elliegrine:

queeranarchism:

sindri42:

garbage-empress:

etrangerici:

sepulchritude:

one thing I don’t think people realize is that in arguments about human rights, it’s not about trying to persuade the other party. it’s not about them at all. they’ve already made up their mind.

it’s about persuading the audience.

if I call out my teacher on being homophobic I’m not trying to change his opinion. I’m trying to convince any closeted kids in the room that they’re not the monsters he’s made them out to be.

if I argue with my aunt about how racist she’s being it’s not because I expect to change her mind. it’s because I’m hoping to god my cousin’s kids hear and learn that maybe skin color doesn’t mean what she says it means.

people will try to hush you and say “they’re not going to change their minds, don’t bother” but it’s not about them. it was never about them.

REBLOGGED SO HARD!!!!!!!

screencapped for the next time i hear this

For the same reason: it doesn’t matter how much the person you’re arguing against really deserves a fist in the face. If you resort to physical violence in response to words, anybody in the audience who was neutral is going to see you as the villain and the jackass you punched as the hero/victim, no matter how vile they are. 

Bullshit. Like, sure, some people are going to think that. But a whole lot of people are going to think “oh there is actually someone willing to physically defend me when groups try to argue that people like me need to die. I thought I was alone in being actually scared of what they’d do to me once they got enough people on their side.”

In the same vein, every time someone politely debates a person that claims I should die, I feel less safe around the person who is being so polite and doesn’t seem the least bit upset about a threat to my life.

When a debate is about your audience, consider how much space you give your opponent to normalize and spread their horrible opinions. Consider what you communicate by being nice to them.

There are several problems with debating to persuade the audience. You give your opponent the exact same chance to persuade them to join their side. You force every one whom they might target in the audience to suffer through another barrage of attacks on their existence. You might “lose” the discussion.

The concepts of how all human life is valuable, and picking apart every single one of their lies is complicated. You need to search for sources to back up your claims. Compare that to them, who just spew any old lie that supports their claims, which one is easier to absorb as a bystander who isn’t really invested in the discussion? Remember, a lie repeated enough times easily becomes the ‘truth’ in our minds (known as the illusory truth effect)

And then there’s the Overton window, which is clearly visible in US media right now. The Overton window is the concept that only a certain ‘window’ of political opinions are viewed as reasonable and all outside it becomes regarded as extremes. When discussing with fascists becomes normal the window shifts to the right. What used to be the right suddenly becomes the ‘reasonable centrists’, those who where the center become leftist and the leftists gets pushed out.

Instead, picking apart the nazis arguments without engaging them should be the way to go. You control the narrative and cannot lose, you have all the time in the world to build upon it, source things and so on. You make a far more convincing argument to persuade bystanders, especially since they don’t have to engage in understanding both sides.

Props to @adventuresinhormones video on the subject https://youtu.be/QT2MVZ7kWa8 I think I just mostly repeated what she said