Conversation Between Aliencommander1245 and Nah
1 to 3 of 3
  1. Nah
    January 8th, 2018 5:02 AM
    Nah
    it's alright, I think I get what you're saying
  2. Aliencommander1245
    January 7th, 2018 9:10 PM
    Aliencommander1245
    That's completely fair, i just think the effect on an indivdual that debating someone on this kind of thing brings can be widely outweighed by the whole process of giving them a platform to preach their ideology? While refusing to engage with someone on an individual level might not help the individual, it also stifles the growth of the ideology much better than discussing it in an open context

    You're also always on the back foot, because while they're the aggressor just dumping out claims and you're always playing catch up with real facts and statistics you're also engaging their line of thinking as if it's valid to start with. With something like white nationalism ect, every time you engage with points about why african people aren't genetically inclined to be less smart or do more crimes you're inherently engaging them on the premise that if what they're saying was true, then their racism ect would be justified or acceptable. In that situation even if you give them the publicly humiliating defeat possible, they've still won , at least partially, because the ideology is given a platform and presented as if it would be acceptable under the situation they've presented, and is only stopped from being acceptable because they're wrong about some details

    Sorry that this probably isn't as clear and easy to understand as i'd like it to be, but i'm writing it in a rush right now
  3. Nah
    January 5th, 2018 12:33 PM
    Nah
    I'm gonna reply to this here since I imagine gimme might lose it if we continue this discussion in that thread lol:
    Not to reignite this whole thing, but is there really no policy (in this section, at least) against hate speech on PC? I guess this set of mods policies =/= all policies of all previous mods, but i've seen people infracted/been banned for that before here. One example i remember pretty clearly was some guy who said a bunch of garbage up to and including calling immigration of muslim people a "dirty brown tide" or something

    I think there definitely needs to be some kind of iron fist past a point, especially for that kind of thing, because while debate is fine for most things we talk about here there's certain ideologies (white nationalism ect) that no one really benefits from debating, and can make the people who're the targets of those kind of ideologies feel uncomfortable. Even in a setting where something is so absurd for the only response to be mocking (Lets go for a hypothetical example, like "lets stop gay immigration" or something else substituting race/religion/ethnic group for "gay") that still gives a platform to ideologies that fundamentally don't deserve to be treated like they're valid viewpoints to be discussed, because you're working backwards and always in the favour of the people supporing it since it's a bad faith argument to begin with. You're legitimising it through allowing it to be treated as something worthy of being discussed, i guess

    Not to accuse anyone of fostering that mindset, that's just what i got out of that
    I don't mean to legitimize their beliefs/positions/whatever, it's just that squashing them seems to tend to yield the opposite of the desired effect. Their thought process isn't "Oh, maybe there was something wrong with what I said or did, and should think long and hard about my beliefs associated with that", it's more along the lines of "Ha! Those dirty liberals can't handle THE TRUTH and have to resort to bans or [insert some other thing here] to protect their evil little bubbles!" It just reinforces the idea to themselves that they're right really. And the more ardently one believes in these things, the harder it is to eliminate these things from society.