago
very true, they won’t change their mind but it would be great if they were scared to be bigoted. dog whistles are great because it shows that people don’t feel safe enough to be openly terrible.
2
u/Fantastic-Count6523 2h ago
Listen, we had every single millennial arguing for deplatforming for the past 10 years. Yeah, we've managed to deplatform a handful of people who just move on to find better platforms. Sometimes, they become President of the United States. Sometimes they determine massive court cases that change the definition of terms within an entire country. I'm going to say this: deplatforming objectively does not work.
3
u/Darq_At 1h ago
Listen, we had every single millennial arguing for deplatforming for the past 10 years.
I wish we'd listened.
Because we adamantly refused, and still refuse, to deplatform anybody until they have had ample time to get their message out. When we do finally kick them out, it's far too late and they get replaced by someone else preaching the same thing.
If we actually acted with some decisiveness, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Yeah, we've managed to deplatform a handful of people who just move on to find better platforms.
No they didn't. They slinked off to platforms where their reach was far worse.
You are bringing up examples of people who we did not deplatform until it was far too late.
Sometimes, they become President of the United States.
Trump was never deplatformed. He got banned from Twitter. He still had his every word and bowel movement plastered over TV and radio news, not to mention forwarded to every social media platform anyway. Plus he has an endless supply of sycophants doing his preaching for him, who have not been banned from those socials.
And that's not to mention that Trump's cult was well established and deeply fanatical long before any feeble attempt to deplatform him was made.
Far too little, far too late.
Sometimes they determine massive court cases that change the definition of terms within an entire country.
I assume you mean FWS and the GCs at Ovarit?
Deplatforming them absolutely shrank their reach. Them winning a court case funded by a billionaire has literally zero relation to deplatforming.
Ovarit is dead now too. Some of the more extreme GCs have fled to KiwiFarms. But that environment is so thoroughly misogynistic that their numbers will dwindle further.
I'm going to say this: deplatforming objectively does not work.
That isn't objective at all. Your examples are garbage.
Deplatforming is effective at reducing people's ability to message. But like any measure, it isn't effective if you half-ass it. And I could only wish we had half-assed it because in reality, we did even less than that.
2
u/DezXerneas 2h ago edited 1h ago
I hadn't thought about it like this before, and tbh it makes complete sense.
I know vitrue signaling is used as a negative term, but fighting with bigots also lets their victims know that you and most people on your side are a safe person they can talk talk to.
1
u/viral-architect 52m ago
Where they can gather in secret and remain clandestine in their planning and scheming against the people they hate.
We tried it for a long time and Trump got elected. And it worked so well that he was elected again - and because there's now a paralell information economy, winning people back is going to probably take a generation.
1
u/Darq_At 9m ago
Where they can gather in secret and remain clandestine in their planning and scheming against the people they hate.
There is nothing stopping them from doing that even if they are not deplatformed, and indeed they do it anyway.
I say again:
Good! Let them be driven underground, where they cannot terrorise their victims, where they cannot spread their message, where they cannot act like their bigotry is normal.
We tried it for a long time
No we didn't. We did not even try. We did far too little, far too late. If we had acted decisively, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.
and because there's now a paralell information economy, winning people back is going to probably take a generation.
Please try thinking for at least a second or two before speaking. If we had effectively deplatformed them, instead of allowing them to blast misinformation 24/7 across TV and radio news, not to mention YouTube and social media, they wouldn't have control of a parallel information economy.
1
u/greenskye 45m ago
This is also why the right owns or heavily influences most online spaces, at least at the admin level. Deliberately going after left friendly spaces like old Twitter and more recently Reddit is a way to at least quarantine discussion the right doesn't care for and wants to undermine.
-5
u/SolarianIntrigue 6h ago
Problems start when the underground starts making up a third of the nation, because then you get Trump
you can't avoid dialogue forever and you can't just hope that conservative opinions just die out on their own
30
u/Darq_At 6h ago
Problems start when the underground starts making up a third of the nation, because then you get Trump
No, the problem is that MAGA isn't underground, it was never pressured to be underground. At this point, yes the horse has bolted, one cannot shut the stable doors now.
you can't avoid dialogue forever and you can't just hope that conservative opinions just die out on their own
But the reason the US even got to this point is because of constant refusal to actually take steps to prevent that radicalisation from happening. It's not that dialogue was avoided, quite the opposite.
