4 ms·

But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even i

But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even intention to talk about the topic is going to make them physically attack you? Moreover such a physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.

brighteyes 9y ago
You can still keep trying to convince them, gently and reasonably. There is no other option.
- leereeves 9y ago
  How can you try to convince people gently and reasonably when they won't hear you, but will only hear a distorted version of what you say, taken out of context and edited for maximum outrage?
  - irickt 9y ago
    Interpret that behavior as damage and route around it.
fao_ 9y ago
On this topic: These people do not decide. They have seen the effects first-hand. Perhaps seeing it from the other point of view, what point is there arguing with someone whose inherent philosophy is a denial of the rights of others? An example of this is the one that you used. The "alt-right": people who follow the words of leaders who have clearly and openly called for the extermination and sterilization of PoCs (Richard Spencer, for example), people who openly use Nazi imagery, and who are backed by the American Nazi Party. [Evidence for these claims are in the bottom section]. In such a case, with the sides, quite literally, being: I wish to live and have a productive and happy life I wish for people like you, including you, to no longer exist What kind of meaningful debate do you expect between such groups? The core principles are, by their very nature, severely opposed to each other. [Citations for the equivalence of the Nazis and the Alt-right]: Firstly, Richard Spencer, the person who started the alt-right: ""Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. "" https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alterna... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/890979293009895424 https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/890979293009895424 See also: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-dona... https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-primer-about-the-new-white-supremacy https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/alt-ri... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/26/neo-nazi-misfits-join-unite-right https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/26/neo-nazi-misf... There are more, but I'm pretty sure that you can source the rest for yourself.
- atypicaluser 9y ago
  Your reply misses the point of the OP: > ... physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient. How many Americans actually self-identify with the alt-right? Less than .001%? How many, on the other hand, are accused of being alt-right to dismiss their arguments and concerns? If your first move in a potential discussion is to label your opponent with a philosophy you hate (and refuse to entertain,) then it's likely you're interested in things other than discussion.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
the_cat_kittles 9y ago
here we are in 2017, with many many crucial things to argue about. this is your priority? good luck!
- generic_user 9y ago
  Simply stating that 'its the current year' you can not have those opinions, is not addressing the issue or argument. Its an attempt to shut down debate and silence people. The article was about techniques you can try to engage people and ideas you disagree with in a more friendly and respectful way. You might want to be more thoughtful of your own posts in that respect.
  - the_cat_kittles 9y ago
    it just seems tone deaf to me. like, in the 12 hours since i wrote this, a nazi drove a car into a crowd of people at that stupid rally. i just don't think every "side" of every "argument" deserves equal consideration.
jdietrich 9y ago
Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window. Never argue for any particular position; present a series of facts and ideas, then allow your audience to come to their own conclusion. Nobody likes being told what to think, but most people take great satisfaction in joining up the dots for themselves. Some people might still call you a Nazi, but your obvious reasonableness will be a near-infallible shield; they'll look silly and you'll look dignified. Study marketing. Major corporations have invested billions in developing powerful persuasion methods, so loot their arsenal. You can sell a political position in exactly the same way as a can of fizzy drink, with immeasurably greater success than someone using the traditional techniques of political rhetoric.
- kristianc 9y ago
  > Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window. This is probably somewhere where the left could take lessons from rationalist YouTube. Many of the arguments are presented in this way, always taking pains to express their logical credentials and remaining reasonable. Of course the evidence is heavily selected, but that is not mentioned. Then, when 'progressives' shout at them, it is progressives who seem shrill and absurd.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    What's a logical credential?
  - fao_ 9y ago
    That... that's really not the case for most of "rationalist" youtube. Examples of rebuttals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmM872874A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmM872874A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahuj1B0ow4U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahuj1B0ow4U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpgBkpb7xlU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpgBkpb7xlU
SoMisanthrope 9y ago
I wish I could mod-down Backpropaganda.... Your blather provides the perfect example of what the author is trying to elucidate upon.

