While it can certainly be tempting to bring the claws out, especially if liberals engage in clear bad-faith, I personally have found far more success in reaching non-Socialists when maintaining a level head and trying to focus on bringing unity. That doesn’t mean blunting my views or hiding them, of course, but it does require trying to maintain good faith and limiting personal attacks to an absolute minimum. Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist does an excellent job explaining the importance of patience and kindness with well-meaning but ill-informed people, as these are potential comrades. It also helps keep us in touch with the real feelings of the working class as a whole.
I think Huey P. Newton of the Black Panther Party explained this process very well:
I dissuade Party members from putting down people who do not understand. Even people who are unenlightened and seemingly bourgeois should be answered in a polite way. Things should be explained to them as fully as possible. I was turned off by a person who did not want to talk to me because I was not important enough. Maurice just wanted to preach to the converted, who already agreed with him. I try to be cordial, because that way you win people over. You cannot win them over by drawing the line of demarcation, saying you are on this side and I am on the other; that shows a lack of consciousness. After the Black Panther Party was formed, I nearly fell into this error. I could not understand why people were blind to what I saw so clearly. Then I realized that their understanding had to be developed.
I bolded specifically something I have noticed many comrades focusing on in this space, and as a Communist I would like to see us foster larger outreach. There will always be people who engage in clear bad-faith and insult us, of course, but the only way for the Left to win is to expand, and to do that we must put in the legwork to meet people where they are at from a place of humility and common goals.
At the same time, don’t let fascists and reactionaries go unopposed, don’t tone-police comrades, and don’t bother with maintaining “civility.” There’s a large gulf between potential comrades and active adversaries, and pacifism does the enemy’s job for them. Not all ideas are valid, and people should be called out for horrible views and behavior without worry of being aggressive. Racists, transphobes, homophobes, fascists, and reactionaries in general should be openly made fun of and combatted viciously.
As somebody who voted against Obama twice people like you are the ones who got through to me.
Nobody made some amazing argument that just flipped my world. There wasn’t some big revelation. I wasn’t embarrassed or dunked on so thoroughly that I snapped out of it or whatever. After a few years of just being around smart, decent people who preached empathy and brought my attention to what marginalized groups deal with every day, I just slowly became more and more progressive until one day I looked around and realized how much I changed. When I said something ignorant or just generally spoke with confidence on a subject I simply did not understand (which as someone of [you can guess the demographic] was very very common!) they corrected me and moved on. No big fight, but they certainly didn’t let it slide.
I have a lot of growing up to do make no mistake. But I am definitely not where I was 15 years ago. The older I get, the more left I find myself becoming lol
Yep, we all have our journeys. I won’t discount the idea that different tactics work for different people, but personal experience has told me people generally are more receptive when you come from a place of humility. Honestly, Mao’s principle of “no investigation, no right to speak” comes in handy every day.
Despite the meme, I totally agree! Most liberals I encounter are well-intentioned, but have been indoctrinated into thinking that capitalism is the best system we have available. Being patient and answering questions that explain what you actually believe, not what they’ve been told you believe, goes a long way. That said, being patient like that definitely a skill that is not always easy to get right, and certainly takes practice.
Yep, just felt like it was a good companion to your overall post! Didn’t want to demean or take away from it or you, but instead address something that I felt could have been used as ammo by bad actors otherwise (as is common on this platform).
being patient like that definitely a skill that is not always easy to get right, and certainly takes practice.
What it mostly takes is mountains of privilege.
Not to mention that tone policing and demanding faux civility (but only from one side, the other gets to openly support oppressive constructs and still be seen as “well meaning” while those defending their humanity and fighting for survival get framed as the problem) are tools that serve to further oppress already marginalise voices, not uplift them.
If you go in with that attitude, though, are you there to try to convert people to your side. Or are you only there to berate them and make yourself feel better for having done so?
That doesn’t mean you put up with bad faith engagement. That doesn’t mean you allow them to burden you with the emotional and mental weight of the argument. That they can watch the consequences without fear of it harming their self is exactly why you need to watch your language. They lose nothing staying where they are, you need to convince them to give up resources (mental, emotional, financial) of their own to take up your position.
