One thing I’ve learned is you can’t engage in a rational debate with an irrational person.
Yeah, you can plant seeds… But you won’t win anything. And the seeds, you plant will be absorbed by others looking on mostly.
I don’t think most of the people we are talking about are irrational.
They are arguing in bad faith.
It’s not that they are stupid, it’s that they’re stubborn.
And arguing against them actually poses risks because they will lie about what you said if they can use it to polish their lies.
I honestly wish I could upvote you more because this is exactly the problem.
Maybe assuming you are the only one with reason in a conversation is the problem. You don’t have to agree with someone to understand their point of view or reasoning.
Its definitely easier to ban or block if all you want is a circle jerk though.
There is no debating with people that believe in mythology as real life. Who says there is a lake of fire I’ll go to because I’m queer, who vote for someone their religion says is the anti-christ. Blocking is just avoiding stepping in shit.
One could spend the enegry to spin their own beliefs to demostrate their contradictions… but their cognitive dissonance will cause them to just dig deeper to maintain their world view… people have to have an open mind before any rational debates can be made.
Yup, you can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into
For most of my life, I was pretty quiet about being an atheist, and literally all of my friends were Christian; *they assumed I was too, and it was easier to let them. Eventually I stopped caring who knew, and finally told a few of my friends that I’m atheist. In every case, the response was ‘you can’t be atheist – you’re too nice’.
A couple of them flat-out refused to believe I’m atheist, telling me that I’m actually Christian, I just don’t go to church or pray, and that’s okay. Utterly refusing to accept I don’t believe in their god, and trying to convince me of all the reasons I’m acktuaaly a believer, even if I don’t think I am. It’s been confusing and maddening. Some of these conversations have gone on for more than a decade.
Many people will straight-up refuse to see anything that doesn’t conform to their worldview, and there’s not a thing you can say to break through it.
e: *
Damn - I’d be so down for that discussion, for no other reason than I’d be fascinated at their definition of Christian that’s inclusive of not believing there is one existant God, who created the world, and whose representative/earthly form died to absolve us of our sins.
Like, you can follow every other rule in the book Ned Flanders style if you want, but these are the basic requirements to be a Christian (regardless if you’re a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ one). Decent chance it ends with a hard, interesting look at the basis for their personal faith, if you have the patience and energy to pull at that for a while.
But unless you find that part interesting and just wanna be an atheist living your life, yeah, that sounds exhausting and irritating, and it sucks they’re acting this way with you.
I actually enjoy religious debate to a point (until it becomes circular).
Responses I’ve got usually settle on the fact my outlook and actions follow Jesus’s teachings, and that because I have morals – and god is the originator of morals – I clearly do follow god, even if I don’t want to admit it to myself.
Trying to tell people that ethics didn’t originate with their bible, and that obviously people had morals tens of thousands of years before Christianity even existed (because otherwise cooperative societies would not have formed) is something they can’t even fathom, it’s so far outside their worldview.
Some insist I must believe in god in order to reject him, and can’t understand when I point out they don’t have to believe in leprechauns in order to reject them.
For indoctrinated and devout Christians, there doesn’t seem to be a way to break through the fog. I’ve two friends who will begin shouting at me over this, though they’re perfectly reasonable the rest of the time. Years of this is exhausting, as you say, so now I’ve mostly stopped trying.
deleted by creator
I’m with you, but understanding someone’s view sometimes means acknowledging that it is, in fact, irrational. There are reasons some give as to why they think that cis women need protection from trans women, but those reasons are either not rational since the vast majority of evidence is to the contrary, or they are founded on the extreme minority of evidence that confirms them (meaning the search for evidence was conducted irrationally).
If I try to understand someone’s point of view, restate it to them in a way they accept, and present overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and their response is to say the evidence is irrelevant because it’s possible some of it was biased, that’s irrational.
