ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd October 2019, 06:00 AM   #41
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,414
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
And I vehemently disagree. The whole "Oh just let stupid/wrong/evil people be stupid/wrong/evil" because "you'll never change their mind / it makes people think they are your equal" is a very dangerous mentality to cultivate, a worse yet mentality to cultivate and start playing the "I can ignore them better then you can" game on.
I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying that engaging these people makes it much much worse, and it is the entire reason for why they are here saying these things in the first place. They want and need for people to start posting counter-arguments.

Heckle them - if you can find a way to do so within the MA. Please don't enage them otherwise. Pretty please.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 06:05 AM   #42
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,500
This thread is absurd for several reasons, not the least of which the "reactionaries" aren't identified. (I realize that's against the rules and I'm not asking that posters be named. I'm surprised the thread remains in place as is actually.)

This is far too vague to lead to lead to useful dialog. Rather, it leads to a group rorschach exercise, where people share vague opinions, not really sure if agreement/disagreement is based on a common understanding.

Another reason the thread is absurd is because even if the OP is right, this is a sleepy backwater with limited impact on the universe.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

Last edited by varwoche; 23rd October 2019 at 06:06 AM.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 06:10 AM   #43
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,414
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
This thread is absurd for several reasons, not the least of which the "reactionaries" aren't identified. (I realize that's against the rules and I'm not asking that posters be named. I'm surprised the thread remains in place as is actually.)

This is far too vague to lead to lead to useful dialog. Rather, it leads to a group rorschach exercise, where people share vague opinions, not really sure if agreement/disagreement is based on a common understanding.

Another reason the thread is absurd is because even if the OP is right, this is a sleepy backwater with limited impact on the universe.
Regarding the vagueness, as you say, I can't be specific. You need to excercise your common sense. If someone is arguing for extreme right positions with no apparent consistency or reliance on reality, you can probably assume they are a post-modern conservative, possibly a white supremacist here to "spread the good word".

Regarding this being a backwater, sure it is. However, it's one of millions of backwaters that together make up the internet. Feel free to not engage with reactionaries in other places as well.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Last edited by uke2se; 23rd October 2019 at 06:14 AM.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 06:11 AM   #44
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,500
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
The nature of this philosophy is to gravitate towards ever more extreme positions, and as it isn't about outright lying about your position but rather about sincerely believing every argument until it's no longer advantageous, the philosophy also tends to lead to expressions of violence when there's no where more extreme to go.
But the most absurd aspect is the extent to which you have ceded the high ground on this point, persistently.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 06:13 AM   #45
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,926
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Heckle them - if you can find a way to do so within the MA. Please don't enage them otherwise. Pretty please.
Well then I'm back to my standard caveat in every version of this argument. If you don't like seeing me talk to them, ignore me. You can ignore me talking to them exactly as equal as I can ignore them. It's a perfect 1:1 ratio.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 06:14 AM   #46
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,414
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
But the most absurd aspect is the extent to which you have ceded the high ground on this point, persistently.
What?
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 06:15 AM   #47
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,414
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well then I'm back to my standard caveat in every version of this argument. If you don't like seeing me talk to them, ignore me. You can ignore me talking to them exactly as equal as I can ignore them. It's a perfect 1:1 ratio.
That doesn't really help the issue tho. It's not a question of my seeing you doing it. It's about it creating recruitment opportunities for the extreme right.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 07:26 AM   #48
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,920
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
What?
That would be right here. The post expressing a desire/need to commit mass murder.

These reactionaries, these racists, these nazis....these wouldn't happen to be the people on the hitlist ignore list would they ?
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 07:33 AM   #49
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying that engaging these people makes it much much worse, and it is the entire reason for why they are here saying these things in the first place. They want and need for people to start posting counter-arguments.

Heckle them - if you can find a way to do so within the MA. Please don't enage them otherwise. Pretty please.
That sounds the same as ignore it and it will go away. That tends not to work.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 07:41 AM   #50
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,136
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Then you speak a very strange language. Not validating people, in my language, means ignoring them.
Ignoring people does indeed have the effect of not validating them. This can be due to indifference.

However, if you adopt a strategy of not engaging with people because you don't want to validate them, I think that's hate. "You make a point that I'd like to address, but if I do, you might get the impression that you matter, and I can't tolerate that, so I'm going to ignore you instead."