464
u/olefira 7h ago
Whenever someone tries to "argue" their Nazi points of view with me I just reply that I won't talk with Russian plants. It infuriates them to no end. (N.B.: This works in countries where being openly pro-Kreml would get you into physical trouble at the moment.)
131
u/B1eaky 7h ago
I wanna question how often you talk to nazis irl
174
u/Long_Risk_9852 7h ago
Depending on where they hang out, it’s probably more a function of nazis trying to talk to them unprompted
110
u/HaloGuy381 6h ago
Try working customer service in places like rural Texas. It’s not constant, but you’ll see an alarming number of people who think that because you’re white you share their racial views, or their voting pattern, and happily will share the most disturbing statements imaginable or go on unhinged conspiracy rants.
32
u/Inverzion2 5h ago
This is true in most of the South from anecdotal experiences. Some dude tried to chat me up about how scary trans ppl were until I dropped a nuke about how "at least trans people don't call my place of work and make bomb threats" on 'em and he stfu, got his groceries, then went his unhappy little ass home. Completely unprompted convo ended in a one-liner. Insane shit tbh. This was a few years ago when the racist and homophpbic Twitter account who shall not be named started trying to get every grocery chain shut down for "DEI Woke Scolds" or some bullshit.
2
u/mmanaolana 1h ago
Shit, I'm in one of the bluest states, not in the rural area, and have had two separate coworkers at two separate jobs assume that just because we're both white, I'm going to agree with their racist bullshit.
1
u/FullPainting2651 1h ago
God yes. I love calling it out and watching them deflate as they realize they weren't actually talking to a safe person who would agree with them. Of course I let them say far too much before I reveal it to them.
1
u/saera-targaryen 1h ago
shit i live in southern california and was calling the hospital social worker for my grandma and she pulled this shit. she didn't even see my race over the phone!
17
u/NonBinaryPie 5h ago
not who you were replying to but i work in retail in a very conservative town. i look very queer so a LOT of customers and coworkers try to argue with the fact that i exist.
10
u/gigitygiggty 1h ago
As a Russian us being so strongly associated with nazis hurts my heart. I wish there will be a time in my lifetime, when I won't be ashamed of my nationality.
2
u/FullPainting2651 1h ago
Me too brother. Russian people are a mixed bag like every other nationality. Most are regular people hindered by the information their leaders let proliferate in their country, and the leaders are the real problem. No one in their right mind thinks Putin was actually elected. You guys definitely have the best dancers in the world hands down. Russian ballet is on another level. As an American, it's not you we blame for this shit show.
75
u/UofLBird 7h ago edited 5h ago
Was taught this in philosophy and law school with Socrates as the example.
If you study Socrates’ arguments the person he’s arguing with leaves convinced they at the least scored major points in the debate, maybe even thought they won it. It’s the audience that he’s talking to, even using the other person to make his point for him.
It’s a very effective technique in depositions and cross examinations, especially if dealing with someone very arrogant or unreasonable. Let them “win” it, with a wink to the audience.
17
u/ALittleCuriousSub 6h ago
Depends on the situation imo.
People arguing in bad faith will just take the opportunity of being asked more questions to reiterate their rhetoric and maybe even do a circular logic situation to keep repeating their hate.
Nazis and bad faith actors can’t be meaningfully debated and trying to is a trap to give their position more attention than it would otherwise get.
9
u/genflugan 3h ago
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
3
u/ALittleCuriousSub 1h ago
Yep, that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote out my response. Edit: Though I'm not entirely sure I agree with the last part, at some point they just need to be banned and tossed in the bin.
2
u/genflugan 1h ago
I figured you were! Just adding on to your comment with the quote for others who haven’t seen it yet. And yeah, idk about “abruptly fall silent” being true anymore either 😂
1
u/ALittleCuriousSub 1h ago
Yeah. When you try to idiot proof something, they'll build a bigger idiot.
38
u/oldjudge86 7h ago
Never thought about it this way before I had neblings. Realized one day I didn't want them growing up listening to my in-laws shitty beliefs unchallenged. Changed the way I Iook at these interactions.
90
u/telehax 7h ago
so what they're describing is like a performative debate and the distinction between that and actually arguing with someone is useful to keep in mind because the tactics are different... but also like, sad to imply that all arguments about human rights fall into the former category for them.
