And that’s a great example of exactly what I’m saying:
IF this Politico article is accurately capturing the position (and I’m not saying it is) then the arguments being refuted above aren’t part of the position being taken.
Without a specific citation for what’s or who’s being argued against, the critique is open to being waived off as misunderstanding, at best, the idea it’s trying to counter.
If DeSantis said slavery was good because it Christianized those in chains, yeah, that would be a pretty awful stance to take, but that’s not among the arguments that have been hitting the headlines, as the Politico article indicated.
@cadenza @volkris @InkySchwartz
Well that too.
To be frank I really don’t care what any fuckers want.
If an argument is faulty then let’s point out why it’s faulty, let’s show that it is just plain in error, and let’s show that it is wrong regardless of who is talking and what their motivations may be.
It doesn’t matter what anybody wants. Wrong is wrong, regardless of want, and that is the basis on which to show that somebody is wrong.
Or else is simply not going to be a universally compelling case being made. It’s just going to be tribalism at that point. Choir preaching.
@volkris @InkySchwartz @futurebird no. You cannot win against fascists by rational arguments. They know their arguments aren’t rational. They don’t CARE. And nothing gives abhorrent ideas legitimacy more than sitting down with them to debate “are Jews people?” Or “did blacks benefit from slavery?” Just debating them gives them the legitimacy they crave. Some ideas are so fucking awful, they aren’t up for debate. Btw, this is why I’ve boycotted CNN since 2017 for that reason. Because they actually bothered to debate a Nazi on air on whether Jews are people. Whether or not I count as people is NOT up for debate, sir!
This isn’t about arguing against fascists, though. It’s more about how the argument might look to third parties.
Sure, you can’t win an argument against an irrational person, but when I see someone making an argument that seems detached from reporting and from the stances being taken by the other side, that argument isn’t convincing to anyone else.
If the point is the preach to the choir, fine. But if the point is to raise awareness or convince others of something, then that weakness in the argument works against the goal.
@volkris Ah, that fallacy. If people have to be convinced that killing Jews is wrong or slavery is bad, then we’ve already lost. History backs me up here. Every time a fascist was invited to debate as a “reasonable” party, that country fell to fascism. Every. Fucking. Time. Because when you debate a fascist, all that tells third parties is that fascism is a reasonable alternate view, because why else would you debate them? What you DO do for the edification of third parties is to say, “we don’t debate fascists, and this is WHY.” Nazis didnt come out of the gate advocating for the genocide of Jews. No, they got there through “reasoned debate”. Every time someone used reason to argue with Nazis, all it did was give Nazi views more legitimacy. And that was how they slowly got the populace to agree with them. 85% of Americans already hold one anti-Semitic belief. A few years ago, it was 61%. And the increase is due to the media both-sidesing fascists.
Firstly, you’re still arguing against strawmen, debating against claims that aren’t on the table.
But putting that aside, here’s a higher level question: you seem to be saying that there’s no point discussing things with those who don’t already agree with the position, at which point I’d ask, What’s the point?
If you’ve given up on bringing others over to your perspective, then what’s the point of even exploring the perspective?
It strikes me as just spinning wheels at that point, accepting the lines as they’re drawn with no hope of moving anyone.
@volkris that’s not what I’m saying at all. This isn’t tax policy we’re discussing after all. You can have a reasonable debate with differing opinions when both people are REASONABLE. That is, they are both roughly in the same consensual reality. As Moynihan said, you can have a difference of opinion but you can’t have a difference in facts. If we all agree on what the facts are, we are still going to disagree on what those facts mean or what should be done about those facts. And that’s fine. What’s not fine is arguing with people advancing ideas so repugnant that they should never be up for debate. It is MORALLY WRONG to do so. Or to put it another way, arguing with a climate change denier is pointless and will get you nowhere because the denier is in denial of reality. But if both people agree that climate change is real, there can be a healthy debate as to what should be done about it. Never argue with people who deny facts.
@volkris and you also fail to realize that Nazis can’t be moved. They want certain people dead and they don’t care how much they have to lie to do so. What they crave is LEGITIMACY and that is exactly what happens when you “debate” them. Even if you “win” the argument, you are STILL advancing Nazism by engaging with them.
@volkris because Your Obliviousness, they’re trying to take over our government right now!
What in the world are you talking about?
@volkris are you fucking blind? Did you just wake up from a coma that started before January 6, 2021? Did you nap during the whole Trump administration?
I repeat, What are you talking about?
And I will clarify, keep in mind that “they’re trying to take over our government right now!” is a really out there phrase to use, if you didn’t realize how it came across.
Like, that sort of thing is the ravings of a crazy person.
