|
Madmarker posted:Christ, were the forums always this bad....was I just to young/dumb to recognize this poo poo? it's possible you're complaining about something else but just being clear, those posts are fake, all written by me. i think they're pretty accurate sentimentwise but maybe a little bit more goony than the average naziposts if your question is "did the forums always have authors of fake nazi rants for devil's advocacy purposes" then on some level probably yes, but on this exact level, i am the person making the forums worse by doing that
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
Krotera posted:A forums play in one act. (about why debating nazis is ineffective)  
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Krotera posted:it's possible you're complaining about something else but just being clear, those posts are fake, all written by me. i think they're pretty accurate sentimentwise but maybe a little bit more goony than the average naziposts Ah, I apologize, I should have read what you wrote more carefully....and noticed the 1488 regdate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Part of me does wish I could go back in time briefly to when the forums were supposedly libertarian paradise just to see what it was like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
I did always find it odd that the big scary leftist sjw forum was run by a guy named Low Tax.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Dunno why people in this thread, in the "Debate & Discussion" subforum, would be so opposed to the effect of debating people who disagree with them. Just by engaging libertarians / right-wingers in the process of examining and defending their ideas you've already gotten them to think harder about their beliefs than they normally would. They may not be convinced in an hour or a day but if they spend even five minutes weighing your ideas against theirs in a serious fashion then the debate was a victory. The reason right-wingers in general are so hostile and dishonest in debates is that they see political dissent as an attack on their very morals. The consequence for them to lose many political conversations is to be labeled a Bad Person in the eyes of the person they are debating, as well as the audience. This is their biggest and loudest grievance with the political left, and why they moan so much about "SJWs" and other progressive thought. Their worldview is a fortress built on carefully constructed and very rigid ideas built on top of each other; they debate with the goal of protecting that fortress and thereby their own moral integrity as a person. In part this is because they have been conditioned to equate moral identity with political thought, and cannot reconcile the notion that an otherwise good person might hold immoral ideas out of ignorance. Really ALL these people want in life is to not be judged for their ignorant opinions. 95% of the outright grievances they have are in reaction to the possibility that they might be judged preemptively for being a white male gun-loving Christian video gamer. You can defuse their entire set of defense mechanisms by establishing that you won't conflate their moral identity with their political opinion. Having established that you will find they are surprisingly willing to listen and have their ideas corrected and examined. Most people with strong opinions about "Syrian refugees" will change their tune when you ask them to consider honestly what it means to be a refugee, for instance (this is something I've seen time and time again). Once you've convinced them to at least listen to your ideas then the debate should be smooth sailing. After all we're all leftists not because of our group identification that Being Progressive Is Good; we're leftists because our ideas are compelling ones that promote societal good and fight against societal harms, and those ideas come from making true observations of our world and society. Believe it or not even conservatives believe that making society better is a positive goal, the difference is they see society as static and reflexively view nuance as attempts to change the rigid values their society is built upon. People absolutely can be persuaded out of bad politics. Often the only reason they hold them is because of the environment they grew up in (parents/friends/town/school/church/media), get them to distance their identity from these environments and they will be much less attached to those ideas. They defend their opinions so vehemently because their opinions are tied deeply to their identity. But their ideas are not their identity; someone who believes that NFL players are kneeling to disrespect our military is not an inherent racist. Rather, those ideas are the product of a singular perspective they obtained from a bad environment. Get them to distance their identity from this political perspective and they will be much more willing to accept new ideas. Even in debates against people with explicit agendas who will do whatever they can to discredit you / your arguments for their own benefit, the debate itself is still valuable as an opportunity to educate whatever audience is listening. If you genuinely believe that good education leads to a better society, then the only fear in a debate should be that the audience comes away mis-educated or misinformed. We are afraid of engaging with neo-Nazis and other "race realists" because the consequences of someone becoming misinformed into supporting white nationalism are severe for society, but even that risk should be weighed against the benefits of reaching someone already misinformed and breaking through their carefully constructed bubble with an idea or perspective that they cannot immediately dismiss or reconcile. In short, persuading people is valuable and people on the left should find more effective ways of doing this. Telling all white people that they're privileged supporters of a racist system may convince those who already understand multiple societal perspectives, but for many who have only grown up with the "American" right-wing Christian perspective it just comes off as an attack on their identity (because in many ways it is), and they will respond defensively to it. Convince those same people that they are not what their labels describe them as, that being white is an accident of birth and not some marker of their moral character (for example), and you will already have done 90% of the groundwork needed to persuade them out of their narrow conservative perspectives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
It's not my job to educate ignorant people. If you say racist or homophobic or transphobic poo poo to me I'm not going to give you a class on why it's not your fault you're acting like a piece of poo poo; I'm going to call you a piece of poo poo and move on. Maybe take some personal responsibility and find out why you keep getting such a negative reaction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
we've sent this criticism through to the relevant channels to be evaluated and...
