naraku360

Like this whole conversation has been me saying that it isn't a matter of civility for their sake. Any civility is a means to an end, and has nothing to do with coddling right-wingers. I'm not going to hold people to a higher standard based off race. You know, out of principle.

Oh, okay. Before we get into semantics, "typically" would be the key word with regards to minorities or marginalized groups. This means "normally" or "usually," it does not mean "always." Now, with 0 knowledge of my friends, you disregarded views because of them being "shitty white friends" and have used your own race to obfuscate responsibility. These are both bigoted as it states 1. white people can't have valid opinions, and 2. your opinion is more valid because of your race/sex. I am going to call people like Candace Owens racist for her portfolio of nazi shit regardless of her being black, and I'll call you racist regardless of you being black, because to do otherwise strictly based on your race would literally be racist. I attempted to engage in a conversation about principles. You got hung up on semantics no matter how many times it was spelled out, made explicitly racist comments which opened by announcing it was always going to be something you would fall back on, and noped out with the very sincere, not at all exposing bad-faith "I, a published author, am above this conversation." So pardon me for recognizing and calling out the disingenious tactics used purely to inflate your ego.

That was all in response to "the best way to handle the Jingais of the world is to shout them down" bit. I've been saying it's, like, the worst way to deal with them. Civility isn't for their sake. If anything, it just annoys them and their smooth brains aren't going to be strong on the impulse control. I don't know how much more clear I can be in what I said. I was very direct in saying that if you're "shouting down" people, you're making it harder to deal with them because not all Jingais are this inept.

Wait, what do you think I'm living with? They've been radicalized politically but we're talking some wacky cognitive dissonance. Like conservative upbringings, some worse than others, that's about all. Trump made it worse and has had a lasting effect. They're not especially bigoted or anything. Maybe I made them out to be worse than intended? So, I wouldn't take much of what I've said over the years while clearly upset as gospel. I'm actually pretty sure I have some kind of severe anxiety disorder that teters on hallucination. Not currently diagnosed or anything, though.

I don't know where you got the impression I'm expecting her to follow debate rules...? Like the whole point is that all a Jingai wants is to get people to berate him so he can more easily control a narrative. My whole point has been to not feed into the narrative. Civility is often the best solution to combating the narrative, but it isn't universal. I don't believe all protests must be nonviolent, for instance. I don't think you nor I would extend such charity to Bucket even though we can just as easily say the same of him.

You liked the post where she explicitly stated that she had already decided early in the conversation that it was just about my "shitty white friends" (it wasn't, and most friends referenced a single time in the conversation aren't even white). She made it personal. And openly racist. I don't know what to tell you if this isn't bad faith on the face of it.

No, it's not. It's very important when talking about deradicalization. We're in the middle of an information war with right wing propaganda dominating we have no choice but to control our narrative to the best of our ability. What's being said right now by both you and Sorce is that we should give up on outreach and just get upset at people for being conservative. It's quite literally arguing that someone being racist now after ignorantly being fed misinformation their whole life is so irredeemable that we should not attempt to make fewer people racist. We should persecute them into staying racist and, if they get out of the rabbithole, should never be accepted. Punish for the way they are and punish them for no longer being that way. Even grosser is the broad acceptance of Sorce's sentiment of me not supporting black rights any more simply due to my stance changing to deradicalization over condemnation (Jingai-types excluded, as no concersation with him has value) and her opinion being supperior because my friends are of an oddly specific skin tone, despite me being a Jew and the friends in question likely being more ethnically diverse than her entire social group, and she's a black woman. I didn't bring up her race or lodge racist jabs are people she doesn't know enough about to realize that 1 in 5 is fully white. Why I'm being made the bad guy for wanting to present a welcoming environment to proactively prevent right-wing radicalization? When she baselessly brought race into it, accused me of racism amidst her explicitly racist comments about my close friends, claimed her opinion superior based on her own skin color, and accused me of being a victim blamer... for what? Saying we should try to do what's beneficial toward preventing the spread of an already festering fascism wound? How dare I suggest treating people with contempt instead of trying to figure them out? I may have phrased it in a way that sounds manipulative or mean by saying I corner people in arguments. I meant that I tend to get lost in arguments the more emotion gets involved. "Cornering" is a lot.less empathetic than I intended. I was getting frustrated and likely already very tired. What I'm talking about is prettypurpose is to help people come to a conclusion on their own when they've been radicalized. I meant more along the lines of walking them through the way I reached a conclusion and letting them agree or disagree. Sometimes it is cognitive dissonance that can be broken through with patience. People aren't born nazis. They're groomed into it, the fear tactics used by outlets like Fox are well-documented as effectively brainwashing. It doesn't justice the horrible acts of hateful extremists, however nazism's spread isn't just some naturally spreading value system. Not everyone going down that path can be brought back, but a lot of them are just regular people who get exploited through ignorance. Should we play into the right's caricature of us or make an active effort to be better people and help people avoid radicalization? How does screaming at me or my allegedly white friends for being white help anyone? Do you like the right being able to correctly associate you with that rather than them attempt to do so incorrectly? Is it better because they get to actually be correct in their smears? You can go low and maintain principles or at very least a little self-respect.