I don’t want a circle jerk, I just want to not see people tell me that facts that have been scientifically proven a million times are actually wrong because their old book said so (or at least they intepreted it that way) or cheerlead a genocide.
tolerance is a contract, not a gift.
my fist is a gift to the faces of bigots
To avoid bigotry is really hard nower days. I don’t like Israels genocide but don’t think all Jews or even Israelis are monsters. I absolutely hate the Iranian politics of murdering women for getting raped and similar stuff, but I don’t think war is the solution. And suddenly someone jumps out of the woodwork blaming you “for support of genocide”… am I the bigot? I don’t know any more…
Moooooooood
You can’t explain stupid to stupid.
You kind of can, but for the most part, it is better to just not engage unless they are showing themselves to be an open and honest interlocutor.
TIL the word “interlocutor”
“1. a person who takes part in a dialogue or conversation.”
I’ve been trying to find an alternative to interlocutor because I didn’t think it made sense in english. Life is about to get much easier !
Thanks to you that apple is a Nazi now
/s just in case
Apple: I was a very far left leftist with strong values a d principles but then someone was rude to me on the internet and forced me to become a Nazi.
deleted by creator
An open society that doesn’t want the intolerant to undermine and topple it must be ready to defend itself - by reason and argument if possible, but these may fail because the intolerant reject reason itself. Force should be the last resort, but if all other means prove fruitless, it should be a resort still.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
You’re the apple
Well, I’m not homophobic, transphobic, or racist. Seems to be the general group that’s being blocked.
If someone wants to argue economy with me, I’ll bite. If someone wants to argue about whether or not trans people deserve rights, I will block
See, this disingenuous argument works better when you just generalize it, because when you get into specifics it looks very different. Example:
Step 1: label the people that hold the belief that ‘trans people are subhuman trash that need to be excised from society by violence if necessary’ as intolerant
Step 2: skip diplomacy because they refuse to engage in actual conversation
Step 3: use force on them because they are actually attacking trans people.
Although really even parts 2 & 3 are disingenuous, because there are plenty of examples of people trying to engage the intolerant in debate, far beyond what would really be reasonable even. And you’ll also notice that force is rarely, if ever, used against those intolerant folks either, even as they use force, even deadly force.
Hell, even the law won’t do more than slap their wrists in many cases. I use trans people as an example because until recently, ‘I went on a date with this lady and then found out she was trans, and I was so shocked I killed her’ was an actual legitimate legal defense and several people used it. If we’re being pedantic, that defense is still perfectly acceptable at the national level, as several bills banning it have been introduced, but none have been passed.
Step 1: someone says trans people are bad and wrong
Step 1.5: live in a world providing plenty of evidence to the contrary. (No action required)
Step 2: attempt diplomacy by saying that statement is probably false and its use will be reacted to with force. (Often a previously stated rule and therefore no action required)
Step 3: use force.
The fact is, saying that anyone has “skipped diplomacy” is also disingenuous. The discussions bigots are trying to have aren’t novel, they’ve been had to the extent that they are solved. No one “decided” they are bigots and have to get kicked out, it’s a conclusion.
Step 1: someone says trans people are bad and wrong (subtext: and therefore we should do something about it)
“Oh, but I’m just expressing my opinion. What’s wrong with that? Am I not allowed to have opinions anymore? Surely you are the actually intolerant one, because I only implied that I don’t think trans people should exist by saying they are bad and wrong”
It’s frustrating because subtext does exist and matter. They only acknowledge the subtext in their bigoted assertions when it’s convenient for them.
Edit: accidentally a word
A contest of ideologies is nothing new nor inherently despicable. To declare an opposing ideology an enemy is nothing new nor inherently despicable. That’s how war has always worked, and defending yourself against those seeking to overpower you is nothing wrong. In that respect, both sides are the same, and that is the nature of opposition.
But I did not skip diplomacy. I did a lot of arguing, online and offline, and still do. I tried reasoning, and still do.