So, don’t put up with bullshit, and you don’t have to be nice about it, but you do have to be patient of your goal is to actually convert people over. Not everyone’s role is to convert people, though, some people are only fighters. Just make sure the fighting is directed in the right places.
There’s a difference between tone policing and humility, a pretty large one, in fact. Huey P. Newton (and myself, by extension) are not blaming those emotionally exhausted or tired. I refuse to condemn those who speak truth to power, or who have a fiery tone. Lenin is one of my favorite writers, and he never held back. Same with Frantz Fanon. However, I have found a good amount of success by trying to be patient with others, and this is a fact I’ve had to grapple with.
Basically, even if patience is more effective for some people, I refuse to condemn those that choose a more direct and confrontational path. Finger-wagging about “civility” is obviously wrong. Moreover, legitimate fascists and reactionaries are not the same as “well-meaning but misinformed” people as I originally spoke of, and generally should be outright opposed with little care for civility or hostility.
The voices of marginalized people should be especially listened to and not tone-policed in any way either. Racists, transphobes, homophobes, fascists, and reactionaries in general should be openly made fun of and combatted viciously.
Moreover, legitimate fascists and reactionaries are not the same as “well-meaning but misinformed” people
Yeah, this is the big point. If they’re “…[invalidating] your humanity, and the humanity of people you love,” they are just abusing your patience, and don’t deserve it. Fuck those people.
Nobody said it would be easy or fair, only that it would be necessary for an audience that is predisposed to oppose you to be charitable and hear what you are saying.
Whenever I see these sorts of posts I think about how different they are from revolutionaries who have accomished major successes. The latter group almost universally says you have to keep explaining, keep educating, keep persuading.
I don’t think it can be said enough that bringing revolutionary change will require doing a hundred things we would rather not do. It is labor, and it is unpaid, because that’s what a social movement requires to differentiate it from posting. I’d rather not go to meetings, or organize my workplace, or go to a protest, or go on strike – but if it’s necessary to get to socialism, I’ll do it. I’d rather not put in the effort of patiently bringing people along to my views, but if that works better than telling them to fuck off, I’ll do it.
I use this in all areas, if the goal is communication then you want to convey a message and have a person be receptive. If you insult a person they immediately get defensive and will instinctively reject or try to combat what you’re trying to convey to them. It’s literally the opposite of what you’d want to be achieving.
The way I see it is insults are for “me,” they’re self serving in that “I” feel better about myself and feel some sort of justification for insulting you (I personally don’t, but I see the appeal.) but if the point is about communication then “I don’t matter” it isn’t about me it’s about the idea.
I think the other thing that people need to remember is that when online on platforms like Lemmy, Twitter, etc, you aren’t just having a one on one conversation. There are other people reading the exchange. People who would otherwise be allies, can still be alienated, even without anyone directly saying anything to them.
Also, there seems to be far too many people who are willing to let perfect be the enemy of good. If your opinions don’t exactly match theirs, you are indoctrinated, evil, stupid, malicious, etc.
The social aspect is why I often continue engaging even when the other person is clearly acting in bad-faith, by maintaining a level-head I get boosted outreach to onlookers. Realistically, most people aren’t going to change their minds over a Lemmy conversation, and if they are willing to be this usually shows in the first or second comment, but often engaging can show others and help outreach.
Debatebroism is bad and poor outreach, though, the focus should be on unity and not on dominating, hence the importance of humility.
Most people aren’t going to change their minds over a Lemmy conversation, but a significant number will change their minds over a bunch if conversations.
There’s a Mao quote I can’t find about how party members shouldn’t presume they can change people’s long-held political opinions with just a lecture or two. Deeply held beliefs by definition take a long time to change.
I’m not sure there’s a good definition of this. Your comment makes great points and I read it as respectful to comrades who might disagree, but I’ve seen similar comments called tone policing before. It’s also hard for me to imagine an organization upholding a party line on an issue without some method of policing how its members communicate about that issue.
