By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Alara317 on 30 July 2020
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
Alara317 said:

Like I said, I've been doing this for 12 years. the ideal of peaceful agreement is nice when it works but an overwhelming majority of the time it doesn't. Ideally, I'd prefer if we could all discuss the pros and cons of each stance and come out better people in the end, but the reality is that people are naturally tribalistic and the more you tell them they're wrong - even if you're doing it with the best intentions, the best facts, and the best logic - the harder they'll work to stand their ground. Everyone THINKS they're openminded and willing to change, but almost no studies prove this to be the case. Almost everyone resists change and fights opposition, them being right or not is irrelevant. 

So, with that in mind, arguing with someone on the internet isn't so much about changing tHEIR minds - it never was since it's so rare for that to happen - but to change the narrative for those watching and observing, to sway the people on the sides who haven't made up their minds yet. 

And unfortunately, simple but wrong answers are SO much easier to accept than complicated, right answers. 

Take the 'black on black crime' argument that bigots like to tout. On the surface (and if you're already predisposed to bigotry) it's easy to see a stat about black on black crime being higher than black on white or white on black crime and say 'yep, those terrible blacks are just more predisposed to crime' and leave it at that. However, a single statistic doesn't explain WHY that might be, what factors were considered to get there, where the stat was from or the social fabric that allowed this to happen. It doesn't factor in the very real astroturfing of systemic racism, it doesn't factor in how for decades black people were forced into ghettos where they had less access to the means to help themselves and therefore were in tighter, more dangerous situations. The statistic might have some truth to it, but there's a lot more going into it. 

But to an observer of this argument, it's so, SO much easier to just see the stat, say 'yep, they're all bad people' and leave it at that. IT's the easier, shorter answer and thus the one that can be spoken louder and more repeatedly. The easier, wrong answer is the one that carries.

That's why it's so important to not be complacent. that's why education is so important. that's why it's so frustrating to see you and others so vehemently against taking action or loudly countering the wrong arguments and bigotry that people like LonelyDolphin are tacitly endorsing. Whether LoneyDolphin is a bigot or not, he's saying bigoted things. What he believes for real is irrelevant, because he's still saying 'AllLivesMatter'. And, to someone watching, that's a true statement. all lives do in fact matter. But that strips away all the nuance of why "BlackLivesMatter" is so important. He continually ignores the explanations on how it doesn't mean Black Lives matter More or ONLY black lives matter. IT doesn't mean white lives don't matter. He and others on this forum regularly ignore stuff like that because it's inconvenient and all they see is an insult against them or some weird sort of counterbalance that they think has gone too far in one direction. 

Again, the wrong answer and the wrong interpretation of the movement is what carries becuase it's easy to ignore the reality of the situation in lieu of 'yeah, all lives DO matter'. And that's why I won't interact with him. The more I get him to talk, the more he gets opportunities to push that inherently bigoted agenda. all I can really do with him is say 'you're wrong, and your views are bad' because anything more than that validates his viewpoint as somewhat justified. If I argue with him on a level playing field, it gives the impression to other onlookers that his stance on any of these matters has value. 

It doesn't. 

He's wrong, and you acting like I'm unethical for saying so gives him and his stance more power. 

THAT is why I'm so vocal about this stuff. 

In your virtual and real life advocating and exposing evil doers are you part of the "cancelling culture"?

It's not about cancelling, it's about educating. The best you can really hope to do is get through to a small fraction of people and have them go where the facts carry them, even if it's more difficult than where they might have been. There's a reason people mostly call situations like this 'teachable moments'. Some people go too far in both directions (Some people are TOO offensive and do so without wit or intelligence to back it up) and some people go overboard on 'cancel culture', but for the most part everyone wants what's best and ideally we'd do so by educating others on the matter. 

In almost all examples of internet outrage culture, you're seeing the vocal minority. Like with The Last of Us 2, you got a contingent of SUPER DUPER angry fans about the various plot elements...but the game still sold remarkably well and got great reviews. The people who liked it or loved it generally see it's frivolous to try and argue with people who hate it, so they simply say their piece and move on. Most of the time. but the people that hate it? They'll tell you every chance they get, repeatedly, and with as many different variations on the wordings as they can muster. 

Hate, like ignorance, is far easier to spread because it hits a primal part of our brain. IT's a lot easier to rally AGAINST something than rally FOR something. It's easier to take the quick, wrong answer than the accurate, complicated answer.