@volkris so they said to people who warned about the consequences of Nazi fascism the first time and they were right. You are absolutely and utterly blind and deaf to history and how today’s events rhyme with it. You live in some alternate reality where the last president didn’t try to violently overthrow our democracy and has said repeatedly that he will do so again. And you are so ignorant of history that you have ZERO clue of what DeSantis’ war on education and minorities means. I have Jewish friends fleeing the state of Florida because Nazis are literally picketing their children’s schools. And here you are sitting in ALL your ignorance and privilege saying these things aren’t happening and that somehow the REST OF US are nuts for being alarmed. The fact that you can so blithely ignore the rise in hate crimes and domestic terrorism makes you an accomplice.
But that just gets me back to wondering what your goal is? If it really is true that people who don’t agree with you cannot have their minds changed, Why bother writing all of that that just makes you sound kind of nuts?
If the world really is so futile and divided into people who have been enlightened as you have versus those who haven’t, without particular chance to redeeming folks who aren’t as informed as you are, why bother reaching out at all?
@volkris my point, that you are completely ignoring, is that Nazis can’t be convinced by rational debate because they know it only empowers their abhorrent ideas. You cannot argue someone out of irrational hatred. They only want “debate” because it makes their ideas seem reasonable, even if they lose. We aren’t talking about tax policy here or any issue where it is reasonable to disagree. We’re talking about whether people like me are allowed to live as the topic for debate. The fact that you would entertain that for a minute is morally abhorrent. You do not “debate” whether slavery is wrong or if certain groups of people deserve to die. You don’t give those “ideas” air. Every country that has tried to have a “reasonable debate” on those abhorrent ideas fell to fascism. Every. Single. One. You keep conflating whether people are allowed to live with tax policy!!!!
@volkris basically, if I didn’t know better, I would think you are sealioning me. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you were merely ignorant, but I think you are a Nazi sympathizer sealion because you have been arguing in bad faith all along. Aw poor Nazis! No one will give them a chance! Good! Until they decide to join the rest of the human race, they should be ostracized.
@volkris basically, to argue with fascists is the equivalent to arguing with a crazy person. You would never debate a crazy person. There would be no point. You don’t live in the same reality. And if you persist, all you are going to do is cause the crazy person to dig in their heels. Fascism is deeply irrational, based on cruelty and hate. The cruelty IS the point. Because they live in a completely different moral universe from us, there is no point in arguing. And if you have convince third parties that Nazis are bad, chances are, they’re also Nazis and may not know it yet. You can only have a successful argument if both you are your opponent occupy the same reality. Debate Marjorie Taylor Greene and see how far you get.
@volkris @InkySchwartz @cadenza
This conversation isn't about proving a point about DeSantis. It's about larger trends in American culture and the way that older ideas are resurfacing.
You seem to think this is a debate? Or about proving some political point? It's not.
I'm interested in this idea of "guilt" and the notion the a purpose of accurate discussion of slavery is to cause guilt. It seems bonkers to me.
Well I would say that the discussion you are setting off on seems pretty disconnected from the larger trends in American culture since it doesn’t seem to be referencing things that are going on in current events.
And so like I said, pointing to specific examples of the argument that you are criticizing would go a long way to clarify what you are trying to say.
@volkris @futurebird @InkySchwartz I would suggest that you are deeply disconnected from history if you think what @futurebird is talking about isn’t relevant to current events.
@volkris @futurebird @InkySchwartz @cadenza
Hey the Black woman who ran the commission (or was head of department overseeing it) did in fact say that - that without slavery, she would be in Africa worshipping a tree. Maybe you think that isn't "thank God my ancestors suffered so I could become Christian" and if so please tell me how you read it?
I’m actually more curious as to how you read that.
I haven’t looked up the contacts of her statements, but how do you see it?
@volkris @futurebird @InkySchwartz @cadenza
It's the "at least I got to be a Christian so too bad my ancestors were stolen, sent across the sea, beaten, raped, and worked for no money" that says this is a piss poor version of logic
Why are you keeping saying red is orange? Never mind, I'm this close to blocking you because you bring no examples of what you're saying and keep asking repetitive questions. Not seeming to be good faith at all.
Feel free to block! That is, after all, how this platform works. If you are not interested in hearing voices outside of your echo chamber you are entirely empowered to block those voices. It’s 100% up to you.
But when I go and look at the underlying direct evidence, it doesn’t match what is being claimed here. And that is why this is not particularly compelling to me.
When the issue is what I can see with my own eyes versus what other people are grousing about, well I have to go with what I can see with my own eyes, and I would encourage everyone else to review with their own eyes as well.
@volkris @InkySchwartz @futurebird no no no!!! You can NOT treat these “ideas” as if they have any sort of legitimacy. That’s exactly what these fuckers want. When you have ANYONE making a suggestion that enslavement or genocide can be good, you dismiss it out of hand because the last thing you want is to give such abhorrent ideas legitimacy. People’s lives and freedom should not EVER be up for debate! When you start debating fascist ideas as if they have any legitimacy, the fascists win.