this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
74 points (93.0% liked)
Progressive Politics
1125 readers
234 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
'they' are not actually attempting a dialog. they will say outrageous things knowing only you are required to defend them as a person who is attempting serious dialog. they will never defend the outrageous claims they make.
The gish gallop and the firehose of falsehood. It makes truth and facts meaningless if allowed.
But what if I don’t mind engaging with fascists? I don’t personally find it harmful to me to debate them, and I don’t like leaving their claims unchallenged.
Obviously one needs a slightly different approach when dealing with people that are not engaging in good faith, but I still think there’s value in helping the community understand why and how they are wrong.
I also enjoy that debate motivates me to do research and understand the issues more deeply. This is valuable for me, even if I don’t persuade anyone else about anything.
I understand some people may not want to do this, and I respect that and am happy to do this so they don’t have to. But if you’re like me, I don’t see any reason not to push back even if it does take some time.
I’m super guilty of this too, but the thing is it gives them a performative platform to spread more BS.
Without you they either stop with dozens of downvotes, or continue replying to themselves making them look more and more crazy.
Engaging in view of the community makes it look like there is something of value to engage with when there is not. Simply engaging gives them legitimacy.
If you’re are interested in debate with them I’d suggest taking it to PMs. I suspect they won’t continue the conversation out of view, but I could be wrong.
Does it necessarily though? When I’m responding to this kind of hate, I am usually trying to make it very clear that I’m taking out the trash. There is no implication of discourse between two similarly valid perspectives, it’s a no-holds barred takedown.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the way this will be perceived but for me it’s helpful to recognize misinformation when I see someone has already debunked it. I don’t think it does anything to platform them.
Of course, I also support deplatforming hate, but I don’t always have the power to do that directly. And sometimes by challenging views that are carefully framed so as to appear respectable, you can entice people to reveal their real views and motivations, and make such deplatforming more likely.
Dude I love debating with fascists. You obviously can't let them dictate the terms, but it's a chance for great educational setups that are just weird if you come in from nowhere and start talking about them.
They say Biden caused inflation and everyone's suffering because of him and only him
You say actually that's not true, working class wages have actually been rising (even adjusted for pretty punishing inflation) and that happened specifically because of policies X, Y, Z, and you link to a chart of wage growth over different income levels which some people may not have been aware of
They say how dare you defend Biden when everyone knows he's killing Palestinians on purpose
You say that's a really good point, he did take the biggest action on climate change in history by a margin of almost ten times over
They say wait wait I was talking about Palestinians
You say hey you're right Trump did say he wanted to just kill them all, and Biden (for all his fuckin war criminal weapons shipments) is weirdly enough the most anti-Israeli president (in terms of action) the US has ever had. For as sad a statement as that is. He put sanctions on settlers, he paused weapons shipments, etc etc, people should be aware, I'm glad you brought it up
They say what the fuck are you talking about he never put sanctions on settlers, or he undid them, their eyes already filling with aggrieved "this isn't fair" tears
You link to an editorial from some Israeli minister about how bullshit is Biden's behavior and why his actions against Israel are absolutely criminal and we need to get rid of him. Probably no one reading the exchange will have been aware of that editorial.
And so on
It's a blast
this is answered in the video
I watched it but I didn’t find the reasons compelling. That it’s difficult or possibly stressful doesn’t really interact with the reasons I have for doing it.
Maybe you can elaborate on what you mean and how you think the video addresses this?
"It takes longer to disprove one than make it."
if you spend time disproving their comments, they will simply make more because if you are wasting your time disproving them then you aren't working on building social structures to resist them. It is gifting them power.
I will now block you so I can focus on productive discussions.
OK do whatever you want but that is a weirdly aggressive approach to discourse.
Disputing misinformation is a form of social power, and realistically I’m not going to spend my online time organizing—it’s a form of recreation, and it doesn’t really compete with my work time. I don’t see those two things as competing. Regardless of what I do they will keep spreading misinformation but if people see the rebuttal they will be primed to reject it when they see it again even if I don’t have the time to respond to every one.
Weird spin. It looked like a productive and friendly conversation -- and they even bothered to watch the video! Do you block everyone that challenges anything you say? That's not blocking fascism, that's backing yourself into a carefully curated echo chamber.
I don't.
Didn't watch the video. But yeah, obviously.
Especially on a small site like Lemmy, I don't know why people want to constantly engage with the same people who refuse to listen to logic and facts.
Just block them and let them shout into the void.