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Glazier posted:It's not my job to educate ignorant people. If you say racist or homophobic or transphobic poo poo to me I'm not going to give you a class on why it's not your fault you're acting like a piece of poo poo; I'm going to call you a piece of poo poo and move on. Maybe take some personal responsibility and find out why you keep getting such a negative reaction. You're welcome to feel that way, but if it's your goal to make for a better society then you will eventually have to educate a lot of ignorant people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:You're welcome to feel that way, but if it's your goal to make for a better society then you will eventually have to educate a lot of ignorant people. I don't give a poo poo if they're educated or not I just want them to shut the hell up and stop influencing things,. I'd rather pass one hate speech or crime law with teeth than run a million useless PSAs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Though the issue with laws is that if you can't defend them via propaganda they're likely to not last that long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:Some words I'd be careful with thinking people who disagree with you are poor benighted fools for you to enlighten. Aside from the fact that it denies them any agency in their own thoughts, it's not even remotely the only option. There are people who don't know your position, people who know it but don't agree with it for whatever reason, and people who outright reject a basic premise you're arguing from. I've had conversations with conservatives trying to get to the root of where we disagree in our worldview, and in one memorable case the guy just outright rejected that everyone has the right to exist. He just felt that it would be better if some people were dead, and those people didn't deserve any moral consideration. You won't know what category someone falls into until you talk to them one-on-one, in person, with no audience, so it's worth trying. They can't be in a group, because arguing alongside people who agree with you makes introspection harder; and you can't be in a group, because then you're "ganging up" and making them defensive; and you can't have an audience, because then their main concern is to play to the crowd or win the conversation for their team; and you will have a damned hard time doing it on the internet, because people just don't think of words on the internet as coming from an actual person (and video chats have the potential for being recorded and basically have an implied audience). Maybe you convince them you're right, maybe you just convince them you're well-meaning, maybe you find out they're completely unreachable because of some deadlock like that. Glazier posted:I don't give a poo poo if they're educated or not I just want them to shut the hell up and stop influencing things,. I'd rather pass one hate speech or crime law with teeth than run a million useless PSAs. Any law like that will only result in its being used to suppress those who pose a challenge to the existing power structures, meaning those who oppose racial/sexual/economic/political hierarchies rather than those who defend them. :foucaultsay: Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Any law like that will only result in its being used to suppress those who pose a challenge to the existing power structures, meaning those who oppose racial/sexual/economic/political hierarchies rather than those who defend them. Seems to be working in Western Europe 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Glazier posted:Seems to be working in Western Europe I dunno if you've noticed that we've been having these nationalists all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
I heard anti-hate speech laws are used to suppress Leftist rhetoric in some European countries, so it may be a monkey paw situation. How do you deal with people who are into Originalism? Or should you not bother and it is generally a shield for people with terrible worldviews hide behind?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I dunno if you've noticed that we've been having these nationalists all over the place. Yes, but at the very least they are blocked from social media and not allowed to openly call for genocide. It’s a low bar I admit, but we’re talking about Trump’s America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Glazier posted:Yes, but at the very least they are blocked from social media and not allowed to openly call for genocide. It’s a low bar I admit, but we’re talking about Trump’s America. Noooot... really... Also they don't need to do it on social media cos they've got newspapers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
laws on their own are useless it's how they're enforced. the current administration is in violation of dozens of laws and none of them will ever see jail time. we are a nation of (hu)men not laws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Glazier posted:Seems to be working in Western Europe They're everywhere. LePen came in second in the French presidential election, the newish "basically nazis" party in Germany got 12% of the vote last time, etc etc. Jimbot posted:How do you deal with people who are into Originalism? Or should you not bother and it is generally a shield for people with terrible worldviews hide behind? You mean Constitutional Originalists? It's usually a shield, but you can figure out what's behind it by doing the Socratic thing. Just ask the obvious historical questions: weren't the founders just people like everyone else? Wasn't the whole "not dealing with the slavery question" thing what helped lead to the Civil War? Was the 3/5 compromise good?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
gently caress a lot of posting happened. Anyway, I think debate's effectiveness is limited, but there is a false dichotomy in the debate vs. no platform argument, something like street epistemology is a non-debate and mostly non-confrontational way to get people to question their centrally held beliefs by exposing faulty premises, reasoning and logic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
originalism is just giving an "objective" veneer to conservative opinions. the best example of this is scalia in heller. the second amendment wasn't written to guarantee an individual right to own a firearm and 220 years of courts found the same (the "current" interpretation is solely due to the gun lobby). if he was actually an originalist he would've dissented. so even by their own standards originalists are never actually originalists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:originalism is just giving an "objective" veneer to conservative opinions. What's the original interpretation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
it's a collective right not an individual one. here's former chief justice burger calling the gun lobby's interpretation one of the "greatest pieces of fraud, i repeat the word fraud, on the american public by special interest groups": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C2gSG7yo9A Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Forgive my naivety, but why would someone request a permaban on themselves? Is it just a situation where they can't stop themselves from posting?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Ahh right that sort of makes sense.fallenturtle posted:Forgive my naivety, but why would someone request a permaban on themselves? Is it just a situation where they can't stop themselves from posting? It's the equivalent of biting your controller and throwing it through the TV. Generally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Oh god we just had a big long derail, please don't talk about the second amendmentJUICY HAMBUGAR posted:gently caress a lot of posting happened. I hear the phrase "street epistemology" and I picture Socrates dressed like a youth pastor who's trying to be hip to what the kids are laying down. Am I far off?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
there's nothing to discuss, if you buy the gun lobby's interpretation you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I hear the phrase "street epistemology" and I picture Socrates dressed like a youth pastor who's trying to be hip to what the kids are laying down. Am I far off? I imagine something like the monty python international philosophy sketch only they've all got katanas and cybermods.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Nah, I'm liking modern slang Socrates now. "Well Aiden, I agree that those are all examples of being extra, but they aren't a definition of what extraness truly is."