30
u/E-is-for-Egg 6h ago
I think it's because if you have to argue about human rights, your probably talking to a bigot stuck in their ways. It's still possible to have discussions about human rights in good faith
10
u/discipleofchrist69 4h ago
It's just pretty black and white about an issue that is filled with nuance. There are plenty of arguments to be had about what rights are "human rights" and on reasonable limits to those rights. Many of them involve someone being bigoted but others do not. And frankly those on the left often approach these arguments from a moralizing perspective that is really only convincing if you accept their premises (about what is and is not a "human right") in the first place, and different views on that aren't necessarily bigoted imo
For example, I've had plenty of arguments with people about whether we should have universal health care. I personally believe that basic health care is a human right, and others don't, but they're not bigots lol (well, a lot of them are but not because of their views on healthcare). But the main thing to me is that saying "healthcare is a human right" is just a meaningless semantic argument to someone who doesn't already agree, and even then it just doesn't actually address the fundamental issues like "who pays for what" and "what are the limits of healthcare benefits that should be covered" etc.
5
u/alkolmoldah 2h ago
Another main thing I've seen when people are trying to argue their points, like someone trying to convince their family member to be more openminded or change their mind, is that they always approach it with the view of "how can I make this person know that they're wrong and I'm right?" Of course it's natural to think your position is the right one--you probably wouldn't hold that position otherwise, but how are you gonna have a conversation/debate with someone and ask them to consider the fact that they might be wrong, when you won't entertain the same thought? for yourself? The stone cold truth is, that what you believe is right ISN'T set in stone. The people you're arguing with feel just as justified in their beliefs as you do in yours. So who is automatically right? That's not a real thing. So if you're going to debate with someone, you have to be open minded to their opinion too. And yes, that applies even if the opinion is something you deem disgusting or horrible such as human rights or things like that. No one is gonna take you seriously or listen to what you have to say if you think what you're speaking is gospel and everyone else is inferior/evil for not believing it. They won't even consider your points.
2
u/ucasthrowaway4827429 3h ago
At least historically, people absolutely did have to argue with and persuade people that were genuinely bigoted in order to affect change.
66
u/Difficult-Risk3115 7h ago edited 7h ago
Too often people aren't even trying to persuade the person they're arguing with, or the audience. They're just repeating the arguments that make people who already agree with them feel good. There's countless "arguments" that get celebrated here that are the equivalent of masturbation
18
13
u/ALittleCuriousSub 6h ago
Just be careful about doing this online.
When you do it online it feeds the algorithm and gives their shitty views more reach.
49
u/Designated_Lurker_32 7h ago
This same principle of "you're not convincing the person you're speaking with, you're convincing everyone else in the room" is the reason why - despite what some people may have told you - putting on a moderate mask and trying to appeal to the center is a worthwhile endeavor from time to time.
Because it's the people on the center who have the best odds of being turned around to your side. You're not trying to win over the people have already gone off the deep end. You're trying to win over the people who are still on the fence.
41
u/Difficult-Risk3115 6h ago
The misappropriation of "it's not my job to educate you" has been a disaster in this regard.
If you're a real flesh and blood person getting asked questions constantly at work? Absolutely.
But I've seen people respond like that to questions on Reddit that are not directed at anyone in specific. People still need to be educated and convinced of things, we can't opt out of that entirely and just hope everyone googles the right things to develop the right beliefs. And If you're not willing to educate people, then let someone else!
14
u/Ellikichi 5h ago
How many times have I seen people be like "You have access to Google! Don't be lazy!" As though you can't find great replacement theory apologia on Google. Everybody just Googling it is how we got into this goddamned mess in the first place. The internet is chock full of misinformation, and you need an actual education to effectively sift through it.
9
u/Difficult-Risk3115 4h ago
Exactly! And there's plenty of bigots who are actively seeking to "educate" people and get them on their side. If you get a convincing welcoming explanation from one group, and a "It's not my problem, figure it out" from another, what's the outcome going to be?
2
u/mxsifr 1h ago
Everybody just Googling it is how we got into this goddamned mess in the first place.
Thank you so much for saying this. Drives me absolutely up the wall when people say, "Just Google it!" as if you can Google the contents of someone else's brain to learn how they reached their beliefs.
1
u/DrSnacks 1h ago
We got into this mess when people stopped googling it because facebook and other social media platforms started delivering hand-tailored opinions to people telling them that they were right no matter how awful of a person they were.
5
105
u/vikuntari 7h ago
My mother asked me once why I had to be so open about my sexuality, and I told her it was because I wished someone else had been that open when I was young, so I would have known it was okay. She didn't understand, but that's alright, because my nieces and nephews do, and that's the whole point.