Ultimately, there’s a difference between social media and an organized party, if we aren’t bound by DemCent and aren’t speaking with comrades, but anyone from fascists to liberals, there’s little to be done in the way of productive tone policing. It’s a nuanced issue, transphobes, racists, fascists, etc shouldn’t really be protected out of “civility.” Moreover, telling people expressing anger towards reactionaries to “tone it down” and keep being patient can backfire, especially in the case of marginalized comrades who are used to being silenced by reactionaries.
While it can certainly be tempting to bring the claws out, especially if liberals engage in clear bad-faith, I personally have found far more success in reaching non-Socialists when maintaining a level head and trying to focus on bringing unity. That doesn’t mean blunting my views or hiding them, of course, but it does require trying to maintain good faith and limiting personal attacks to an absolute minimum. Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist does an excellent job explaining the importance of patience and kindness with well-meaning but ill-informed people, as these are potential comrades. It also helps keep us in touch with the real feelings of the working class as a whole.
I think Huey P. Newton of the Black Panther Party explained this process very well:
I bolded specifically something I have noticed many comrades focusing on in this space, and as a Communist I would like to see us foster larger outreach. There will always be people who engage in clear bad-faith and insult us, of course, but the only way for the Left to win is to expand, and to do that we must put in the legwork to meet people where they are at from a place of humility and common goals.
At the same time, don’t let fascists and reactionaries go unopposed, don’t tone-police comrades, and don’t bother with maintaining “civility.” There’s a large gulf between potential comrades and active adversaries, and pacifism does the enemy’s job for them. Not all ideas are valid, and people should be called out for horrible views and behavior without worry of being aggressive. Racists, transphobes, homophobes, fascists, and reactionaries in general should be openly made fun of and combatted viciously.
It’s a careful balance.
As somebody who voted against Obama twice people like you are the ones who got through to me.
Nobody made some amazing argument that just flipped my world. There wasn’t some big revelation. I wasn’t embarrassed or dunked on so thoroughly that I snapped out of it or whatever. After a few years of just being around smart, decent people who preached empathy and brought my attention to what marginalized groups deal with every day, I just slowly became more and more progressive until one day I looked around and realized how much I changed. When I said something ignorant or just generally spoke with confidence on a subject I simply did not understand (which as someone of [you can guess the demographic] was very very common!) they corrected me and moved on. No big fight, but they certainly didn’t let it slide.
I have a lot of growing up to do make no mistake. But I am definitely not where I was 15 years ago. The older I get, the more left I find myself becoming lol
Yep, we all have our journeys. I won’t discount the idea that different tactics work for different people, but personal experience has told me people generally are more receptive when you come from a place of humility. Honestly, Mao’s principle of “no investigation, no right to speak” comes in handy every day.
Despite the meme, I totally agree! Most liberals I encounter are well-intentioned, but have been indoctrinated into thinking that capitalism is the best system we have available. Being patient and answering questions that explain what you actually believe, not what they’ve been told you believe, goes a long way. That said, being patient like that definitely a skill that is not always easy to get right, and certainly takes practice.
Yep, just felt like it was a good companion to your overall post! Didn’t want to demean or take away from it or you, but instead address something that I felt could have been used as ammo by bad actors otherwise (as is common on this platform).
What it mostly takes is mountains of privilege.
Not to mention that tone policing and demanding faux civility (but only from one side, the other gets to openly support oppressive constructs and still be seen as “well meaning” while those defending their humanity and fighting for survival get framed as the problem) are tools that serve to further oppress already marginalise voices, not uplift them.
Do better.
If you go in with that attitude, though, are you there to try to convert people to your side. Or are you only there to berate them and make yourself feel better for having done so?
That doesn’t mean you put up with bad faith engagement. That doesn’t mean you allow them to burden you with the emotional and mental weight of the argument. That they can watch the consequences without fear of it harming their self is exactly why you need to watch your language. They lose nothing staying where they are, you need to convince them to give up resources (mental, emotional, financial) of their own to take up your position.
So, don’t put up with bullshit, and you don’t have to be nice about it, but you do have to be patient of your goal is to actually convert people over. Not everyone’s role is to convert people, though, some people are only fighters. Just make sure the fighting is directed in the right places.