Giving him a legit response or none at all shuts him up far more than telling him to go fuck himself. One he can cry about. The other makes him feel dumb without room to cry to any reasonable person. Yes, he'll cry to his echo chamber, but a normal person can look at it and be like, "You're upset about this? Why?" It's really simple.

I'm responding to shouting people down, as stated several times. I've also said, multiple times, that the purpose of civility boils down to optics to the average, non-political person. If you want to be shitty to people like Jingai, clearly I've shown that I have no interest in being nice to him. When in public, unfortunately civility does have an impact on the perception of the left and yelling insults at people is counterproductive toward drawing people away from right-wing extremism. It is not, nor ever will be, about being nice to disingenuous frauds like Jingai.

You mean my Syrian-Arabic, African-American, and Filipino roommates? Those "white" friends...? No, it's about doing what we can to be productive in pushing leftist beliefs. The point is to not behave in ways that benefit the right. You're literally making the same argument Nabs does when he argues that we should go after Democrats because they aren't good enough even if it knowingly helps the obviously worse Republicans.

I probably should've said 2014-2015 since I was actually attempting to reference the Gamergate -> alt-right trajectory that was pushed by clipping angry leftists. Of course these were generally out of context or outright lies. But the point is they were able to do it because they had been given material and a free reign to use it without adequate opposition. Now there are a lot of leftists who are prepared to debate these things and remaining composed makes it harder to clip. I want to cut off the supply chain so all they can do is tie their own nooses. I've been regularly cornering conservative friends for their beliefs by simply asking questions these days. I couldn't do that when I shouted them down. I'm not suggesting this to deradicalize the too far gone. I'm suggesting it to pull the people around them away from the extremist views.

I didn't say to be nice to bigots. I said to not "shout them down" because that makes us look bad. There is a difference between civility and kindness.

Have you ever heard of rhetoric? The example was about the principle behind your argument of shouting people down. The literal example being a school shooting is irrelevant to the point. The point was about not making it easier for conservatives to smear us. You're the one hung up on the specific hypothetical. Would you hold a parent responsible if they handed a child a fork and pointed to an exposed power outlet? Should a conservative be held socially responsible if they start throwing out the n-word? See? The example is interchangeable. It doesn't have to be a school shooting. I also compared ammo to Ginguy jerking it into a sock after getting fucking destroyed in the midterms. But lets ignore the very clear use of euphemism for the sake of whining that the example was too extreme. That's how principles are tested: extremes. I'm not going to spell this out again. I think this is more than clear enough and if you don't get it, someone else can explain.

You're saying the best method of dealing with people like Ginguy is to shout them down. I'm saying that looks bad to normies and makes it easier for them to smear the left. Did you forget 2016? Right now, the right is the one looking ridiculous. I don't give a fuck what you say to or about Ginguy. He's a piece of shit loser. My escalation was an example of the logic you were using. Because neither you nor I would argue a school would not be responsible if their weapon store made it easier for kids to get weapons. We are responsible for the optics of the left. It has nothing to do with the paper-thin egos of snowflake conservatives. And to answer your question: If you think A. It would be absurd to have a gun store in a school, and B. A woman being murdered for a rejection does not hold blame you are therefore suggesting a school with a gun store has done wrong and a woman rejecting advances has not. You and I both know the school with a gun store should be held responsible on some level because obviously they should. Neither you nor I believe the woman would be at fault. Therefore, it's a false equivalence.

So, turns out Viz licensed the vastly superior manga. 4 volumes out and nobody told me. So there's finally a translation that's [probably] good.

That's unfortunate.

Do you believe conservatives should face social consequences for their actions? We also face social consequences for our actions. I'm saying to give them nothing but more blanks than Ginguy shot into his favorite sock at the stroke of midnight coming off last year's most harsh no-nut November. It's also very strange to make that comparison unless you think a school selling gun supplies would be acceptable.

They're going to shoot up that school anyway, so lets set up an ammo stand at the entrance.

I dunno, I prefer giving the 'fuck off, Ginguy' responses in the lowkey realm these days. Less "shut the fuck up" and more funny gif react, which can often come with its own backhanded jab.

It's not about their feelings. It's about going on the offense without debasing ourselves in the process. There's a difference between letting the message lie unaddressed and behaving like reasonable people so the unreasonable (Ginguy) do nothing but make themselves look bad. How can he bitch about people bullying him and crying about the angry leftist hate mob if the "hate mob" calmly lays out why he's wrong? He wants to be the Joker as a villain. But barely acknowledging him as more than the butt of a joke seems to have drastically diminished his posting capacity. 'Cause he's not coherent or principled enough to amount to anything more than a a sad, impotent joke when the retort is a simple deconstruction of his arguments.

I learned the hard way this doesn't work. Ginguy posts an awful lot of gafbage and he obviously can't be reasoned with, but the sanctity of Ginguy's fragile baby ego isn't the point. All Ginguy does is act like the drunk agitator on a bus. He wants to pick fights because when someone is shitty back he can play victim. That's how the right weaponizes behavior on the left. He can provoke all he wants but if people stick to the points of what he's saying, explain why they're wrong (and acknowledge the rare instances of him stumbling on being correct), then all he accomplishes by posting his transparent cruelty and gross smugness is looking like the asshole he is.

All I know is the worst has got to be announcing season 3 of FLCL.

'Yo, only 1% of people have wasted as much time here as you!'