That's hate. That's exactly the "personalizing the debate" that skeptics are supposed to set aside, in favor of dispassionate inquiry into the logic and facts of the matter. That's you getting so hung up on not wanting the other person to feel any encouragement or relevance that you won't even acknowledge their existence anymore. Hate.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 07:43 AM   #51
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,136
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I think this is the opposite of reality. The reason we have Nazis in public office is that we have given them attention and opportunities to spread their message by not debating smartly. Having a debate with a Nazi means the Nazi will win. Not because his/her arguments are stronger, but because he/she doesn't have to rely on facts or reason, but will make an emotional appeal that will resonate with some. Even if 90% of the onlookers agree that you won the debate, the 10% who disagree are one step closer to being recruited as new Nazis.
"Nazis".
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 07:45 AM   #52
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,136
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
And heckling is fine. It's not really something that we can do on these forums tho.

The reason I made this thread is that I keep seeing rational posters get drawin into debates with reactionaries. I'm simply trying to spread the word on what I believe is true and extremely important: don't do that, you're making it worse.
Have you considered PMs? "Hey, I see you engaging with [reactionary]. I think this is counter-productive, and I'm urging you to stop."
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 07:47 AM   #53
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,926
I do have to say if I were a Nazi having a bunch of do-gooders cluck-clucking by-standers into "not engaging me" would be exactly what I would want.

The wrong and evil among us love soapboxes a lot more then they love any level of debate.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 07:59 AM   #54
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,144
"I'm only okay with punching actual, self-declared NAZIs. That's it."

"He's a close associate of actual, self-declared NAZIs, so yes I'm fine with punching him."

"He's the sort of person who is a gateway to alt-right/NAZI ideas, so he should expect to be punched."


And now the song is "I'm only asking people to not engage with those reactionaries against whom you can never win an argument.". I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see mission creep expand the scope posters we're being exhorted to shun. Are we allowed to invite them over to play croquet, as long as we let Heather be red?

edit to clarify : the 'quotes' above shouldn't be taken to be indicative of any single poster's positions or literal quotes re: punching. It's a distillation of a certain mindset as seen across a few different threads recently.

Last edited by Joe Random; 23rd October 2019 at 08:01 AM.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 08:09 AM   #55
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,844
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
However, if you adopt a strategy of not engaging with people because you don't want to validate them, I think that's hate. "You make a point that I'd like to address, but if I do, you might get the impression that you matter, and I can't tolerate that, so I'm going to ignore you instead."

That's hate. That's exactly the "personalizing the debate" that skeptics are supposed to set aside, in favor of dispassionate inquiry into the logic and facts of the matter. That's you getting so hung up on not wanting the other person to feel any encouragement or relevance that you won't even acknowledge their existence anymore. Hate.
Congratulations. You have now demonised the act of choosing not to engage in conflict.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 08:13 AM   #56
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,926
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
"I'm only okay with punching actual, self-declared NAZIs. That's it."

"He's a close associate of actual, self-declared NAZIs, so yes I'm fine with punching him."

"He's the sort of person who is a gate
David Wong once conceptualized the problem with the stages "Causes" go through very similarly.

- "I oppose X." (Fine, that's pretty much what having an opinion or stance is.)

- "I oppose people who don't oppose X" (More complicated with more grey area but still sort of necessary some of the time.)

- "I oppose people who don't oppose X... enough." (Herein we reach the problem, especially since this definition can be narrowed and narrowed until you've declared war on the entire world.)
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 23rd October 2019 at 08:15 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 08:23 AM   #57
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,144
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
David Wong once conceptualized the problem with the stages "Causes" go through very similarly.

- "I oppose X." (Fine, that's pretty much what having an opinion or stance is.)

- "I oppose people who don't oppose X" (More complicated with more grey area but still sort of necessary some of the time.)

- "I oppose people who don't oppose X... enough." (Herein we reach the problem, especially since this definition can be narrowed and narrowed until you've declared war on the entire world.)

aka Atheism+, as mentioned up-thread.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 08:25 AM   #58
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,926
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
aka Atheism+, as mentioned up-thread.
*Shrugs* If that's the example that jumps to your mind, fine you do you.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 08:57 AM   #59
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,136
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Congratulations. You have now demonised the act of choosing not to engage in conflict.
Not at all. For one thing, I'm not talking about choosing not to engage in general. I'm talking about choosing not to engage because you don't want to validate the other person. There are many reasons not to engage, some good, some bad. Hatred is one of them. Not wanting to validate someone is an expression of hatred towards them.

