Memetic weapon of the left, cultural discourse.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oM7cWuQax4k3GEHHX/on-memetic-weapons
This seems correct to me (self-policing part especially, I'm somewhat guilty of this myself). Hope we'll be able to foster open discussions here.
@ketil I'm not oriented on war of drugs topic enough to judge if it's conspiration-theoretical-ish or not, but it's there just to highlight tension between worries, it could have been any other belief.
I don't necessarily think that discourse is about what you are - it's more that holding certain beliefs will get you categorized as a member of outgroup during a discussion, not before it.
Regardless of this, the point still stands: ignoring members of outgroup - especially just by throwing "you're racist/sexist/etc" at them - is detrimental to the health of any discussion. It's not helpful in changing anyone's mind, just reinforces the divide between groups.
I don't know what to do about this, but it's worrying at least. We have to be able to hold discussions with outgroup without regressing to discussion-edning one liners.
I think the point is that many people don't want a rational argument to clarify how the world is, or what peoples beliefs are. People want an irrational argument to reinforce their social group.
I think the only thing you can do is to ignore them. I have never learned anything from anybody wh argued by calling people they disagree with for fascists (or any other -ism, for that matter). There are greener pastures elsewhere.
@irregular
Well, I'm self-policing quite a bit. I have my beliefs about various controversial issues, but some topics act as red flags to some, and ensuing discussion generates a lot of heat but no light. And it can be difficult to know which topics that are acceptable today somebody with a grudge will dig up in ten years to get you fired.
Godwin's law says that in a debate, eventually one participant will compare the other to Hitler, after which meaningful discussion is impossible. The point about calling someone a nazi being a way to shut down the argument is correct. The difference is that this happens quite early in the discussion, maybe even initially. It serves to paint the argument as a group struggle: my group vs your group - who are nazis, and therefore reprehensible, and therefore not worth listening to. Discourse today is less about what you say, and more about who you are.
(Parts of the article strikes me as very conspiracy-theoretical. War on drugs as a racist policy? Seems like an odd argument to me, and not at all relevant for a debate on drugs policy.)