461
Hey could we defederate with exploding-heads.com/
(sh.itjust.works)
The instance seems to be mostly right wing trolls. I know defederating is unpopular but I don't think much is to be lost in this case and it can save the mods some headaches.
Edit: the response on exploding-heads.com to my reporting of transphobia. Courtesy of the "second in command"
I think your standards for what you call fascism is dangerously misguided, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't recognise a totalitarian society if it snuck up on you.
The irony of being against fascism and then getting upset when one of these supposed fascists is willing to engage with you -- But you're not willing to engage with them.
Because fascists lie? They don't engage in good faith, it's a very long established precedent.
Edit: Holy shit it's you again, you are a good example actually.
Correct, they do lie, which is why engaging with them is easy. you can point out their lie and mock them, which convinces anyone who is unaware of the lies.
Also really now? you think I'm a fascist?
I got no idea of you're fash or not, but you are clearly acting in bad faith. Trying to apply the paradox of tolerance to someone using the paradox of tolerance? Not denying the place your defending is awful, but instead trying to say quarantining it is bad for reasons? Trying to suggest that viewpoints completely divorced from reality are completely valid?
Mocking shitheels is a great passtime, but engaging with someone who lies about the basic facts of reality is nearly impossible. A COVID denier, just to bring it all back around in a single comment, will just deny evidence has any merit. Look at the latest trans freak outs, again to keep it to a single reply, it's 'people' objectively lying and claiming kids get surgery when that doesn't happen.
No. I'm clearly not a fascist. I'm quite the opposite, in fact, I'm staunchly democratic.
I'm acting in bad faith? No, I'm not. I'm actively engaging with you, I'm not shutting you down or refusing your points or values.
So many misuse what the Paradox is, I blame American politics. The paradox of intolerance clearly states;
My entire point is that if users come here from outside their safe-spaces, we are free to engage and challenge their bigoted views. Will it change their opinion? Perhaps, Daryl Davis believes so and from experience, so do I. Regardless, at least it will show to others how outdated and stupid these views are. Do you agree with me on that?
When their claim is easy to disprove, then disprove it. If they say that it's fake-news, then it only makes them look like an idiot.
That would be the case if they showed some good faith and had their opinion swayed by rational arguments. It's not the case, so might as well just not let them take part in the debate until they actually understand what a debate is.
If they don't know what they're doing, it should be easy to prove them wrong and make them look silly. You can also try to argue via emotions.
It is easy to prove them wrong, they don't care, why bother?
Just leave them in their corner and stop wasting our energy. When they realise they're alone they might start reflecting on what they did wrong. It's not a four years old we're talking about, it's adults who should know better.
What a poor argument. They want to be in their echo-chamber.
We should encourage those who are brave enough to wander outside of it.
The problem being that the majority of them wander out to share the same opinions, not to have their mind changed and that leads to radicalisation when their message reaches people that are sensible to it but that are still on the fence.
https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g
The reason why the alt-right has become such an issue and so big in the first place is because they were allowed to participate to discussions on social media because moderators didn't understand that tolerating intolerance leads to more intolerance instead of changing the mind of the intolerants.
There's tons of content all over the place for those who really want to get out of the radicalisation spiral, this is a generalist platform, not an help group, we don't have the obligation to waste our energy on these people or to let them pollute discussions with their feelings.
ommmgg, you're making my point but you're not even realising it. We should engage with them when they move out of their safe-spaces because then those on the fence see how stupid the alt-righters are.
No, my belief is that people on the fence just wouldn't be exposed to their message in the first place because more of them will fall down on the wrong side than the number of those already on that side that will be brought back to reality.
When you censor something, it makes people believe there's merit in it, because otherwise, why would people of authority try so desperately to hide it? This isn't hypobole either, it's one of the big reasons people turn to conspiracy theories, Flat Earth is an example.
Again, we should debate them whenever possible.
When you debate them you make them believe that their opinion has enough value to be worth arguing against and that makes them double down on their fantasy.
That's why real experts don't debate against conspiracy nutters, engaging in a debate means people watching should choose which side they agree with because they're both potentially valid. What you want to do now is to give the alt-right a chance to share its message, which means more converts.
Look at the PPC in Canada, Bernier was all over the news during last federal election and he got people hooked, he had 5% of the vote. Now that media doesn't have the obligation to cover his him he does live videos with 500 watchers, his Tweets had thousands of likes in 2021 during the campaign, now is a could hundreds.
Heck, just invert your argument, the best way to deradicalise people is to ban their movement so they feel like fools and question its validity because society wants nothing to do with them. See? How easy that was? The difference is that it's actually true in this case!
I think we should focus on just one chain. Can you paste this to one of the other chains we have going on, and vice versa?
I'll do you one better and just stop replying to you because... Well, we just had a big discussion about all of this, your opinion isn't based on reality and I wouldn't want people to believe it's valid enough that it's worth arguing against.
But there, again: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
All you need to know about the alt-right, how they work and how to deal with them (hint: it's not by letting them take part in the discussion).
Buhbye now!
Great job, you just proved my point. Discussion works as a better deterrent.
You got conceded, and will return to whatever safe-space you associate with. While people who are "on the fence", i.e, neutral readers, will conclude their opinions off our arguments and conduct. That's also why I didn't downvote you, because I value your discussion.
Til next time then.
๐ค
๐