But even this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some hatreds are reasonable. Hating Nazis and not wanting to validate them is reasonable. Choosing not to engage with them because of this hatred is reasonable. But let's be clear, and let's be honest: You're choosing not to validate Nazis not because you're indifferent to them, but because you hate them.

Choosing not to engage someone because you're indifferent to them has the side effect of not validating them. But you're ignoring them because you're indifferent, not because you care whether they get validated.

But the OP cares very much whether they get validated. The OP cares very much that they *not* get validated. He chooses not to engage because he's indifferent to them. He chooses not to engage because he hates them and wants to prevent their validation.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. I think you're making a mistake to reflexively assume that hate is bad. I think you're making a mistake to try to pass off hate as indifference.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 09:01 AM   #60
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,136
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
aka Atheism+, as mentioned up-thread.
I'm thinking more about Democratic Underground. I think a lot of our "counter-reactionary" regulars would actually be happier in threads like this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212612436

Instead of having to ignore people who disagree with you, and who won't always let you "win" conversations, why not spend time among folks who do agree with you and where the conversations all start pre-won in your favor?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 09:38 AM   #61
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,920
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm thinking more about Democratic Underground. I think a lot of our "counter-reactionary" regulars would actually be happier in threads like this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212612436

Instead of having to ignore people who disagree with you, and who won't always let you "win" conversations, why not spend time among folks who do agree with you and where the conversations all start pre-won in your favor?
That would be a good landing spot and there's also the forums over at rabble.ca to look at as well. There's a lot of Canadian politics going on over there but they do do the nazi/white supremacist thing and nary a conservative in sight.

Fair warning though, they don't have an ignore feature but they're big on the ban and delete approach so there's not too much of a worry about delicate sensibilities getting exposed to bad thought. Also, they're a TERF site. Well the forums are but the site itself banned Meghan Murphy for transphobia.

See, there's lots of places to be happy on the internet.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 01:20 PM   #62
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,500
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
What?
This reeks of insincerity and/or a badly failing memory. Stout's cite (see post #48) only scratches the surface.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 01:33 PM   #63
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,500
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
"I'm only okay with punching actual, self-declared NAZIs. That's it."

"He's a close associate of actual, self-declared NAZIs, so yes I'm fine with punching him."

"He's the sort of person who is a gateway to alt-right/NAZI ideas, so he should expect to be punched."


And now the song is "I'm only asking people to not engage with those reactionaries against whom you can never win an argument.". I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see mission creep expand the scope posters we're being exhorted to shun. Are we allowed to invite them over to play croquet, as long as we let Heather be red?

edit to clarify : the 'quotes' above shouldn't be taken to be indicative of any single poster's positions or literal quotes re: punching. It's a distillation of a certain mindset as seen across a few different threads recently.
Your 'quotes' aren't too far from the truth. A particular conversation went something like this.

A: We should punch nazis.
B: Only nazis?
A: Only nazis.
B: What about bigots who aren't nazis?
A: They get punched too.

When slopes get that slippery that quickly, that's another reason why the undefined "reactionaries" provide too vague of a foundation for meaningful exchange.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 02:06 PM   #64
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,269
I don't know who to heckle.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 03:04 PM   #65
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,610
There's a really interesting word in the title of this thread. It's a word that has the power to really influence how people think about the topic, even before reading any of the thoughts of the OP or of any responders.

You've probably already guessed which word I mean, but just in case, the word I am referring to is "we".
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 03:58 PM   #66
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
This is very close to a personal attack.

I don't expect you to participate in this discussion honestly. You aren't one of the people I am talking about in my OP, but you are not a contributor I value on these forums either.
You were the one to suggest that we talk about the pathologies of those we disagree with. Or was that only supposed to apply to "reactionary" posters?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 04:03 PM   #67
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
David Wong once conceptualized the problem with the stages "Causes" go through very similarly.

- "I oppose X." (Fine, that's pretty much what having an opinion or stance is.)