What makes me different is that I don’t think people should be oppressed for things they can’t control. I don’t think being poor makes you a worse person, nor rich a better one. I don’t think people born in marginalised demographics that are denied the same opportunities to prosper, tautologically lacking the prosperity to improve their lot, should be stuck in that cycle. I don’t think civilians should be bombed by imperialist fascists for their ethnicity.
More critically, I don’t think a burger flipper working full time should make less than I do. I don’t think people should have to fear for their existence. I think we all - you included - deserve a happy, pleasant life. You shouldn’t have to worry about affording medical care, having a roof over your head or having enough food to survive. Luxuries, we can talk, but bare necessities shouldn’t be an issue.
This is what separates me from the people spreading bullshit about Haitians, inciting racial violence, privatising healthcare, propping up the oligarchy while bleeding the people for every last ounce of labour they can get away with:
I would rather have people I hate live comfortably, if it means that all the decent people can live comfortably too, rather than seeking to tear down everyone else for my own benefit.
I want you to be happy, along with the rest of us.
Those steps stink, probably because you pulled them out of your ass.
Step 1: label people you don’t like as intolerant
Step 2: skip diplomacy because of course
Looks like you’ve already completed steps 1 and 2…
Tolerance is not an absolute rule, but a social contract. Members of a tolerant society agree to tolerate others so long as others do the same. When someone violates the contract by being intolerant they cannot then proceed to hide behind that same contract for protection.
At some point a judgement has to be made about what is tolerant and what is not, and that is a judgement we make collectively as upholders of the social contract.
deleted by creator
ThE mArKeTpLaCe Of IdEaS
I’m voting with my dollar and not listening to theirs.
Look, I am a big believer in attempting to educate other people and better the world around you by trying to change harmful or hateful outlooks, but I also realize that some people cannot be changed. Trying to engage these types of people in real life is just putting yourself in danger. Engaging them online is fine but there’s a limit to how long you should spend having dialogue with someone who could probably argue their irrational viewpoints for weeks on end without stopping.
Yep.
My entire family is conservative. They eat up every drop of shit from the shit fountain. I can disprove anything they give me in about five seconds, and no matter how absolutely cratered their opinions are and decimated their egos in an argument, a week later, they’ll start right back up again with some insane shit they heard online.
It’s like trying to patch a dam made of mud.
I try to keep an open mind and engage in conversation when I can too. Tbh the fallacy I find to be the most irritating (and probably most common) is when the person already presupposes your entire argument and crafts straw men arguments against you. To me, that tells me they’re just unwilling/unable to listen to me and listen to my actual arguments. No use in debating someone who doesn’t even know what they’re debating against.
Having to keep saying “but that’s not what I said” every time I try and explain myself gets exhausting after awhile lol
But but my freeze peach!!1!21!
Woe, Tolerance Paradox be upon ye.
Is this centrism or is it just a bad faith argument from a bigot?
The person making the argument could just be naive too.
I could see myself 25 years ago making such a statement in completely good faith, trying to see both sides and all that. But I was naive to think that both sides were also arguing in good faith.
But to be fair, that naive messenger would still be repeating an argument that originated in bad faith.
Heck I still find myself thinking this on a subconscious level. I can’t let go of the sense that we should be able to discuss things in good faith and make change through civil discourse.
I have to remind myself that history does not support my blind faith in the goodness of humanity like this.
Even people who have less than two seconds ago proven they are arguing in bad faith, my gut reaction is to give them another chance to come to the discussion properly.
It’s like pathological naivety, and yes, it’s just as harmful as the original bad faith argument when all it’s doing is echoing the bad faith argument.
I have been booted from many communities for asking what I thought was a genuine question. And at first been left wondering why a community would ban someone for asking questions and trying to learn. I’ve experienced this my entire life and only recently began to understand that it’s not some personal slight against my curiosity and ignorance. It’s a necessary safety measure for that community.
I’m just an idiot, questioning an asshole, but from everyone else’s perspective there’s two dumb assholes over here.
