3 ms·

I post on /pol/ without agreeing with most of their views. You're unlikely to immediately convince anyone of a diametrically opposed point of view at any given

I post on /pol/ without agreeing with most of their views. You're unlikely to immediately convince anyone of a diametrically opposed point of view at any given time. But you can bring nuance to a very one-sided, memed and stereotyped "discussion". For example there is a large overlap between pro-fossil fuel and nationalist attitudes. It is fairly easy to get some concessions about renewables from them once you point out that renewables mean energy-independence and not giving money to the middle east. If you have no scruples of adopting their arguments for the sake or arguing you can also make your argument explicitly anti-jewish by pointing out that israel would be a far less important strategically if the US did not depend on oil as much. It seems like people have trouble applying logic of this kind because they fear being seen endorsing the arguments that they use but in the end it's just a form of playing devil's advocate. If you have a thread where the general tone is that all blacks should be killed then maybe an admission that this would not be a smart move and better solutions can be found is already progress. Small progress, but still important, nudging things in a better direction bit by bit. And yes, board culture does change over time, imperceptibly to most, but it does change.

pcthrowaway 9y ago
> you can also make your argument explicitly anti-jewish by pointing out that israel would be a far less important strategically if the US did not depend on oil as much Wait a sec, can you explain how this is anti-jewish? As a person of Jewish ethnicity who does not support many actions of the Israeli government, I fail to see how this makes the argument anti-Jewish. I do concede that it might make it more appealing to those with anti-semitic sentiments.
- anon2936 9y ago
  > I do concede that it might make it more appealing to those with anti-semitic sentiments. That is what I meant to say. That said, both /pol/ and the israeli government tend¹ to lump anti-zionism and anti-semitism together. In the former case due to the purported¹ global jewish conspiracy, in the latter case because it makes a cheap knockout argument against anyone questioning their treatment of palestine. So I phrased it through that lens. ¹ do I really have to pepper those qualifier words everywhere?
fatbird 9y ago
So patient, persistent effort might yield a small shift in the attitudes of some in the audience. At what cost in those who see the basic terms of debate validated by engagement? When you're arguing that only some black people should be killed instead of all of them, what harm are you doing by legitimizing the basic question of whether blacks should be killed?
- anon2936 9y ago
  You are assuming that there is a question to legitimize. If you have someone convinced of the issue then there is no question. By engaging in discussion you are simplying providing an alternative view point. You don't have to present yourself as opponent, you can present yourself as member of the ingroup with a slightly more moderate position that might also be more palatable to the public. There are many strategies. It is also important to realize that there are many passive readers of such discussions. I recall moot (rip) saying something along the lines that there is a 1:10 ratio of posters to lurkers. So by presenting a more moderate position you're also showing people who might not like the left that there are alternatives to the most radical voices. In the past, even in many brutal wars, belligerents generally recognized the need for parley. This is not even a war, it is a disagreement about social norms and laws. If villainize the other side to the extent where it would be immoral to even speak to them you're only fueling the polarization instead of creating a continuum. Look at europe. The extreme right exist too, but between the left and the right there are many different currents represented in parties, which lowers the activation potential for people gradually switch camps.

pcthrowaway 9y ago

> you can also make your argument explicitly anti-jewish by pointing out that israel would be a far less important strategically if the US did not depend on oil as much Wait a sec, can you explain how this is anti-jewish? As a person of Jewish ethnicity who does not support many actions of the Israeli government, I fail to see how this makes the argument anti-Jewish. I do concede that it might make it more appealing to those with anti-semitic sentiments.

anon2936 9y ago
> I do concede that it might make it more appealing to those with anti-semitic sentiments. That is what I meant to say. That said, both /pol/ and the israeli government tend¹ to lump anti-zionism and anti-semitism together. In the former case due to the purported¹ global jewish conspiracy, in the latter case because it makes a cheap knockout argument against anyone questioning their treatment of palestine. So I phrased it through that lens. ¹ do I really have to pepper those qualifier words everywhere?

fatbird 9y ago

So patient, persistent effort might yield a small shift in the attitudes of some in the audience. At what cost in those who see the basic terms of debate validated by engagement? When you're arguing that only some black people should be killed instead of all of them, what harm are you doing by legitimizing the basic question of whether blacks should be killed?

anon2936 9y ago
You are assuming that there is a question to legitimize. If you have someone convinced of the issue then there is no question. By engaging in discussion you are simplying providing an alternative view point. You don't have to present yourself as opponent, you can present yourself as member of the ingroup with a slightly more moderate position that might also be more palatable to the public. There are many strategies. It is also important to realize that there are many passive readers of such discussions. I recall moot (rip) saying something along the lines that there is a 1:10 ratio of posters to lurkers. So by presenting a more moderate position you're also showing people who might not like the left that there are alternatives to the most radical voices. In the past, even in many brutal wars, belligerents generally recognized the need for parley. This is not even a war, it is a disagreement about social norms and laws. If villainize the other side to the extent where it would be immoral to even speak to them you're only fueling the polarization instead of creating a continuum. Look at europe. The extreme right exist too, but between the left and the right there are many different currents represented in parties, which lowers the activation potential for people gradually switch camps.