3 ms·

> I've heard all the alt-right arguments, long before the term alt-right made it into contemporary vernacular, and concluded that they are meritless ideas comin

> I've heard all the alt-right arguments, long before the term alt-right made it into contemporary vernacular, and concluded that they are meritless ideas coming from idiots who lack the ability of genuine critical thought. All more the reason to shine a light on these ideas. They won't hold under scrutiny. Blind obedience is not a reasonable expectation of people. We need to understand how our civilization got to where it is while others failed. There really is no such thing as "final purge". If purging becomes part of our ideology there will always be another enemy to deal with and the division will never end.

rorykoehler 9y ago
>If purging becomes part of our ideology there will always be another enemy to deal with and the division will never end. This is a natural process of any organically evolving system. It keeps what helps it and expels what doesn't. I agree there will never be an end to problems and division. The nature of them will simply change. Regarding shining light on the ideas... this is pointless. First they come from an emotional place so discussing them with logic won't work. Second I could argue with flat-earthers all day but what's the point.
- sintaxi 9y ago
  > This is a natural process of any organically evolving system. It keeps what helps it and expels what doesn't. I don't think it is natural, I think its a sickness. The goal isn't to improve things the goal is to have an enemy to destroy. There is no point where behaviour of the un-purged will be acceptable enough. > Regarding shining light on the ideas... this is pointless So you understand the arguments, learned that it doesn't hold water and are therefore in a position to speak intelligently on the issue but you don't want others to go through the same process? That doesn't make sense to me and leaves the biggest question un-asked which is who gets to decide what can or cant be discussed?
  - rorykoehler 9y ago
    I never said I don't want others to go through the same process. Just don't expect anything from me. We all live in our own realities and I'm lucky to be privileged enough to be able to ignore hardcore Nazis. Life is too short to waste energy on debating them. I suspect many feel this way. If it comes to a head and I find that I suddenly can't avoid them anymore I know where I stand and will act accordingly. If you spend you whole life arguing with everyone you disagree with on important issues no matter how ridiculous their counter-arguments are then it is likely you will carry the weight of the world on your shoulder and become terribly depressed. I've seen this happen too many times to count so I checked out and focused more energy on things that bring positive energy to me and the world. If that's a problem to you, that's your problem not mine, and you'll have to deal with it. This conversation on the other hand is fine because valid questions were raised and points were made without judgement or threat of violence. I may or may not agree with you but as I said I can handle valid alternative thoughts I disagree with (which ironically is not a feature of alt-right ideology).
    - sintaxi 9y ago
      Those are wise words.
uuuu91113e 9y ago
> All more the reason to shine a light on these ideas. They won't hold under scrutiny. That assumes people are rational. What we know is, people are more likely to believe things they have heard before (mere exposure effect), and are more likely to believe things their peers believe (bandwagon effect). I believe in free speech. As in, the government must not censor peoples speech. But we're crazy to think bad ideas will go away just because we expose them, or scrutinize them with arguments. When you have an idea that is dangerous and perceived as fringe, you must individually choose not to give that idea more exposure. The risk is you normalize the idea for a segment of your audience. When the idea is dangerous and breaking into the mainstream, you have no choice but to confront it. But you can't do so with arguments alone. You need to blend logical arguments with emotional appeals, because 1. that's how humans work and 2. the other side is doing it and you are at a disadvantage if you don't. Remember that the art of rhetoric originally encompassed 3 areas: Logos (logic) Pathos (feeling) and ethos (credibility).

rorykoehler 9y ago

>If purging becomes part of our ideology there will always be another enemy to deal with and the division will never end. This is a natural process of any organically evolving system. It keeps what helps it and expels what doesn't. I agree there will never be an end to problems and division. The nature of them will simply change. Regarding shining light on the ideas... this is pointless. First they come from an emotional place so discussing them with logic won't work. Second I could argue with flat-earthers all day but what's the point.

sintaxi 9y ago
> This is a natural process of any organically evolving system. It keeps what helps it and expels what doesn't. I don't think it is natural, I think its a sickness. The goal isn't to improve things the goal is to have an enemy to destroy. There is no point where behaviour of the un-purged will be acceptable enough. > Regarding shining light on the ideas... this is pointless So you understand the arguments, learned that it doesn't hold water and are therefore in a position to speak intelligently on the issue but you don't want others to go through the same process? That doesn't make sense to me and leaves the biggest question un-asked which is who gets to decide what can or cant be discussed?
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  I never said I don't want others to go through the same process. Just don't expect anything from me. We all live in our own realities and I'm lucky to be privileged enough to be able to ignore hardcore Nazis. Life is too short to waste energy on debating them. I suspect many feel this way. If it comes to a head and I find that I suddenly can't avoid them anymore I know where I stand and will act accordingly. If you spend you whole life arguing with everyone you disagree with on important issues no matter how ridiculous their counter-arguments are then it is likely you will carry the weight of the world on your shoulder and become terribly depressed. I've seen this happen too many times to count so I checked out and focused more energy on things that bring positive energy to me and the world. If that's a problem to you, that's your problem not mine, and you'll have to deal with it. This conversation on the other hand is fine because valid questions were raised and points were made without judgement or threat of violence. I may or may not agree with you but as I said I can handle valid alternative thoughts I disagree with (which ironically is not a feature of alt-right ideology).
  - sintaxi 9y ago
    Those are wise words.

uuuu91113e 9y ago

> All more the reason to shine a light on these ideas. They won't hold under scrutiny. That assumes people are rational. What we know is, people are more likely to believe things they have heard before (mere exposure effect), and are more likely to believe things their peers believe (bandwagon effect). I believe in free speech. As in, the government must not censor peoples speech. But we're crazy to think bad ideas will go away just because we expose them, or scrutinize them with arguments. When you have an idea that is dangerous and perceived as fringe, you must individually choose not to give that idea more exposure. The risk is you normalize the idea for a segment of your audience. When the idea is dangerous and breaking into the mainstream, you have no choice but to confront it. But you can't do so with arguments alone. You need to blend logical arguments with emotional appeals, because 1. that's how humans work and 2. the other side is doing it and you are at a disadvantage if you don't. Remember that the art of rhetoric originally encompassed 3 areas: Logos (logic) Pathos (feeling) and ethos (credibility).