That s my issue with Lemmy. Why do we stick so hard to “the left” when we see daily reminders that “the left” has plenty of bad faith actors as well? Just look around on lemmy.ml or better yet hexbear.net
Well… Short answer talking about “the left” and “the right” is effectively doing something called “constructing a public”. These are are not just political constructs, they are political constructs that do certain things. Neither of these constructs have hard boundaries and throughout time they shift.
But there is a distinct difference. When you look at the right, while the presentation changes they have a fairly straightforward citable group of guiding philosophy traceable through a small handful of writing. If you read Thomas Malthus and Edmond Burke they will sound like slightly more archaic versions of modern pundits on the right. When you listen to the modern pundits you will notice that they are very repetitive and what differentiates one from another is more or less just presentation style. That repetition of talking points changes it’s arguements but never it’s foundation. Since it’s mostly in service of protecting a status quo where hereditary privilege is upheld it doesn’t have to get complicated. It just has to justify the world as it has been and that humans are sneaky, fundamentally flawed and morally defunct but that by structuring society as a winnowing process where playing the game the rightful and just few will rise to the top.
But when you look at “the left” it’s not an easy gradient, it’s a loose scattering of little clusters of very different ideologies and guiding philosophies. Since it largely works of a guiding concept of dissolution of established aggregated personal fortunes and radical anti-supremacist framework of various forms it’s not uniform. There’s anti-colonialism, anti-racism, anti-monopolist, anti-capitalist, anti-discriminatory, pro-neurodiversity, expanded personal rights, pro public service, pro democratic and anti democratic groups, pro freedom of movement, anarchists, and acedemic political theorists each with individual theories about how to bring about a state of all these things when none of this has in living memory existed. It’s not generally trying to defend a status quo but trying to feild test different ways of doing things… So basically everybody and their dog has a slightly different opinion of what is a good idea.
It’s kind of hard to see " bad faith actors" as it were because any two leftists might have almost no ideological overlap as far as praxis. They might not see each other as being part of the same tribe even if outsiders looking in would classify them as “left” and they might all claim to be “left” themselves… It’s not that it’s contradictory, it’s that the branching paths of divergent evolving philosophies have rambled off in a whole bunch of different directions and effectively become whole other creatures entirely.
It’s almost like it’s a multi dimension spectrum with axis like left<>right, conservatist<>progressive, liberalism<>socialism and more… but simply “the left” and “the right” are popular (but problematic) terms that everyone recognises but everyone has their own interpretation of. However, if you want to be more accurate in you political discussions, you’ll have to write full page monologues and that is often not the way of the Internet. It will more often fall on deaf ears than not. And therefor the louder voices with the simpler terms get a bigger audience and reach eventhough the things they are saying might not be as good.
That is actually one of the major issues at play. One of the kind of predatory things about right wing politics is it plays into a fallacy that the truth is simple, easily recognizable and can be rendered down into axioms a child can understand. Anything that doesn’t fall under these parameters cannot be the truth.
But science moved away from big axiomatic stuff like 50 years ago. It became the study of variation and nuance.
The left attempts to have a aspects of this simple explanation stuff in sections by adopting almost slogan-like things - take “Trans women are women” as an example. That easily digestible slogan sits on top of a whole bunch of consequentialist based philosophy, psychological research with a focus on harm reduction, a history of uphill public advocacy to just put trans issues on the radar and being trans itself isn’t easy to explain. It is simple and quippy - but not axiomatic. So a lot of people on the right tear into it as a target because the optics of defending a short quippy but nuance laden argument in slogan form while keeping it short and easily digestible is basically impossible.
This issue is throughout progressive political thought. Any short form word we use to describe practically anything has a whole swack of addendums, hidden complications, edge cases and multiple historical definitions. If you use very technical language you can be more specific but then you can easily talk over the heads of your audience.
Because “the left” is a set of principles not a group of people?
Same can be said for “the right”, so I’m missing the point.