There’s a difference between tone policing and humility, a pretty large one, in fact. Huey P. Newton (and myself, by extension) are not blaming those emotionally exhausted or tired. I refuse to condemn those who speak truth to power, or who have a fiery tone. Lenin is one of my favorite writers, and he never held back. Same with Frantz Fanon. However, I have found a good amount of success by trying to be patient with others, and this is a fact I’ve had to grapple with.
Basically, even if patience is more effective for some people, I refuse to condemn those that choose a more direct and confrontational path. Finger-wagging about “civility” is obviously wrong. Moreover, legitimate fascists and reactionaries are not the same as “well-meaning but misinformed” people as I originally spoke of, and generally should be outright opposed with little care for civility or hostility.
The voices of marginalized people should be especially listened to and not tone-policed in any way either. Racists, transphobes, homophobes, fascists, and reactionaries in general should be openly made fun of and combatted viciously.
Yeah, this is the big point. If they’re “…[invalidating] your humanity, and the humanity of people you love,” they are just abusing your patience, and don’t deserve it. Fuck those people.
Nobody said it would be easy or fair, only that it would be necessary for an audience that is predisposed to oppose you to be charitable and hear what you are saying.
Whenever I see these sorts of posts I think about how different they are from revolutionaries who have accomished major successes. The latter group almost universally says you have to keep explaining, keep educating, keep persuading.
I don’t think it can be said enough that bringing revolutionary change will require doing a hundred things we would rather not do. It is labor, and it is unpaid, because that’s what a social movement requires to differentiate it from posting. I’d rather not go to meetings, or organize my workplace, or go to a protest, or go on strike – but if it’s necessary to get to socialism, I’ll do it. I’d rather not put in the effort of patiently bringing people along to my views, but if that works better than telling them to fuck off, I’ll do it.
I use this in all areas, if the goal is communication then you want to convey a message and have a person be receptive. If you insult a person they immediately get defensive and will instinctively reject or try to combat what you’re trying to convey to them. It’s literally the opposite of what you’d want to be achieving.
The way I see it is insults are for “me,” they’re self serving in that “I” feel better about myself and feel some sort of justification for insulting you (I personally don’t, but I see the appeal.) but if the point is about communication then “I don’t matter” it isn’t about me it’s about the idea.
I think the other thing that people need to remember is that when online on platforms like Lemmy, Twitter, etc, you aren’t just having a one on one conversation. There are other people reading the exchange. People who would otherwise be allies, can still be alienated, even without anyone directly saying anything to them.
Also, there seems to be far too many people who are willing to let perfect be the enemy of good. If your opinions don’t exactly match theirs, you are indoctrinated, evil, stupid, malicious, etc.
The social aspect is why I often continue engaging even when the other person is clearly acting in bad-faith, by maintaining a level-head I get boosted outreach to onlookers. Realistically, most people aren’t going to change their minds over a Lemmy conversation, and if they are willing to be this usually shows in the first or second comment, but often engaging can show others and help outreach.
Debatebroism is bad and poor outreach, though, the focus should be on unity and not on dominating, hence the importance of humility.
Most people aren’t going to change their minds over a Lemmy conversation, but a significant number will change their minds over a bunch if conversations.
There’s a Mao quote I can’t find about how party members shouldn’t presume they can change people’s long-held political opinions with just a lecture or two. Deeply held beliefs by definition take a long time to change.
Yep, exactly. That’s why it’s good to have these conversations, but the manner and context matters a lot too. There’s a good deal of nuance involved.
I’m not sure there’s a good definition of this. Your comment makes great points and I read it as respectful to comrades who might disagree, but I’ve seen similar comments called tone policing before. It’s also hard for me to imagine an organization upholding a party line on an issue without some method of policing how its members communicate about that issue.
Ultimately, there’s a difference between social media and an organized party, if we aren’t bound by DemCent and aren’t speaking with comrades, but anyone from fascists to liberals, there’s little to be done in the way of productive tone policing. It’s a nuanced issue, transphobes, racists, fascists, etc shouldn’t really be protected out of “civility.” Moreover, telling people expressing anger towards reactionaries to “tone it down” and keep being patient can backfire, especially in the case of marginalized comrades who are used to being silenced by reactionaries.