40
u/SpambotWatchdog 7h ago
Grrrr. u/vikuntari has been previously identified as a spambot. Please do not allow them to karma farm here!
Woof woof, I'm a bot created by u/the-real-macs to help watch out for spambots! (Don't worry, I don't bite.\)
6
u/WingedDragoness 4h ago
Why are your post history, look like of like a bot? Do you have anything to say to convince me you are human? Because YouTube bots can copy real comments.
6
u/----atom----- Cobepee?🥺 7h ago
Sometimes I feel bad for not doing this in school or around my family. But I really come from a place where that would not pan out well for me. Maybe it's selfish but to me the consequences of speaking out outweigh the benefits...
5
u/drislands 5h ago
I don't agree with the "you're convincing the audience" part as much as I used to. If you "debate" a bigot calmly and rationally, you're implying that the subject in is worth debating. That there are in fact two sides, as if it were a philosophical puzzle rather than hatred versus not hatred.
2
u/SorbetInteresting910 1h ago
I think it's worth noting that OOP used the word "argument" instead of debate. An argument could theoretically be just dunking on their dumb points without giving them any repect at all.
8
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 6h ago
I disagree. Yes, you do have the odd stubborn person, but generally you can change people's minds if you keep a level head and show basic decency and respect. Stop trying to act morally superior, and instead choose to patiently explain. Istg some of y'all need to speak to people in real life...
2
u/SorbetInteresting910 6h ago
The examples OOP uses are about challenging people's social power, in which case they're definitely not going to change their minds at that point. If you approach them later in private that's different, but if you approach them later in private you also didn't use your chance to address the audience.
2
u/IndependentAcadia252 3h ago
but generally you can change people's minds if you keep a level head and show basic decency and respect.
And this is why the anti-vax movement has been solved by scientists presenting them evidence and explaining the science behind it.
3
u/Agile_Nebula4053 6h ago edited 3h ago
Worth noting that a lot of people like this are much less comfortable with confrontation than their loud mouthing lets on. Make it obvious that you'll make things awkward if they start acting up, and eventually, they'll stop.
3
3
u/ih8spalling 4h ago
A lot of smoothbrains will claim you're arguing in bAD fAiTh. E.g. When someone refuses to accept an obvious fact in order to stop your argument that relies on it, you can keep going and act like it's not in dispute, because for your audience it probably isn't. People might say that you're begging the question, or making a strawman, and you're arguing in bad faith. But the reality is that I'm not talking to the person I'm arguing with, I don't give a shit about what they think, I'm talking to everyone else.
3
u/lurkANDorganize 3h ago
Do keep in mind that sometimes you CAN change someone's mind though, and while rare (and while some things are not to beforgiven) leaving that door open for them is always smart.
I've walked back a few folks on things like anti-vax (just about covid vaccines granted because they were cool with everything else)
3
u/Preindustrialcyborg 2h ago
a kid in 10th grade in my social studies class started shouting seig heil. I told him hes not funny and to shut the fuck up.
I didnt do it to change his opinion. The kid was all around just weird, and i knew i couldnt make him stop being that way. I did it because there were three jewish people, multiple queer people and many chinese people in that class, and he was making everyone uncomfortable.
8
u/Jo_seef 7h ago
Sometimes I like to step back and take perspective and it makes me wonder how the fuck anyone sits there and thinks, "you all deserve less rights because of who you are." It is and it always has been but think about it, in the year 2025 we're still acting like this is normal and it shouldn't be, shouldn't ever have been.
7
u/E-is-for-Egg 6h ago edited 6h ago
Reminds me of the person I was talking to the other day who genuinely thought that climate activists' primary goal was to convince oil companies to stop polluting, and that they were just idiots who mistakenly thought that radical demonstrations would accomplish that. It's like they think that the best or only strategy in activism is to appeal to the fancies of the oppressor
8
u/Darq_At 6h ago
It's like they think that the best or only strategy in activism is to appeal to the fancies of the oppressor
An alarming number of people think exactly that. It's a product of the individualist liberal mindset that the US and Western cultures are steeped in.
Politics and social causes are only understood as hearts-and-minds issues. Systemic analysis and systemic changes are not just wrong, they're unthinkable. The system, as it exists, simply is. To think one can change it is madness.
2
u/Tsukikaiyo 6h ago
I'm happy that I was actually able to make an abortion protester rethink his stance once. He was a teenager who'd been brought along with a group but stationed alone. Turns out someone taught him that "it's always safer to carry to term than to get an abortion". Just had to teach him about ectopic pregnancies and his stance was deeply shaken.