Here in the states, even the most progressive Democrats are right of center compared to the industrialized world, and so those who are centrist are leftist by comparison, and those who are left wing are seen as radical, even when we talk about how the justice system, between its false conviction rate, law enforcement brutality or propensity for cruel (if usual) punishments, needs to be either massively overhauld, or disassembled and redesigned from the beginning.
But any state or society that decides it needs to cull the population for any reason has failed as a community, and therefore has failed as a state or a society.
Also centrists, like their conservative brethren, fail to recognize that the misery experienced by the bottom rung strata is extreme and heinous, and the neglect by institutions to act on it as if it were a crisis is heinous itself (and might compare to crimes against humanity). And this is what fuels radical direct action (even terrorism) from the left.
(Curiously, Osama Bin Laden said as much was what drove his own terror campaign, including the 9/11 attacks, though he was also pissed at George H. W. Bush’s gulf war, what he thought he could resolve with his mujahideen army. But the Gulf War from the US position was less about Kuwait and more about securing oil for import to the US.)
(And yes, left-wing violence gets into tankie territory, what is a paradox of wanting to create a functional, peaceful public-serving society that isn’t exploited from the top, and being unable to compute how to get there without breaking one’s own principles. We radical leftists are not good at this yet.)
But the Gulf War from the US position was less about Kuwait and more about securing oil for import to the US.
I mean, that’s one and the same. Saddam was responding to slant drilling from Kuwait into oil rich southern Iraqi oil fields. That’s why he burned the Kuwait wells on his way out. It was retaliation for what he claimed was a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty.
The Kuwaiti wells, and the slant drilled wells into Iraqi territory, were operated by American petroleum companies and their affiliates. And the US incursion into Iraq, with the intention of destroying the Iraqi offensive capacity, was about restoring the ability of Kuwaiti drillers to access Iraqi fields. 2003 made that redundant. But the initial Desert Storm was intended to prevent Saddam from threatening cross-border drilling operations into the future.
Tolerance paradox
Unfortunately, the solution to the paradox boils down to “Might Makes Right”. The bounds of tolerance aren’t set by a consensus, but by whomever has the Power to Yeet.
And while this game seems satisfying early on (Yeet the Nazis! Yeet the Tankies! Yeet the Radical Centrists!) you do get into a cycle of purity where you’re yeeting anyone who questions whether the last guy who got yeeted deserved it.
That leaves us with the age-old Martin Niemöller verse:
“And then they came to Yeet me - and there was no one left to Yeet back on my behalf”.
What is the appropriate degree of tolerance? How do you prevent it from expanding to include people who would dissolve the institution? How do you prevent it from collapsing into a state of cult-like obedience to authority? It’s a balancing act and one that the individuals with the power to silence fringe communities rarely have an interest in performing.
Laws, courts, and a strong democracy my dude.
The Intolerance Paradox posits the risk that these institutions are infiltrated by intolerant agents.
Florida has laws, courts, and an electoral system. None of those seem to be holding the fascists back. Many are being employed by fascists to legitimize their violence.
If the USA had better laws, the news media would not be free from getting sued or fined for spreading lies. If the USA has a stronger democracy, where we didn’t have to deal with this elector nonsense, then we’d have federal laws that prevent fascists from getting into power.
We don’t/didn’t have that, so now we get to hope that the fascists don’t win.
The only way we get out of this is by charging some of these fascists with treason and putting them in jail.
I’m curious what your take is on using governmental violence against fascists? For example, throwing them in jail.
we’d have federal laws that prevent fascists from getting into power.
A country riddled with fascists isn’t going to pass laws against themselves. You (paradoxically) need to get rid of the fascists first, before you get rid of the fascist policy.
That’s why we couldn’t have pass the civil rights amendments until after secession. And why we didn’t pass the Equal Rights (for women) amendment at all.
now we get to hope that the fascists don’t win.
Unfortunately, we’ve embraced fascism in both parties as the donor elites have tacked rightward. Harris striking common cause with the Cheneys might as well be a stake through the heart of American liberalism.
Ok, so you’re accepting defeat?
Can’t plan for victory if you don’t admit defeat.
