And the second you repeat their claims, but with just a “no” in front of it, you have become part of their hate spreading machine.
When there’s an insane guy on the streetwalk preaching that the holocaust never happened, you do not debate him. You treat him as a psycho he is.
When there’s an insane group on the streetwalk preaching that the holocaust never happened, you do not debate them. You treat them as the psychos they are.
When you start debating, you are pretending that their argument has value, that it is worth being discussed.
The ability to be outright uninterested in debating and being properly outraged instead is an important one.
That thinking might work for a crazy guy on a street. Unfortunately, that is not what this is even remotely. It is harder to be “outright uninterested” when you are dealing with a large, organized and financed movement spreading this rhetoric and in many cases coordinating to enforce their vile stances to be exclusively taught in schools.
Taking that into account, being uninterested makes you part of the problem. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
I’m not advocating for being uninterested in the shit they are doing. I’m advocating for being uninterested in taking their stupid claims seriously.
To literally, actually be offended like an adult and seriously treating them like the lunatics they are.
If you are on a stage or a room with them and they spill this bullshit, demand they be removed. Be absolutely adamant, in a calm but still incredibly angry fashion. Like how the entire room reacts in “12 angry men” when the racist finally says what he dog whistled all the time. The kind of outrage that doesn’t require shouting or screaming because you are simply right and they are simply wrong and despicable.
It is a special kind of behavior that indicates everybody involved, on an emotional level, that they have crossed a border which will designate them as unsocial, as not part of a civilized group.
You must demand civility or outcast them. You must establish bounds that you will not compromise. It’s the only language they understand, short of violence.
I agree to an extent, but this is quite difficult in practice. They’re usually quite good at sugar coating their nonsense, and to get them to clearly enunciate the “quiet part” is very difficult.
But it needs to be done. So good on you if you have the skill set to illuminate the hate behind the flowery language, especially when they often don’t know the root of it.
As a brown person who lived in the south, my life wasn’t better because nobody talked about racism in the south, or covered it up in a flowery way.
People have to live through this, it’s horrible, and pretending everything is fine is the excuse those people are looking for to make it worse because clearly nobody cared.
Slaves weren’t freed because northern liberals stopped talking about it, they were freed because someone said “no” and made it stick.
Slaves weren’t freed because northern liberals stopped talking about it, they were freed because someone said “no” and made it stick.
Slaves weren’t free because northern liberals discussed the Southerners. They were freed because Northerners eventually said “that’s enough”.
And black people in the 60’s didn’t protest with signs saying “No, Im not a boy”. Their signs said “I am a man”. They didn’t debate for civility, the demanded it with seriousness.
The man shouting his denial regarding the holocaust is someone who has decided to take upon himself the judgement and cruelty of the public because he believes that they are being deceived and wants to give them information he thinks the people should have. In my experience, these people are sound in their logic, and it has been enlightening discussing these things with them. That’s going into a conversation, not an argument, especially when you’re not actually trying to do anything but be right. Keep in mind that group consensus is not the same thing as truth. Even if that group is the majority. even if that group includes the official narrative. Truth exists indifferent to majority and government support.
After all, this is the policy: “The one who wants to be deceived, let him be deceived.”
The truth is out there, and the man standing on his soapbox feels that he has uncovered ‘one of truth’s protective layers’ and he feels compelled to bring the truth to the people as he is aware that no one else is in any hurry to do so. That deserves respect, if you have noting nice to say, then say nothing. If you are able to challenge your previously held beliefs and biases, then hear him out with an open mind, then it comes down to logic, reason, and science. Hear a hypothesis, listen to the argument, and evaluate the evidence or lack thereof. If the hypothesis can be tested, test it. If an argument is logical, consider it. If evidence supports the logical argument, judge accordingly.
Ultimately, declaring that anyone is a “psycho” because they are saying something that you disagree with, makes you the “psycho”. As a Psychopath is in capable of empathy and is disinterested, even disgusted, in the opinions and beliefs of others and will dismiss them without a second thought. whereas, the man on the street cares about the truth, cares whether or not people know the truth, believes that people deserve the truth and is willing to deal with “psychos” who will be disgusted with him and treat him like garbage for attempting to speak the truth, all for the benefit of others.
Regardless of what the subject may be, though the Holocaust is a prime example. A solid argument has been made against it. it’s worth considering with an open mind, if for no reason other than to form a solid counter argument whenever the topic comes up. you can only form a counter argument by listening to the initial argument tho.
It’s nice to see people actually being reasonable and well-thought out. Too many peoples’ knee-jerk reaction these days is to immediately cut off and cut out anyone they don’t agree with, which is reprehensible. The reason these people are allowed to keep thinking the way that they do is because they are given zero opposition and are treated like monsters the moment they say something wrong or harmful. This is an instant recipe for tribalism and “us vs them,” building of social barriers and echo chambers. Your approach on the other hand bolsters community and helps steer people towards the actual facts, as they are going to be more receptive to someone willing to listen to them and treat them as a human being despite thinking they’re wrong.
And the second you repeat their claims, but with just a “no” in front of it, you have become part of their hate spreading machine.
