You may feel that they go unapposed and therefore you should be a countering force, but really your efforts are moot. People have their beliefs that wonβt be changed online, at least not from some internet stranger. You can make the best arguments in the world and the opposition will simply ignore your point, move the goalposts, and implement the next logical fallacy to keep proving you βwrongβ or βan idiotβ.
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
123 points (92.4% liked)
Asklemmy
51178 readers
936 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Wow, yeah I think this was playing in my mind. You hit the nail on the head. I'll just block the idiot.
Up to you? I used to hang out on a WN part of reddit back when that was allowed and debate people but that's not a thing anymore. The problem is you have utterly no idea if you're getting through to anyone. I do feel like people had to back off their angry racial ideas and adopt a softer "racial zoo" argument that made it seem like all they wanted was to preserve racial diversity rather than eliminate any particular race. I mean at times I wonder if they were looking in the mirror going "is that really why I have this swastika tattoo?" but I have no idea.
I do think the far right cannot survive much scrutiny of its ideas because they are very irrational, but to be honest the left has done a terrible job pointing this out. I know many people even on the moderate right feel like there's a grain of truth to racism that they'll admit in private with other white people, but then once you confront racism and question common assumptions about race* all that falls apart. Many attack racism as a moral failing and that doesn't work because it makes it sound like the truth is being suppressed for moral reasons.
*The most pernicious being the idea that a person can have a single race on a fundamental level that isn't up for debate
WN/neo-nazi communities are classic candidates for bad faith ""debating"". I recall a video interviewing former WNs, one was a WN forum moderator who openly said they didn't believe half the things they were saying, like Great Replacement theory. Fascists (incl. Nazis) could not care less about democracy and liberalist ideology, they treat the liberalist expectation of free speech as a weakness to exploit - they'll gladly hide behind cops and claim to be censored until they have the power to control cops and own social platforms.
Jean-Paul Sartre hit the nail on the head in their 1946 essay criticizing the antisemites:
"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."
I agree but the goal should be not to win a debate, but use their debate platform to slip some woke mind virus into their drink. I always liked to ask very simple questions that they thought they knew the answer to already and make them defend their inevitably irrational answers. For example I used to ask what race is Mariah Carey, because it's a question everyone seems to have a different strong opinion on that can't withstand much questioning. The goal being to make them realize on their own that race is a social construct. Whether that ever worked with anyone I don't know.
Publicly denounce them, then block them.
Reinforces to the public at large that they are unacceptable, and removes their agency to engage you.
Ignore it. It is really that simple. Like what are you going to do?
Get into arguments because someone disagrees with you on the internet? LOL
Life is already short enough as it is.
i just like to tell them all the horrible ways they should die. it's about as effective as anything else (not at all)
Reply to their remark with a warning for other users then block them.
blocking/not blocking doesnt 'allow' them anything cept maybe free rent in your brain... doesnt affect them at all.
i tend to ignore them. my blocklist is very small
load more comments
(2 replies)
Open hostility. Anywhere nazis are welcome, no one else is.
Block users and instances is the only way.
Block user/community/instance.
Report if advocating for violence.
There's really isn't enough time to argue with everyone, and these people are probably used to being argued with, and might even take it as evidence of some big conspiracy. -- If you want to make changes in the word, there are more productive ways then arguing on obscure forums.
Block em
Doxx them.
What, that isn't allowed? Well neither is white supremacist hate speech. Fuck that trash.
load more comments
(1 replies)