Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

closed wrote (edited by a moderator )

I have had many online conversations with people that'd you'd call fascists.

You can't expect to see, or have any change admitted by them in an adversarial conversation. Regardless of whether they change or not, the conversation is worth it, if only to get to know them better, test out different approaches etc...

They are people too, who believe their actions are for some manner of moral good. If you believe your actions are also just, then the aim should be to seek understanding.

Explicitly avoiding conversation just makes you appear intellectually weak and closed-minded, and really aids their cause.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

closed wrote (edited by a moderator )

They don't need you to legitimize them as people, they are legitimate people already.

Yes, they seek conversation, it spreads their ideas, expands and strengthens their movement and builds their own confidence in their beliefs.

Please try to explain exactly how a conversation between one of you and one of them should somehow aid their movement and hinder yours? Unless of course your philosophy is inherently weaker, which could be the natural conclusion of an outsider.

It's true I don't talk with any 'fascists' in person, I engage/converse with them regularly online, over periods of months.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

closed wrote (edited by a moderator )

I would prefer that those who strongly disagree with his advertised ideology voice their objections, whether that means merely passing remarks or engaging in a more extended conversation. Your 'awkward and dismissive' atmosphere sounds more like a free pass for this person. If I walked around with a swastika on my arm (believing in it) and nobody said anything, I think I'd feel relieved and emboldened.

Why is he able to 'spout rhetoric that easily proves his point' while you are seemingly unable to? Surely, even outside of deep conversation, there must be some simple verbal points that can be used against this master of public debate? These people were the personification of evil during WWII: for you to tell me that we are now unable to match them in simplified public debate isn't encouraging.

Personally, I think punching them without them initiating physical violence is going out of your way to concede the moral high ground: which is no small feat against a Nazi. I prefer to be nonviolent.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

-1

closed wrote (edited by a moderator )

I think my understanding of social pressures is sufficient. Being given the silent treatment and a wide berth wouldn't bother me much - your local Nazi is made of sterner stuff than you think. After all, they seem to be walking about risking violent assault from you.. do you seriously think 'being awkwardly dismissive' is going to do anything at all? Some will probably take it as a sign of respect!

Again, you are telling me that you are incapable of besting this Nazi in public debate. That is very bad news.

I'm tempted to discuss eugenics with you, but you have a website full of people who don't appreciate Nazis at your disposal. I suggest you do a little group brainstorming regarding effective public debating strategies, and public responses to Nazi talking points. Many of you seem to waste your time categorizing imaginary forms of government that nobody cares about - you really should focus more on practicalities.