- "I oppose people who don't oppose X" (More complicated with more grey area but still sort of necessary some of the time.)

- "I oppose people who don't oppose X... enough." (Herein we reach the problem, especially since this definition can be narrowed and narrowed until you've declared war on the entire world.)
I oppose people who don't oppose people who don't oppose X. I think.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 04:58 PM   #68
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,030
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
But the most absurd aspect is the extent to which you have ceded the high ground on this point, persistently.
Seen uke2se' s signature statement?
IMHO that is a pretty scary sentiment.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 05:00 PM   #69
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,030
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Your 'quotes' aren't too far from the truth. A particular conversation went something like this.

A: We should punch nazis.
B: Only nazis?
A: Only nazis.
B: What about bigots who aren't nazis?
A: They get punched too.

When slopes get that slippery that quickly, that's another reason why the undefined "reactionaries" provide too vague of a foundation for meaningful exchange.

Yeah, I get the feeling that reactionary means "anybody who is not as far to the left as I am".
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 05:12 PM   #70
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,304
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Seen uke2se' s signature statement?
IMHO that is a pretty scary sentiment.
All I see is a link that presumably discusses common misconceptions about climate change, and a note on the paradox of tolerance - which in the US should not be at all controversial post-Charolettesville, not to mention the long list of mass murderers that have carefully described how they are "protecting us" from the evil muslims/jews/hispanics/etc.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2019, 05:54 PM   #71
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,112
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Postmodern conservatives - which is the most prolific current of conservatism - are an unusual bunch in that they aren't really followers of an ideology, but rather a set of affects. It's about reacting to something or creating a situation in a way as to effect a negative emotion on a perceived other. They will assume political positions, but only in service of the previously mentioned. This is the reason that they will almost inevitably appear to hold a position one day that is diametrically opposed to one they held the day before. The objective is the "debate" and the negative emotions this create in the opponents. With few exceptions, this is the type of "conservative" we encounter here, or in most online spaces.
What process did you use to arrive at the conclusions that are stated as fact in the above paragraph?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2019, 01:42 PM   #72
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,153
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Having a debate with a Nazi means the Nazi will win. Not because his/her arguments are stronger, but because he/she doesn't have to rely on facts or reason, but will make an emotional appeal that will resonate with some.
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I used to hold to this view. That engaging reactionaries could be worthwhile because other people would see their bad ideas held up to real scrutiny.

But the more I see of online discussion and the more I learn about how people actually change their minds, the more this seems like a foolish religious faith in the power of logic.
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
As I said, I think this is often not only wrong, but can often have the opposite effect. If you and a Nazi share a stage and you adress the Nazi's arguments, you are seen by an onlooker as an equal to the Nazi and your arguments are to be treated with equal weight as the Nazi. You have basically elevated the Nazi to someone that deserves to be listened to.

This pretty well explains the problem, and why I have most of our resident crowd of contrarians and conservatrolls on ignore. The goal of reactionaries and others related to them isn't to win arguments, it's not even to propose a convincing argument, or stir emotions. The goal is to legitimize themselves by association. It doesn't matter how bad they sound, how stupid, how insane, how mean. The simple fact that their viewpoints have been treated as valid enough to be worthy of debate is their main and overriding goal.

Refusal to engage with them on any level may seem counterintuitive at first, but it's actually the best reaction one can have in the long term. Ostracism, not engagement. The moment you treat their views as worth acknowledging, you've given them the advantage; because they will never debate honestly, but will resort to all the tricks and lies and evasions and underhanded tactics they know how to use. You will always be on the defensive, which further feeds into legitimizing their beliefs and actions.

I've posted this before, but I don't know that people are taking it seriously enough.

The Daily Stormer's Leaked Style/Propaganda Guide

Further, it also thrusts them and their hatred into the forefront, and indirectly serves to aid in their marginalizing of minorities and other "undesirables". I've had this in my signature for a bit, but it is very appropriate here:

"When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won."

There is no reason in this day and age that these debates should be continuing. They should be a thing of the past, a historical relic, treated like the atavistic nonsense they are.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
To torture the metaphor a tad bit we don't have to join the Nazi on stage or ignore him. We can heckle him from the audience. And preferably throw things.

