If I ignore/block them, it allows them to continue unchallenged. I hate getting into it with them, since they are a baseline idiot.
I guess that’s it. I saw a person with a 6 month account spouting garbage, was gonna block but thought perhaps that wasn’t morally responsible. Wondering what the options were.
Publicly denounce them, then block them.
Reinforces to the public at large that they are unacceptable, and removes their agency to engage you.
Realistically I think your options are to ignore/block, or confront them against your better judgement. Which, as you know will likely constitute going circles for hours before having to bow out because your brain is coming out of your ears. The problem with both these options is that they likely have the same outcome. However, the latter will also leave them resenting you and the rest of the “online leftists” even more than they already do. In fact, it will probably embolden them in their pursuit of radical centrism just to own the “tankies”.
That’s just my experience and observations tho…
It’s really rare on Lemmy, but a direct logical rebuttal is not the right answer. That’s like trying to force your way out of a finger trap. They have no obligation to be constrained by logic themselves, and since just giving the appearance of it is easy they’ll come out looking decent on a fast, casual read. Sending pigpoopballs is also not the best answer, since that makes them look persecuted, and blocking them just stops you from downvoting. Something in between works best.
Here’s an example I remember because it did work spectacularly well: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/23469562/14918633
OP didn’t know anything about the science or the history, and was obviously going off of their shitty Facebook feed. So I sidestep a bit, supplied new facts about issues they hadn’t heard of a bit, and set them up to have to talk about several things they definitely do but wouldn’t admit to (not reading, homophobia, and moving on when they start to lose). Boom, feigned medical emergency.
Edit: And importantly, in the actual typical Lemmy case, be nice and listen to other viewpoints. If you try this kind of approach with someone who’s making a good faith effort you’re the asshole and will look like it.
Doxx them.
What, that isn’t allowed? Well neither is white supremacist hate speech. Fuck that trash.
Stop calling yourself leftist you hateful fuck.
Ignore them, then vote accordingly. Nothing you or I say will have any effect
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 tend to not reply because that will just draw more attention to them. I will post a separate top level comment rebutting their statements without referring to them.
That’s a good strategy, thanks.
Block and move on. Not everyone has to have same opinion as you in a forum.
I’m not upset about someone not having the same opinion as me. But…
- being upset about how white people are treated
- being so pro israel that you’re blinded to the plight ofthe palestinians
- getting upset when someone includes LGBTQ in oppressed people
I don’t think those are just different opinions. Maybe i’m wrong.
Agreed, those are bad things. Just making a point that not all MAGA or conservatives believe those things. And if you are online, you’re not going to change their mind. So better just block and move on.
You are totally free to fight it, but it won’t get you anywhere.
You can argue with me about a lot of things but not human rights. I agree.
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.
Bully them. The only way to deal with a bully is to show your strength.
You know how a lot of libs like to police language? That’s weak and only pisses off bullies. Instead, use their language against them. For example, a decent liberal would never do this but you can do more emotional damage to a maga and make a point they would understand by calling them a ‘regarded fage’ (paraphrasing because that is ban worthy insult in many places online) over and over again than you ever could by using logic against them.
Sometimes in wonder if Lemmy is the number 1, social network in Americans highschools.
Because some of these replies…
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.
There’s a lot of other good suggestions here, so I’ll just ask, what outcome are you hoping to achieve?
My conscience. assuaged.
If that’s the case, I’d recommend treating them like spam: reply and you’ll get a lot more.
Mostly, it’s a huge emotional and time investment if you want to change someone’s behavior and from what I gather, it’s a one on one type of thing and really hard. If you want to stop them from interacting negatively with others, your best action would be to report them.
If you’re upset and want to vent, then engaging will be fun for a while, but mostly futile in terms of behaviour adjustments.
If I respond, it’s mostly for the ‘audience’. I used to argue on r/libertarian or r/conservative, not to change the other person’s mind, but to add a different opinion to the thread. I doubt I ever convinced the other person of anything, but hope I got other people to think a bit more about some of the policies being advocated for.
You’re not gonna change their mind.
You’d be better spending your time breaking a brick wall with your skull.
Fuck em. Block em.
Sometimes, it’s not about changing their mind, but influencing the many others who are less certain in their beliefs who are just reading along.
If someone can be convinced into racism and hatred they were predisposed to assholery anyway.
Fair though.
Suppose I am too jaded to entertain them anymore. Can only hear so much before entertaining the nonsense wears on my mental.
In that case, it’s better to just make a top-level comment that’s far more likely to be read than a response 4 replies deep in an insufferable debate. You don’t continue the chess game for the sake of spectators once the pigeon has shat all over the board and knocked the pieces on the ground repeatedly. They’re just wasting your time at that point, which for most of them is their only goal in the first place.
Also, people vastly overestimate how many people are actually going to read an argument between two online people. Only the most chronically online of redditors read that shit. Most people find it very off-putting, and you actually risk losing credibility if you continue to engage. (Said as someone who has very much and repeatedly made the error of continuing to engage.)
how is blocking someone helping influence other people? youre the only human the block affects. its no different than ignoring them.
I think they mean not letting the ideas go unchallenged. If someone is reading through and sees a bunch of Nazis posting hate all up somewhere with no one else saying anything, they might assume that sort of behavior is just tacitly accepted and influence their perception of the community as a whole.
Yep.
Generally, my tactic is to not engage directly, but address the rest of the audience, essentially pointing at the subject and mocking him (“Can you believe this MAGA Traitor?..”). When he tries to respond, again ignore him, and just point and laugh.
They get really frustrated being made fun of, without having the satisfaction of creating liberal outrage.
Block em
