3 ms·
This is a shame. The author offers reasons why they will not debate white supremacists, as it would "dignify them". It is incredibly easy to defeat white supre
by anoncoward111 8y ago
This is a shame. The author offers reasons why they will not debate white supremacists, as it would "dignify them".
It is incredibly easy to defeat white supremacy in a debate. Just point out the arbitrary deficiencies of certain members who are generally agreed to be white.
Done.
- solipsism 8y agoWeak argument, but I don't want to dignify your anon-cowardice with a response.
- radiantswirl 8y agoYou just did, also IMO its a a really fuckin strong argument, ad hominems win debates. What’s your criticism?
- yongjik 8y ago> It is incredibly easy to defeat white supremacy in a debate. If that were the case there wouldn't be that many white supremacist to be a problem. It's easy to "defeat" them in the sense "Expose their logical fallacy so that most reasonable people can see it". Unfortunately, it doesn't do shit. So, in a sense, debating a white supremacist (and winning logically) is a pyrrhic victory, something that gives satisfaction to the practitioners but unlikely to make any difference in the society, at least not the kind you'd usually expect from "winning a debate".