When there’s an insane guy on the streetwalk preaching that the holocaust never happened, you do not debate him. You treat him as a psycho he is.
When there’s an insane group on the streetwalk preaching that the holocaust never happened, you do not debate them. You treat them as the psychos they are.
When you start debating, you are pretending that their argument has value, that it is worth being discussed.
The ability to be outright uninterested in debating and being properly outraged instead is an important one.
That thinking might work for a crazy guy on a street. Unfortunately, that is not what this is even remotely. It is harder to be “outright uninterested” when you are dealing with a large, organized and financed movement spreading this rhetoric and in many cases coordinating to enforce their vile stances to be exclusively taught in schools.
Taking that into account, being uninterested makes you part of the problem. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
I’m not advocating for being uninterested in the shit they are doing. I’m advocating for being uninterested in taking their stupid claims seriously.
To literally, actually be offended like an adult and seriously treating them like the lunatics they are.
If you are on a stage or a room with them and they spill this bullshit, demand they be removed. Be absolutely adamant, in a calm but still incredibly angry fashion. Like how the entire room reacts in “12 angry men” when the racist finally says what he dog whistled all the time. The kind of outrage that doesn’t require shouting or screaming because you are simply right and they are simply wrong and despicable.
It is a special kind of behavior that indicates everybody involved, on an emotional level, that they have crossed a border which will designate them as unsocial, as not part of a civilized group.
You must demand civility or outcast them. You must establish bounds that you will not compromise. It’s the only language they understand, short of violence.
I agree to an extent, but this is quite difficult in practice. They’re usually quite good at sugar coating their nonsense, and to get them to clearly enunciate the “quiet part” is very difficult.
But it needs to be done. So good on you if you have the skill set to illuminate the hate behind the flowery language, especially when they often don’t know the root of it.
As a brown person who lived in the south, my life wasn’t better because nobody talked about racism in the south, or covered it up in a flowery way.
People have to live through this, it’s horrible, and pretending everything is fine is the excuse those people are looking for to make it worse because clearly nobody cared.
Slaves weren’t freed because northern liberals stopped talking about it, they were freed because someone said “no” and made it stick.
Slaves weren’t free because northern liberals discussed the Southerners. They were freed because Northerners eventually said “that’s enough”.
And black people in the 60’s didn’t protest with signs saying “No, Im not a boy”. Their signs said “I am a man”. They didn’t debate for civility, the demanded it with seriousness.
Agreed, the only mistake was not going far enough, or the south wouldn’t have remained so horrible.
There’s no reason to repeat the claim verbatim unless it’s just to get likes. You can’t even claim it is in the interest of debate with that context.
The man shouting his denial regarding the holocaust is someone who has decided to take upon himself the judgement and cruelty of the public because he believes that they are being deceived and wants to give them information he thinks the people should have. In my experience, these people are sound in their logic, and it has been enlightening discussing these things with them. That’s going into a conversation, not an argument, especially when you’re not actually trying to do anything but be right. Keep in mind that group consensus is not the same thing as truth. Even if that group is the majority. even if that group includes the official narrative. Truth exists indifferent to majority and government support.
After all, this is the policy: “The one who wants to be deceived, let him be deceived.”
The truth is out there, and the man standing on his soapbox feels that he has uncovered ‘one of truth’s protective layers’ and he feels compelled to bring the truth to the people as he is aware that no one else is in any hurry to do so. That deserves respect, if you have noting nice to say, then say nothing. If you are able to challenge your previously held beliefs and biases, then hear him out with an open mind, then it comes down to logic, reason, and science. Hear a hypothesis, listen to the argument, and evaluate the evidence or lack thereof. If the hypothesis can be tested, test it. If an argument is logical, consider it. If evidence supports the logical argument, judge accordingly.
Ultimately, declaring that anyone is a “psycho” because they are saying something that you disagree with, makes you the “psycho”. As a Psychopath is in capable of empathy and is disinterested, even disgusted, in the opinions and beliefs of others and will dismiss them without a second thought. whereas, the man on the street cares about the truth, cares whether or not people know the truth, believes that people deserve the truth and is willing to deal with “psychos” who will be disgusted with him and treat him like garbage for attempting to speak the truth, all for the benefit of others.
Regardless of what the subject may be, though the Holocaust is a prime example. A solid argument has been made against it. it’s worth considering with an open mind, if for no reason other than to form a solid counter argument whenever the topic comes up. you can only form a counter argument by listening to the initial argument tho.
It’s nice to see people actually being reasonable and well-thought out. Too many peoples’ knee-jerk reaction these days is to immediately cut off and cut out anyone they don’t agree with, which is reprehensible. The reason these people are allowed to keep thinking the way that they do is because they are given zero opposition and are treated like monsters the moment they say something wrong or harmful. This is an instant recipe for tribalism and “us vs them,” building of social barriers and echo chambers. Your approach on the other hand bolsters community and helps steer people towards the actual facts, as they are going to be more receptive to someone willing to listen to them and treat them as a human being despite thinking they’re wrong.
deleted by creator