But you can't do this, because it's a violation of their "free speech", a bit of sound bite propaganda that the alt.right has made quite a lot of mileage out of, and which we can see parroted quite often on this very board.

Deplatforming is ultimately the most effective tool against the fascists. Ignore them like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum, and eventually they make themselves look ridiculous. Deny them a venue to preach their hate, and whole lot fewer people will hear it.

Another bit that bears repeating: Tolerance is not a moral precept, it is a peace treaty. Those who violate the peace treaty are no longer protected by it. We have no compelling reason to tolerate the intolerant, to accept and allow platforms for those who preach hate and attempt to oppress and marginalize any other social group.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

Last edited by luchog; 24th October 2019 at 01:49 PM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2019, 01:52 PM   #73
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,030
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Your 'quotes' aren't too far from the truth. A particular conversation went something like this.

A: We should punch nazis.
B: Only nazis?
A: Only nazis.
B: What about bigots who aren't nazis?
A: They get punched too.

When slopes get that slippery that quickly, that's another reason why the undefined "reactionaries" provide too vague of a foundation for meaningful exchange.
Or what about people who might be very conservative where economics are concerned, but who are not bigots?

I think quite a few Libertarians fit that bill. They want total Lassiez Faire Capitalism, but despise bigotry.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2019, 01:54 PM   #74
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,030
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
What process did you use to arrive at the conclusions that are stated as fact in the above paragraph?
And I think you could accuse some on the more extreme left of doing exactly what the poster accuses,...quite rightly, the right of doing.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2019, 01:57 PM   #75
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,030
I am proud to admit I am pretty much an absoulstest when it comes to free speech.
Yes, even racist and bigots should have the right to express their opinions.
If violence results, hold them responsible but don't try to silence them in advance.
People around here keep saying "the slippery slope is a fallacy" but I have to disagree with that.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2019, 02:06 PM   #76
Max_mang
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I am proud to admit I am pretty much an absoulstest when it comes to free speech.
Yes, even racist and bigots should have the right to express their opinions.
If violence results, hold them responsible but don't try to silence them in advance.
People around here keep saying "the slippery slope is a fallacy" but I have to disagree with that.
I don't think they're arguing that anyone should be stopped from expressing opinions. They're saying there's no need to engage when they do.
Max_mang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2019, 04:45 PM   #77
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,500
Originally Posted by Max_mang View Post
I don't think they're arguing that anyone should be stopped from expressing opinions. They're saying there's no need to engage when they do.
Who is they? The OP didn't mention racists and bigots -- the definition is morphing. As I posted upthread...
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
This thread is absurd for several reasons, not the least of which the "reactionaries" aren't identified. (I realize that's against the rules and I'm not asking that posters be named. I'm surprised the thread remains in place as is actually.)

This is far too vague to lead to useful dialog. Rather, it leads to a group rorschach exercise, where people share vague opinions, not really sure if agreement/disagreement is based on a common understanding.
Add: Upon further review, your point stands regardless who they is. Still, I think this is worth repeating.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

Last edited by varwoche; 24th October 2019 at 04:52 PM.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2019, 04:49 PM   #78
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,030
Originally Posted by Max_mang View Post
I don't think they're arguing that anyone should be stopped from expressing opinions. They're saying there's no need to engage when they do.
THe OP has , for some time, in his posts advocated exactly that position:those he considers to be racists and bigots should not be allowed freedom of speech.

I won't cite, but just check out his posting history. It won't take long ….

And yes, his advice on how to handle reactionaries (whatever the hell that means beyond left wing rhetoric) should be the way to handle racists.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.

Last edited by dudalb; 24th October 2019 at 04:53 PM.
dudalb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2019, 05:07 PM   #79
Max_mang
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 363
My comment was about the posts in this thread. I don't see any free speech suppression encouraged, but if someone wants to point it out I'll listen.

I'll revise my comment: I don't think the posters in this thread are arguing that anyone should be stopped from expressing opinions. They (the posters in this thread)are saying there's no need to engage when anyone expresses opinions.
Max_mang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2019, 05:52 PM   #80
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,920
Yea, how weird is that ? Don't discuss things on a discussion board. Anyways, there's been several suggestions of echo chambers for those who are bothered by the uppity conservatives sitting at their lunch counter.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.