Good luck with this, as there are no easy answers! I do hope you’re right and that they have your back.
5 Likes
It’s a well-known parlor game in Jewish circles. And it’s not theoretical: it’s truly important to think about, in advance, who might have your back if/when needed…and more importantly, who you would need to avoid at all costs in such circumstances.
9 Likes
No, I am not.
You are insinuating that I don’t care about fascists. Totally uncalled for and contradictory to what i’ve said here and on other threads.
Did you even read my posts? I’ll give you a quote here:
I was just going to say, that if you’re in a position to, and have the ability to completely demolish a fascist in debate - to make him look stupid, laughable and pathetic to the audience watching- then go ahead. But that has to be your goal from the start
How can you possibly construe that as saying that I want to deal with them in good faith? For someone talking about good faith, you certainly aren’t extending it to me.
I can only go by what you wrote… so if that’s what I’m getting, maybe look at what you wrote and clarify… 
Also, the post I was replying to started with a condescending “sigh”… like you’re speaking to a child who doesn’t understand reality. Maybe don’t condescend to people who are in the direct line of fire of fascists (@Melizmatic, in this case).
Anyways… Have a good sunday!
12 Likes
Talking about “demolishing them in debate” sure makes it sound like you trust they are actually there to debate, and that it means anything for them to be demolished in it.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” –Jean-Paul Sartre
12 Likes
To engage a fascist in public debate is to frame fascism as a position worthy of debate. It is not.
We also don’t debate people who want to bring back chattel slavery or lobby for NAMBLA, because any such debate would be treating those things as ideas deserving of a public forum.
12 Likes
Not all ideas are equal, in other words…
11 Likes
IMO, that is an ivory tower position. Sure, academically, that is true. It maybe even is a good policy for something like Twitter or FB with strangers.
But on the ground, in person - or someone you are related to? I disagree.
If you still have Trumpist friends or relatives, or encounter them at work or hobby etc, and they say something stupid, like say, “The Constitution should be suspended and Trump reinstated.” Or “Drag shows are events for groomers” or what ever topic fascists are currently banner waving with - I absolutely think it is ok to push back with them. It isn’t just to chip away at the person talking about it, (And if you are actually friends with someone, your words might actually resonate with them. Give them at least something to chew on.), but anyone around them, especially low information people who might go “Yeah, what they said makes sense!”, now has a counter point where what you said (hopefully) makes better sense.
IMO the above statement is similar to the point people make here about “Why are we talking about this bad thing?” and they are referred to the “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” post. Sure, we aren’t really debating the merits of the position/bad thing, but are elevating it to a “worthy” position to talk about.
If you’re going to talk about it/debate it/push back on it - be the sunlight.
Recent case in my life, some of my moms cousins are fucking exhausting with their copy/pasted bad takes on FB, and I had to set the record straight on one of them about Griner.
ETA - sorry for long, clunky sentences. I haven’t had my Mt Dew yet.
4 Likes
I think there’s a difference between trying to pull an individual person back from the abyss and engaging that kind of hatred in public debate though.
7 Likes
True, and maybe I missed where this thread headed, but weren’t we largely talking about people talking to and engaging people they are still friends with?
2 Likes
I still don’t engage those kind of topics. There is no reality to grab hold of with those positions. I find a better approach is to create clear boundaries; namely, if we’re going to have a conversation, then it needs to be grounded in reality. Otherwise, we have nothing to talk about.
I find that it works mush better than arguing about their imagined fantasy, which invariably becomes a shouting match. Rather, when you refuse to indulge their fictional fascist fantasy, they back down and often admit they were really trolling to begin with. You still might not agree, but pulling them back into the real world is still progress.
8 Likes
Which is my approach, too, but I can see how some here might see the practice of that as “engaging with fascists.” In my version, it looks like a friendly but Trumpy neighbor repeating some inane talking points he heard on Fox News, and me pushing back with questions and real-world examples. One from a while ago was, he was saying “what ‘murica needs is another civil war,” and me saying, “really? You want your son to have to fight other Americans? In the case of war, we’d probably be without power for a while, supply chains would be disrupted so food and other necessities would be scarce. Don’t you think there’s a better way to solve these problems?” And he backed down.
Like I said before, no one should feel obligated, and we all need healthy boundaries. I guess I think the term “engaging with fascists” is overly broad, though. Maybe it’s a difference between my ideas of happily giving them much-needed push-back versus that meaning that I’m giving their fascist notions any merit.
11 Likes
I think there’s value in challenging these positions outright, but not engaging in debate. As you say, debate will go nowhere. However, when an in-law says plainly at Thanksgiving, “The vaccines aren’t safe and weren’t tested”, I will say “that simply isn’t true”.
My experience with a lot of these kinds of people is that their views have never been challenged. The reason they feel comfortable saying stuff like that at Thanksgiving is because they live in a Fox News/Facebook bubble and thus think these are mainstream opinions. Saying plainly, “that isn’t true” directly to them has been pretty effective in my experience. They get visibly flustered and change the subject, but I know I’ve put a seed in their head that is going to bug them and maybe make them think. They’ve literally never been told they are wrong before and it’s like a splash of cold water.
Don’t try to say why or defend your position. As others have said, that legitimizes their position as worthy of debate and plays their game. They are fully loaded with nonsensical Gish galloping talking points handed to them by Tucker Carlson, and prepared to debate in bad faith. Just tell them they are wrong. Over and over if needed. They are counting on taking advantage of your politeness, and when that’s taken away they get instantly flustered.
My point exactly. I think it’s helpful to distinguish between push-back and debate. You can challenge their position without defending yours and falling into a trap. That’s surprisingly effective, because as in your example, their positions fall apart instantly in the details. Refusing to even talk about this stuff with them is the rhetorical equivalent of ignoring trollies online and hoping they go away. They don’t. A position unchallenged is a position reinforced.
7 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