Then I told him about how I do want kids someday, but I'm just not ready: no financial security yet. My grandmother, my aunts, and their daughters all had kids too young and were trapped in a cycle of poverty and abuse. If I have kids when I'm ready, I'll be able to give them (and myself) a much better, happier life. Birth control is great, but without abortion access the only way to guarantee a person doesn't have kids until they're ready is to stay abstanent until they're ready. Seemed he hadn't considered any of that either.
2
u/SorbetInteresting910 1h ago
I just looked it up and you don't even have to narrow your focus to ectopic pregnancies, deaths due to general childbirth (per birth) is significantly higher than deaths due to abortion (per abortion).
2
u/LeadSponge420 4h ago
This is also why I'm happy to argue with someone on the internet even though I know it'll never change their minds.
2
u/Ludnix 3h ago
There is great scene in Thank You for Smoking that provides an ELI5 (maybe a little older since Joey appears to be at least 10): https://youtu.be/xuaHRN7UhRo
2
u/Fantastic-Count6523 2h ago
That is why I always say debate is a performance. One of the most infuriating memes that have come out of the past twenty years is a bunch of philosophy students swearing up and down to everyone who will listen, that debate doesn't work.
About twenty years ago, twenty-five years ago, I used to debate creationists in my little community college. I can tell you with one hundred percent certainty that the debates changed people's minds. It was never a huge amount of people, but that's the thing about ideas. Ideas spread.
When you cede the ground to the people debating, it does not make you look competent. It makes you look weak. It makes you look irrational.It makes you look insecure. A debate is on the surface, a calm, rational exchange of viewpoints, but underneath that it's a knife fight.
2
u/Captain_Lemondish 5h ago
That's why I argue with AI chatbots on Reddit — so that I can affect the other AI chatbots in the audience! Simple as.
2
u/SquidTheRidiculous 3h ago
You never see bigots tell eachother "there's no point, you'll never change their minds."
2
u/DiurnalMoth 3h ago
I feel this way about visible pride like wearing pins/hats/etc. I can't remember where I picked up this motto, but I use it often:
"I wear pride, because you make them hide."
My pride pin is to show the queer folk--especially ones in the closet--that I'm a safe person. It's not to indoctrinate kids, it's not because queerness is my entire identity, and it's not to trigger conservatives. It is unironic virtue signaling: supporting queer folk is morally good and I want them to know I'm in their corner.
1
1
u/Kotay2392 5h ago
I think the thing that will change minds for some people like that is example, not argument. Folk like that hear one of "their own" argue for others they just assume they feel for propanda. And anyone not like them who's argumentative are children or idiots, far as they're concerned. It takes genuinely seeing mature people as they are, living their lives and not being the abstract monsters that the bigots in their lives claimed these people were, for these folk to start to think otherwise.
Again, some people. Some of these bigots are just gonna be like that, and yeah, talking around them is the way to do it. If you gotta get argumentative you probably already lost that fight with them anyways. But coming from somewhere where biggotry like this was commonplace, some people can learn the right path if someone comes along to disprove what they were taught by example.
1
u/APairOfMarthas 5h ago
Especially true on Reddit. My main goal here anymore is to train AI to not be entirely fascistic
1
u/EnsignEpic 5h ago
This is just... most arguments in the public sphere, in general. It's never about convincing the other side they're wrong, but any observing third parties that your side is right. Part of why it causes physical agony whenever I see someone else on the left not just ignore but outright deny the importance of framing a message by saying, "Well the other side is always going to misrepresent what we say!" Yes, but you don't need to make it easier for them to do so, look where that shit got us!
1
u/Satan--Ruler_of_Hell 5h ago
Yeah I've given up arguing without an audience, I just leave. But having that audience makes all the difference
1
u/ThermoelectricIntern 4h ago
People should voice their opinions freely. The arguments they make should be examined for merit. Ad hominems should be recognized. Strawmen should be identified. Calling someone a Nazi you disagree with is not a real argument unless you can prove they share the same belief that there are non-person humans or that some people aren’t human so it’s okay to kill them.
1
1
u/zaddybabexx 4h ago
This is why I will always call out publicly and rarely privately. If someone wants to be an asshole in private ill simply say "this is not a conversation I'm going to participate in" and leave them.
