5 ms·

>You can't 'debate' hate speech away. Surely you can. To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound. It's just that people's standards for wh

by Grue3 7y ago

>You can't 'debate' hate speech away. Surely you can. To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound. It's just that people's standards for what constitutes "debate" have lowered so much (thanks to Twitter and its ilk) that it no longer holds any persuasive power. Consider that most people in the West were extremely racist just a few decades ago. It didn't take free speech suppression to change this status quo.

rincebrain 7y ago
I believe the view being expressed is that you cannot necessarily reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Confronting people who hold a belief for reasons that are not necessarily based on facts or logic can result in them doubling down instead of reconsidering their position.
dagw 7y ago
Anybody who has done any amount of debating knows that the 'winner' of any debate is the person who is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating", not the person that is 'right' in any meaningful way. As someone who did a fair amount of debating in school I'm confident I would have won/lost every debate I partook in in exactly the same way even if I was debating the other side of the argument.
- belorn 7y ago
  That implies that election is not about values or politics, but rather which candidate is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating". There is some major amount of cynicism to that world view, and I prefer to behave as if the world did not exist like that.
  - dagw 7y ago
    Far from it. I believe that values and politics are very important and specifically because of that we have to get away from overvaluing the traditional debate format which does nothing to effectively highlight either.
    - belorn 7y ago
      So the obvious question is then, how do we change the debate format so that we can discuss hate speech away. I don't think banning is a working debate format.
      - dagw 7y ago
        I wish the answer was as obvious as the question. Honest answer is that I don't know what will work.
maeln 7y ago
If you can surely debate hate away, it is extremely costing for your mental health. My own experience is that, when doing it face to face it's more easy, you can really get through someone. People are less "protected" and have more emotional connection. But on the Internet ? I stopped trying. Every time it's the same thing: People prefer to be 'trolls' and just throw insults and bullshit all day. Unless the person is actually willing to have a real discussion, it's almost impossible to "debate" anything. As soon as you are going to try to have a real argument, an horde will just "dunk" on you throwing colorful name all around. It's sad but i stopped believing in the possibility of having any interesting argument on the internet if it is not amongst a small community or a very moderated one.
- Funes- 7y ago
  I don't think debating is ever a good means to change anyone's point of view on any given subject. Introspection, deliberation, and personal experience, on the other hand, are good means to that end. Teaching by example is, to my mind, the best way someone can guide others to those personal endeavors, which are the only ones that can grant deep and lasting changes in our world views and beliefs.
  - WAHa_06x36 7y ago
    And teaching by example also involves setting very clear limits on what is acceptable and what is not.
  - teekert 7y ago
    I think this is one of those points where introverted people differ a lot from extraverted people.
faissaloo 7y ago
>To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound. Not at all, people are simply not logical as much as we like to pretend we are.
Guthur 7y ago
And you can't debate the other side either without being called a bigot. Look at the hatred Jordan Peterson gets, who by pretty much all measures is as reasonable a human being as you might expect to meet on average. There are many online articles these days saying things like "yet another white male point of view" horribly generalizing all white males as the same and that is some how acceptable. It's no different that than me saying all black men listen to hip hop and have big hair. (I'm struggling to generalise but I'm sure the point is clear)

by Grue3 7y ago

rincebrain 7y ago

I believe the view being expressed is that you cannot necessarily reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Confronting people who hold a belief for reasons that are not necessarily based on facts or logic can result in them doubling down instead of reconsidering their position.

dagw 7y ago

Anybody who has done any amount of debating knows that the 'winner' of any debate is the person who is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating", not the person that is 'right' in any meaningful way. As someone who did a fair amount of debating in school I'm confident I would have won/lost every debate I partook in in exactly the same way even if I was debating the other side of the argument.

belorn 7y ago
That implies that election is not about values or politics, but rather which candidate is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating". There is some major amount of cynicism to that world view, and I prefer to behave as if the world did not exist like that.
- dagw 7y ago
  Far from it. I believe that values and politics are very important and specifically because of that we have to get away from overvaluing the traditional debate format which does nothing to effectively highlight either.
  - belorn 7y ago
    So the obvious question is then, how do we change the debate format so that we can discuss hate speech away. I don't think banning is a working debate format.
    - dagw 7y ago
      I wish the answer was as obvious as the question. Honest answer is that I don't know what will work.

maeln 7y ago

If you can surely debate hate away, it is extremely costing for your mental health. My own experience is that, when doing it face to face it's more easy, you can really get through someone. People are less "protected" and have more emotional connection. But on the Internet ? I stopped trying. Every time it's the same thing: People prefer to be 'trolls' and just throw insults and bullshit all day. Unless the person is actually willing to have a real discussion, it's almost impossible to "debate" anything. As soon as you are going to try to have a real argument, an horde will just "dunk" on you throwing colorful name all around. It's sad but i stopped believing in the possibility of having any interesting argument on the internet if it is not amongst a small community or a very moderated one.

Funes- 7y ago
I don't think debating is ever a good means to change anyone's point of view on any given subject. Introspection, deliberation, and personal experience, on the other hand, are good means to that end. Teaching by example is, to my mind, the best way someone can guide others to those personal endeavors, which are the only ones that can grant deep and lasting changes in our world views and beliefs.
- WAHa_06x36 7y ago
  And teaching by example also involves setting very clear limits on what is acceptable and what is not.
- teekert 7y ago
  I think this is one of those points where introverted people differ a lot from extraverted people.

faissaloo 7y ago

>To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound. Not at all, people are simply not logical as much as we like to pretend we are.

Guthur 7y ago

And you can't debate the other side either without being called a bigot. Look at the hatred Jordan Peterson gets, who by pretty much all measures is as reasonable a human being as you might expect to meet on average. There are many online articles these days saying things like "yet another white male point of view" horribly generalizing all white males as the same and that is some how acceptable. It's no different that than me saying all black men listen to hip hop and have big hair. (I'm struggling to generalise but I'm sure the point is clear)