I believe the answer lies in bureaucracy.
You’re allowed to be intolerant but you gotta fill out just a bunch of paperwork to do so. And if someone to pay a fee, fill in several forms, submit to an ID chrck and wait 6 weeks just to get a literal N word pass, then yeet.
Society needs a yeeting tree.
The Yeeting Tree by Shel Silverstein. It would have had a better lesson.
Is this loss?
…of at least one apple, sure.
:.|:;No this is Bad Apple!!
deleted by creator
I appreciate this, I really do, but you do have to be careful not to end up like certain leftist Reddit subs where I got banned for the heinous crime of suggesting that voting for Harris might produce better outcomes than voting for Trump. Some level of discussion that goes beyond what the majority (or, lbr, the mods) think has to be allowed or you just have an echo chamber.
Granted, that isn’t what is happening in the comic. The apologist here is genuinely advocating tolerance of Nazis. This situation is appropriate.
In my experience, most self-identified centrists, at least in the US, are to the right of what anyone reasonable would actually consider center. And I don’t mean that in an “um ackshually the Dems are center right” way either, I mean they’re often just Conservatives who don’t hate gays (but do hate trans people) or something.
Or conservatives who are queer and white
deleted by creator
I think I got banned for replying “?” to someone saying NATO was bad because I’d literally never heard anyone say that. The context was about the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. I’m glad I’m off Reddit and modlogs are public here.
I truly hate seeing people get banned for questioning a viewpoint. How weak are your opinions if you literally won’t answer questions about them? Of course there are bad-faith rhetorical techniques that involve asking questions, but people wanting to learn should never be turned away.
deleted by creator
Godot discord in a nutshell
So is anyone rational actually leaving Godot? I saw that Redot, last I checked they were 52 commits behind, and their only 4 commits were changing any references of “Godot” in the code to “Redot”
Personally I don’t think it’s wise to abandon Godot for a fork that will always lag behind and also just seems like a crude protest in retaliation. I think using Godot is fine as it is and unfortunately a con to the engine is we have to deal with silly politics from them being unfortunately in control of the Godot loudspeaker. I had to leave their discord because of the circlejerk they have going on was unbearable.
I wish we could just have a professional space.
I’m OOTL, why are people leaving Godot?
The community manager posted something about Godot being woke on Twitter in response to someone saying using a game engine is “woke”, and a bunch of repliers were banned, some bans were reasonable, some bans weren’t. The official response from Godot was pretty lackluster too.
Posting anything progressive on Twitter is just stirring the pot at this point, and it’s a little funny, since the majority of game devs I’ve met have been incredibly leftist, a lot of the folks getting pissy weren’t game devs, but just capital G Gamers
They’re not really centerists, they’re just trying to stir the pot. Jon Stewart had a really good podcast on all this on the Weekly Show. I could only find a youtube video on my laptop, I think it’s the full thing by the time.
The uncommitted/third party vote is what caused biden to drop out of the race. It could also very well cost the democrats the election.
When a minority group has outsized power due to circumstance, they should use it to affect the change they want.
The point isnt to make democrats lose its to put pressure on them to drop their worst positions, which happen to include genocide.
You can argue that you think it won’t work, but its a prediction. Noone knows, which is why even among Muslims this debate has people on both sides.
None of what you said is how anything works in US government. Biden has some crazy takes on the war in Gaza, but it’s rooted in them being our allies and something else that I have no idea about.
3rd party in a 2 party system just takes away votes from another person. You have to calculate who that’s gong to be and assess the risk to the people and government.
When a single party is in charge of the both the house and senate and there are no assholes that can be bought off, that’s the only time things can be changed.
something else that I have no idea about.
That something else is Zionism.
Do you really believe that? Biden is a church going Catholic. We don’t know what’s going on here, but I suspect it’s more money related.
A lot of US Zionists are some flavor of Christianity. It’s very common.
What do you think Zionist means?
A political movement that advocates for the establishment and support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