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Oh god we just had a big long derail, please don't talk about the second amendment Not that far off tbh. Mostly cause it's nerdy atheists who actually practice it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Refried Hero posted:Well on a different, slightly related note, here's a decent video about Alt-Right tactics: I wonder if it’s possible to use these tools on reactionaries rather than just responding to them. It seems like only idiots have access to these sleights of rhetoric with any authenticity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I'd be careful with thinking people who disagree with you are poor benighted fools for you to enlighten. Aside from the fact that it denies them any agency in their own thoughts, it's not even remotely the only option. There are people who don't know your position, people who know it but don't agree with it for whatever reason, and people who outright reject a basic premise you're arguing from. I've had conversations with conservatives trying to get to the root of where we disagree in our worldview, and in one memorable case the guy just outright rejected that everyone has the right to exist. He just felt that it would be better if some people were dead, and those people didn't deserve any moral consideration. I believe people generally don't have a ton of agency in their political beliefs. Most people got to where they are politically by default based on where they were born and who their parents and friends are, and when they reconsider their political opinions it's catalyzed by the positions of someone else that they find compelling. Very few political opinions are original, often times talking to someone you can hear them repeat positions and arguments from sources you can probably identify yourself. For this reason I think it's always good to separate someone from their political ideas or from any political identity, and address people not as "conservatives" for example but rather as someone who believe in some conservative ideas. Then the idea itself can be addressed without also attacking the identity of the person espousing this idea. There are certainly people out there like the guy you described but even then I think it's valuable to engage with someone like that and have them say out loud "I don't think people should have the right to exist" and defend that position in situations where it will come up short. You may discover that people with this extreme kind of view often have it in order to justify a whole host of their other opinions; they arrived on this base principle through backwards reasoning. When we dismiss someone as "evil" because they hold Breitbart talking points we are making the same mistake that they make on several issues: we are forgetting that human behavior isn't just determined by individual moral characteristics but also by the environment at large. It also feeds into their "us vs them" siege mentality rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
 Thanks for reminding me!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:I wonder if it’s possible to use these tools on reactionaries rather than just responding to them. It seems like only idiots have access to these sleights of rhetoric with any authenticity. A lot of it is basic rhetoric. Keep it short and punchy, get them on the defensive, find the dumbest thing they said and hammer them over it. As for the "publicly putting people in little boxes" thing, think about the "you just call anyone you don't like a Nazi!" stuff: it's entirely about trying to avoid or discredit the "Nazi" box, because a lot of their idols fit it really well, and it is absolutely not a label you want hung around your neck if you want people to listen to you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
The thing is though is finding people who who can have a real conversation with and who is just going to spend the time finding how to mock you and get under your skin. Because that's my experience most of the time. You don't want to actually listen to me, you just want to see how many times you can get away with saying "Tranny"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:The thing is though is finding people who who can have a real conversation with and who is just going to spend the time finding how to mock you and get under your skin. Because that's my experience most of the time. You don't want to actually listen to me, you just want to see how many times you can get away with saying "Tranny" Or call me sir, or asked me about my genitalia 😡
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
JNVO has made the perfect concoction of rear end in a top hat and pedantry. Next time someone thinks human rights are a good thing for people try not to derail the whole thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights Midig fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Nov 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Yes, the entire point of the derail is that I just haven't read the Wikipedia article for human rights.  Surely, you have done a favour for this thread by pointing it out a page after the 'derail' ostensibly ended.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Contra mid-thread on Twitter right now, talking about why she's going to the event that has everybody het up. https://twitter.com/ContraPoints/status/936055501204357120
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
I said in another thread, but i'll read it later. I need a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 03:50
|
|