Hacker News Reader

Comment by backpropaganda | Hacker News Reader

But what if one side has decided that even talking about a certain topic is denial of their humanity and right to exist? Which arguments can one use when even intention to talk about the topic is going to make them physically attack you? Moreover such a physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.

View on HN

Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window.

Never argue for any particular position; present a series of facts and ideas, then allow your audience to come to their own conclusion. Nobody likes being told what to think, but most people take great satisfaction in joining up the dots for themselves.

Some people might still call you a Nazi, but your obvious reasonableness will be a near-infallible shield; they'll look silly and you'll look dignified.

Study marketing. Major corporations have invested billions in developing powerful persuasion methods, so loot their arsenal. You can sell a political position in exactly the same way as a can of fizzy drink, with immeasurably greater success than someone using the traditional techniques of political rhetoric.

> Operate from a position of excruciating reasonableness. Put a firewall between your beliefs and your words. Approach sensitive topics delicately and obliquely. Acknowledge both "sides" of the debate in a patient and compassionate manner, whilst also signalling that you clearly recognise the edges of the Overton window.

This is probably somewhere where the left could take lessons from rationalist YouTube. Many of the arguments are presented in this way, always taking pains to express their logical credentials and remaining reasonable. Of course the evidence is heavily selected, but that is not mentioned. Then, when 'progressives' shout at them, it is progressives who seem shrill and absurd.

That... that's really not the case for most of "rationalist" youtube. Examples of rebuttals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmM872874A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahuj1B0ow4U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpgBkpb7xlU

All five of those videos are from one person. How is that "most of rationalist youtube"?

He critiques a fair chunk of rationalist youtube.

Is Sargon of Akkad "rationalist" youtube?

""I'm for finding the truth of the matter using rational arguments backed up by evidence. I do my own research and I try to be thorough.""

He seems to be fairly big in the ""rationalist"" crowd.

"Rationalist" youtube is a term I hadn't heard before.

I'd never even heard of The Golden One or Thunderf00t but that youtuber spends a lot of time responding to them.

dito.

What's a logical credential?

You can still keep trying to convince them, gently and reasonably. There is no other option.

How can you try to convince people gently and reasonably when they won't hear you, but will only hear a distorted version of what you say, taken out of context and edited for maximum outrage?

Interpret that behavior as damage and route around it.

On this topic:

These people do not decide. They have seen the effects first-hand.

Perhaps seeing it from the other point of view, what point is there arguing with someone whose inherent philosophy is a denial of the rights of others?

An example of this is the one that you used. The "alt-right": people who follow the words of leaders who have clearly and openly called for the extermination and sterilization of PoCs (Richard Spencer, for example), people who openly use Nazi imagery, and who are backed by the American Nazi Party. [Evidence for these claims are in the bottom section].

In such a case, with the sides, quite literally, being:

I wish to live and have a productive and happy life

I wish for people like you, including you, to no longer exist

What kind of meaningful debate do you expect between such groups? The core principles are, by their very nature, severely opposed to each other.

[Citations for the equivalence of the Nazis and the Alt-right]:

Firstly, Richard Spencer, the person who started the alt-right:

""Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. ""

https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alterna...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer

https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/890979293009895424