brighteyes 9y ago

You can still keep trying to convince them, gently and reasonably. There is no other option.

leereeves 9y ago
How can you try to convince people gently and reasonably when they won't hear you, but will only hear a distorted version of what you say, taken out of context and edited for maximum outrage?
- irickt 9y ago
  Interpret that behavior as damage and route around it.

fao_ 9y ago

On this topic: These people do not decide. They have seen the effects first-hand. Perhaps seeing it from the other point of view, what point is there arguing with someone whose inherent philosophy is a denial of the rights of others? An example of this is the one that you used. The "alt-right": people who follow the words of leaders who have clearly and openly called for the extermination and sterilization of PoCs (Richard Spencer, for example), people who openly use Nazi imagery, and who are backed by the American Nazi Party. [Evidence for these claims are in the bottom section]. In such a case, with the sides, quite literally, being: I wish to live and have a productive and happy life I wish for people like you, including you, to no longer exist What kind of meaningful debate do you expect between such groups? The core principles are, by their very nature, severely opposed to each other. [Citations for the equivalence of the Nazis and the Alt-right]: Firstly, Richard Spencer, the person who started the alt-right: ""Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. "" https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alterna... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/890979293009895424 https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/890979293009895424 See also: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-dona... https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-primer-about-the-new-white-supremacy https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/alt-ri... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/26/neo-nazi-misfits-join-unite-right https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/26/neo-nazi-misf... There are more, but I'm pretty sure that you can source the rest for yourself.

atypicaluser 9y ago
Your reply misses the point of the OP: > ... physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient. How many Americans actually self-identify with the alt-right? Less than .001%? How many, on the other hand, are accused of being alt-right to dismiss their arguments and concerns? If your first move in a potential discussion is to label your opponent with a philosophy you hate (and refuse to entertain,) then it's likely you're interested in things other than discussion.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

the_cat_kittles 9y ago

here we are in 2017, with many many crucial things to argue about. this is your priority? good luck!

generic_user 9y ago
Simply stating that 'its the current year' you can not have those opinions, is not addressing the issue or argument. Its an attempt to shut down debate and silence people. The article was about techniques you can try to engage people and ideas you disagree with in a more friendly and respectful way. You might want to be more thoughtful of your own posts in that respect.
- the_cat_kittles 9y ago
  it just seems tone deaf to me. like, in the 12 hours since i wrote this, a nazi drove a car into a crowd of people at that stupid rally. i just don't think every "side" of every "argument" deserves equal consideration.

jdietrich 9y ago

Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window. Never argue for any particular position; present a series of facts and ideas, then allow your audience to come to their own conclusion. Nobody likes being told what to think, but most people take great satisfaction in joining up the dots for themselves. Some people might still call you a Nazi, but your obvious reasonableness will be a near-infallible shield; they'll look silly and you'll look dignified. Study marketing. Major corporations have invested billions in developing powerful persuasion methods, so loot their arsenal. You can sell a political position in exactly the same way as a can of fizzy drink, with immeasurably greater success than someone using the traditional techniques of political rhetoric.

kristianc 9y ago
> Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window. This is probably somewhere where the left could take lessons from rationalist YouTube. Many of the arguments are presented in this way, always taking pains to express their logical credentials and remaining reasonable. Of course the evidence is heavily selected, but that is not mentioned. Then, when 'progressives' shout at them, it is progressives who seem shrill and absurd.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  What's a logical credential?
- fao_ 9y ago
  That... that's really not the case for most of "rationalist" youtube. Examples of rebuttals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmM872874A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmM872874A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahuj1B0ow4U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahuj1B0ow4U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpgBkpb7xlU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpgBkpb7xlU

SoMisanthrope 9y ago

I wish I could mod-down Backpropaganda.... Your blather provides the perfect example of what the author is trying to elucidate upon.