4 ms·

"Revealed"? I'm sorry? The only person who can display "genuine curiosity" over the nth dimwit making the same set of already thoroughly debunked claims for t

by mftrhu 5y ago

"Revealed"? I'm sorry? The only person who can display "genuine curiosity" over the nth dimwit making the same set of already thoroughly debunked claims for the hundredth time - claims that get repeated, only infinitesimally changed, over timeframes measured in years to decades - is someone who suffers from heavy memory problems. Engaging with them is frankly pointless: even if they are willing and able to learn - which is a big if - there's always another person around the corner ready to take their place, and argue the inarguable. Oh, sure, there are probably a lot of people, at any point of time, who are willing to engage with them in good faith, but bullshit is fundamentally asymmetric: they do get tired of it. At that point, the only real solution is to either stop engaging - and let them appear unopposed, while other people burn themselves out in an effort to bring them the light - try to shut them down, or - in loosely moderated places - deploy mockery and use them as a teaching tool: people who think themselves rational do not, as a rule, want to be associated - even in their own minds - with people who are absolutely foaming at the mouth to spew easily-debunked bullshit, and who get ridiculed as a result. Most of these bad actors do not possess a lot of self-control, and are easily riled up, or otherwise convinced to go mask off in a way that makes them unpalatable to the general population - say, by simply asking them to discuss their beliefs further - which makes this method very effective in limiting the spread of their memes. TL;DR: "revealed"? I'm sorry?

notch656a 5y ago
You're relying on the (inaccurate) fact that this tactic is designed specifically in mind to shut down trans-haters/trans-disinformation (I lack the right word here, but you know what I mean, people who are seen as spreading damaging and likely untrue information about LGBTQ). Ignoring the debate about whether our methodologies should be applied uniformly, even to trans disparagers or even people like Nazis, this turns out to be a false assumption. Kelseyfrog repeatedly engages in this ("luring" Socratic methodology) behavior on a variety of topics, including ideas that don't involve disparaging trans population such as on property and the state. Usually they are not so straight forward about their intentions, but as you have proven in a crystal clear fashion, this topic has provided perfect cover for 'frog to reveal their true intentions. After all -- anyone questioning them can be accused of interfering with some sort of process meant to limit "spread of memes" about trans persons. A convenient way to offload blame from the self and onto an unsavory other.
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Just wanted this to die down because this is like meta-meta discourse at this point. I love this tactic because it gets people to earnestly say what they believe. More people in debates should say what they believe. The problem is when people don't want to reveal what they believe. These people know their assumptions and conclusions are socially unacceptable. Socially unacceptable beliefs make people feel socially isolated. This isolation creates a pressure in them so great that when someone asks them to continue speaking, they cannot stop. They are so used to being told to stop that they don't know how to handle someone asking them to speak. By now it's clear that the trap has been set. When they reveal their true beliefs, they temporarily forget that they are in front of an audience. They have unwittingly been made part of a performance they didn't want to be in, but at this point it is too late. The audience here is the true judge, and the audience is a harsh critic. The audience enjoys the theatrics of the villain performing their grand reveal and they enjoy the justice in seeing them make this critical error. So many subversives couch their true beliefs in meta-irony. finger on nose "Am I joking about these reprehensible beliefs or do I really believe them? We'll never know but we're making it ok to say them. uwu." The end results are the same. Either they will learn not to say them - eventually eradicating the belief, or they will say them and the audience will learn from them not to believe them. As you are well aware, I'm ok with both.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    I understand your justification boils down to 'did it for the greater social good to out people I disagree with.' It doesn't make me look any more favorably on you. You engage in 'luring', drawing people into performances they 'didn't want to be in' and set 'traps.' Some of these people you engage may be genuinely bad and disingenuous people, others may be honest and well meaning people with bad ideas. And some, may simply have ideas you disagree with and don't have bad ideas at all. You on the other hand, are cool and calculated while laying in wait with what you characterize as 'traps' for others. Frankly I think you're no better than the individuals you intend to impugn. You use your remarkable intelligence for deceit, and even brag about it. Dishonest behavior is not the way to fix unsavory influences. But the greatest tyrannies and misdeeds happen under guise of acting on the greater good, and this same rationale tends to make people act in the boldest fashion when they otherwise would not.

by mftrhu 5y ago

notch656a 5y ago

You're relying on the (inaccurate) fact that this tactic is designed specifically in mind to shut down trans-haters/trans-disinformation (I lack the right word here, but you know what I mean, people who are seen as spreading damaging and likely untrue information about LGBTQ). Ignoring the debate about whether our methodologies should be applied uniformly, even to trans disparagers or even people like Nazis, this turns out to be a false assumption. Kelseyfrog repeatedly engages in this ("luring" Socratic methodology) behavior on a variety of topics, including ideas that don't involve disparaging trans population such as on property and the state. Usually they are not so straight forward about their intentions, but as you have proven in a crystal clear fashion, this topic has provided perfect cover for 'frog to reveal their true intentions. After all -- anyone questioning them can be accused of interfering with some sort of process meant to limit "spread of memes" about trans persons. A convenient way to offload blame from the self and onto an unsavory other.

kelseyfrog 5y ago
Just wanted this to die down because this is like meta-meta discourse at this point. I love this tactic because it gets people to earnestly say what they believe. More people in debates should say what they believe. The problem is when people don't want to reveal what they believe. These people know their assumptions and conclusions are socially unacceptable. Socially unacceptable beliefs make people feel socially isolated. This isolation creates a pressure in them so great that when someone asks them to continue speaking, they cannot stop. They are so used to being told to stop that they don't know how to handle someone asking them to speak. By now it's clear that the trap has been set. When they reveal their true beliefs, they temporarily forget that they are in front of an audience. They have unwittingly been made part of a performance they didn't want to be in, but at this point it is too late. The audience here is the true judge, and the audience is a harsh critic. The audience enjoys the theatrics of the villain performing their grand reveal and they enjoy the justice in seeing them make this critical error. So many subversives couch their true beliefs in meta-irony. finger on nose "Am I joking about these reprehensible beliefs or do I really believe them? We'll never know but we're making it ok to say them. uwu." The end results are the same. Either they will learn not to say them - eventually eradicating the belief, or they will say them and the audience will learn from them not to believe them. As you are well aware, I'm ok with both.
- notch656a 5y ago
  I understand your justification boils down to 'did it for the greater social good to out people I disagree with.' It doesn't make me look any more favorably on you. You engage in 'luring', drawing people into performances they 'didn't want to be in' and set 'traps.' Some of these people you engage may be genuinely bad and disingenuous people, others may be honest and well meaning people with bad ideas. And some, may simply have ideas you disagree with and don't have bad ideas at all. You on the other hand, are cool and calculated while laying in wait with what you characterize as 'traps' for others. Frankly I think you're no better than the individuals you intend to impugn. You use your remarkable intelligence for deceit, and even brag about it. Dishonest behavior is not the way to fix unsavory influences. But the greatest tyrannies and misdeeds happen under guise of acting on the greater good, and this same rationale tends to make people act in the boldest fashion when they otherwise would not.