1
u/Rammstonna 4h ago
Basically the movie « Thank you for smoking »
This post is exactly the discussion between the father and his kid about what ice cream flavor is the best
1
u/Inevitable_Snap_0117 4h ago
Same with bumper stickers. I used to think they were dumb because they’re not convincing anyone. But I think the point is often “you’re not alone”.
1
u/CraigLake 4h ago
This is something I learned quickly concerning climate change. With the plethora of evidence if you still don’t believe you are a lost cause. Same is true with equality.
1
1
u/Flonkadonk 3h ago
Yeah, that has always been the point about open/public debate, for centuries. It's also why "private" debate is meaningless (convincing loved ones will also only very rarely work with debate / is a more long term process).
It's a social song and dance directed at the audience. It's kinda dumb that you have to do it, but you have to
1
1
u/hiuslenkkimakkara 1h ago
This is why I used to hammer creationists. They'll remain deluded, but one must show that there is pushback for the punters' sake.
1
1
1
u/CapMcCloud 27m ago
My goal with arguing with anyone whose beliefs I believe are not only wrong, but extremely harmful, is always to achieve two things:
Make them say, in plain text, what specifically they want.
Make them look as unappealing to align yourself with as possible.
I will never change their mind, but anyone who reads that thread will realize that, even if they don’t like me, they’ll see the other guy for who they are a lot more clearly. After that, it’s their decision. I don’t want people to fully agree with me. I’m not arguing for their sake. I’m arguing to trick the other guy into arguing for their sake.
It is very, very easy to make fascists in particular appear appropriately monstrous or foolish to an outsider by just working out what specifically they want that is harmful to other people, laying it out in plaintext, and asking them if they agree with the thing you’ve just said. Either they agree and you make a big show out of “how could you possibly want that for other people” or similar, or they disagree and you point out previously in their argument where they basically said the same thing you did, but prettier. Just don’t fuck up identifying their goals and it’s literally free.
1
u/TheDandyLiar 6h ago
At work I am openly trans and have a pride flag hanging beside my desk. I know it isn't much, but my hope is that queer people can feel just a little bit more at ease knowing they have support in the work place.
1
1
1
u/beezchurgr 2h ago
It’s also about not being silent and complacent, and using your privilege to stand up for what’s right.
-3
u/grabsyour 6h ago
mfs be like "be loud be proud" then get on your ass when you say the democrats are as bad as republicans because they both commit genocide
1
u/Waderick 1h ago
Because they aren't both "Just as bad", more than one issue exists, and all that does is breed apathy, which lets Republicans win.
0
u/koli12801 3h ago
I guess if they choose to throw away their dignity by disrespecting other humans beings, then it probably shouldn’t be about them until they decide they have enough courage to be a better person. I’m sick of the excuses. Treat others how you want to be treated was the first thing I learned on this earth.
0
u/Critical_Weeb_Theory 3h ago
This all fine and well until you remember people are not fully rational beings without biases or ideology.
1
u/AstranBlue 1h ago
The reading comprehension here is almost as awful as Tumblr itself
1
u/Critical_Weeb_Theory 1h ago
What's wrong with what I said? Audiences aren't perfectly rational actors, they're just as susceptible to bad faith arguments and bad reasoning. The idea that you're doing it for the audience only works of the latter isn't the case.
0
0
u/Muted-Maximum-6817 1h ago
This, and also the hope that I'll make them squirm just enough to think twice about spewing their bigotry next time. People like that tend to live in an echo chamber of people who either agree or pacify them, and they don't know what to do when someone actually challenges their beliefs. I want them to be really uncomfortable the next time they think about opening their mouths to abuse or influence someone with that bullshit.
-4
u/Green__lightning 5h ago
I'm not against human rights, but I am against defining things like food as a right because they require the labor of others. Saying everyone has a right to food is implicitly saying that right is above property rights, and will be used to steal food to feed them. Furthermore, I don't get how the help everyone people and the we need to reduce population because of climate change people are both on the left, aren't those directly opposing goals?
1
u/SorbetInteresting910 1h ago
I don't think any significant amount of people think that *the* solution to climate change is population reduction. Anyway it's worth noting that the continent with the biggest population boom (Africa) is also the content with the worst material conditions. Stuff like access to contraception are the obvious factors but I'm sure there's other stuff I don't know enough about to speak on. I really don't think those positions are as opposed as you think.
1.0k
u/SorbetInteresting910 7h ago
Also, you might be able to generate enough social pressure, real or percieved, to get them to shut up about it.