What's the best way of dealing with Maga hatred, white power, genocide denial and other things you see a Lemmy user espousing?
2 years ago by Melatonin to c/asklemmy
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.
I’m going to post this idea by agent_nycto, because it’s another good way to deal with them, especially if you run into them IRL:
I don't think you should be quiet, it makes them feel like everyone is agreeing with them and makes everyone miserable. Time to introduce you to my favorite game to play with conservatives, Politics Judo!
So you hear them rant about a thing. Some dumbass talking point. Let's use gun control. It's pretty easy to know in advance what the talking points are since they never shut up and parrot the same problem and solution over and over. "Shouldn't take guns, it's a mental problem not a gun problem".
Things are basically boiled down to a problem and a solution. A lot of people try to convince people that the problem isn't what people think it is, and that's hard to do. Even if they are just misinformed, it feels like trying to dismiss their fears.
So what you do is you agree with the problem, then use lefty talking points as the solution.
"Oh yeah, gun violence is pretty bad! And I love the Constitution, we shouldn't mess with that!" (Use small words and also throw in some patriotism, makes them feel like you're on their side. You want to sound like a right wing media con artist) "so instead of taking guns away, we should instead start having more, free, mental health care in this country. Since it's a mental health problem and these people are crazy, that is the solution that makes the most sense!" (Don't try to get them to agree to your solution, just state it as the obvious one)
It becomes weaponized cognitive dissonance. Their brains fry because you said the things you should to agree with them, flagged yourself as an ally, but then said the thing they were told is the bad and shouldn't want.
If they try to argue with your solution, rinse and repeat to a different talking point. "Oh yeah it might cost more, and we shouldn't have to pay more for it, so we should get the rich people who are screwing average hard working Americans over by not paying taxes to do that. We should shut down tax loopholes and increase funding to the IRS so they can go after them instead of the little guy"
Always sound like you're agreeing with them, but giving solutions that they disagree with that seem to be off topic but are related.
A good thing about this approach is you're not wasting your time (much). It doesn't matter if they're trolling for attention or entertainment if you remain passive/neutral and give them so little to work with.
Imagine instead giving them an originally-written 200 word argument and then they just reply "didnt read" - wasted your time on a bad faith prank. (that said - perhaps your audience isn't the troll, but rather, the lurkers. I would only consider putting in effort if the comment isn't being downvoted to the bottom holding an anchor)
For sure, it's great to be in communities like ours and theirs where staff actually boot them all out, and it's also useful to know tactics for treating those people if they're in places which idealistically believe in free speech more than saving lives and stuff. Luckily I can't think of any active instances which don't have basic anti-bigotry rules, but it's entirely possible for one to federate and not earn a full-instance ban, at least from the more liberal instances. I don't think it's enough to say 'skill issue don't use a bad instance', for example Wolfballs remained in the scene for a while until they were finally considered too rabid for most instances to tolerate.
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.
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.)
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.
how is blocking someone helping influence other people? youre the only human the block affects. its no different than ignoring them.
I'm here for entertainment, as I assume most people are. If seeing that sort of rhetoric is a negative to you, block it. Marie Kondo your online life and yeet anything out the window that doesn't spark joy. Put your anti-MAGA efforts towards improving your IRL community where you don't have to futilely battle pseudonymous trolls.
That's why I said this part
Put your anti-MAGA efforts towards improving your IRL community where you don't have to futilely battle pseudonymous trolls.
Edit: that was a little blunt. To elaborate, I don't engage everyone I see in the grocery store wearing a MAGA hat. I don't knock on the door of everyone flying a Trump flag. I don't engage the white nationalist ass hat spouting off in the bar. We pick our battles based on many factors, including personal safety and well being. Find a way to help that actually does something and makes you feel good about it.
Well said!
Left-leaning by what definition?
I'm not saying that as a challenge, I'm legitimately curious what interpretation of 'left' tolerates those ideas. Even a bigot with economically social ideas (like a Strassertite) is typically considered 'right-wing'.
I thought they were either shoved out, bullied out or pushed
That's not something we should be trying for though. Wouldn't you be mad if suddenly conservatives came on and said that same thing about left-leaning people?!
nazis are not welcome here.
Good thing I'm not a nazi then.
Hope you're doing your part to make nazis feel unwelcome.
Wouldn’t you be mad if suddenly conservatives came on and said that same thing about left-leaning people?!
It's less about whether I'd feel mad, and more about how that materially affects our community. Left-leaning people are trying to make communities which allow all peoples (but not all ideas, like exterminating races and objectifying sexes), while plenty of conservatives (I don't think the word 'conservative' truly applies, but many identify as conservative) are trying to exclude peoples they consider undesirables. If you wanted, you can walk into an anarcho-communist or M-L organization and, as long as you don't offend them with any provoking symbols or offensive ideas, be welcomed. Not everyone can do the same in a reactionary community. So I don't think it's fair to equivocate anti-rightism with anti-leftism. (and, as a side note, if we want to talk about the rare ultra-liberalist ('Libertarian') free-speech everyone-welcome scenario, Lemmy already went through that with Wolfballs a few years back - their admin shut it down when they eventually realized they'd created a Nazi bar and that the WNs weren't just being dumb and offensive as a joke.)
Furthermore, in the context of Lemmy overall, it was created by communists who were leaving reddit to avoid what you described:
are trying to exclude peoples they consider undesirables
Which is exactly what you and Lemmy are doing by saying conservatives are not welcome here. They are un-desired..ala undesirable. Can't you see the irony of what you are saying?!
Take what you wrote and switch the words around. Change all the liberal words to Repubiclan. Then stand back and read it. Def sounds EXACTLY like how you all assume republicans talk and exclude.
They are un-desired…ala undesirable.
Well, yes. It's why conservatives recruit incels.
They are un-desired…ala undesirable.
No, their politics are unwanted. That's a huge difference, it's absurd to treat them as equal.
When I used the term 'undesirables', I didn't mean literally 'not desired'. I meant it in the context that reactionaries like NSDAP (Nazi Germany) and their modern fans use it - it referred to peoples like Slavs, Romani, Jews, black peoples, people with disabilities, homosexuals and ideological opponents, and more^[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany, introduction, paragraph 3 and more]. People, just because of their lineage, were considered subhuman (Untermensch) and sent to be deported or exterminated. And it's absolutely applicable to the section of modern US conservatives (including their national leaders) who are currently embracing similar oppression of selected races and conditions. That's the allusion I was making with the borrowed term 'undersirables', not just a person who is being offensive, starting fights and told to leave.
Identifying politically is a choice. One can refine their political positions, or even just be diplomatic and respectful, at any time, by choice. It's very easy.
Being identified as a race, sex, or other similar category, is not a choice. So if you feel excluded because you named your account after two racist cunts and openly identify as 'conservative' in an anti-racist space, that's something you can easily choose not to do if you actually want to be included. Don't expect us to take you seriously when you compare that to the Republic party's form of exclusion, oppressing people for how they were born, not how they choose to act in a society.
I meant Lemmy as a whole. And I agree with you that we shouldn't be trying for that. I personally have been bullied and there have been plenty of attempts to push me out--all because I post links to news articles that have conservative points of view. Even when it's AP News, I get bullied. lol
I personally have been bullied and there have been plenty of attempts to push me out–all because I post links to news articles that have conservative points of view.
Did not everyone immediately agree with you and applaud?
Poor thing.
Report their comments, most instances will ban them unless they comment on a Nazi instance in which case good riddance.
If its a nazi instance, ask your admin to defederate.
Call them a dumbass bitch idiot
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.
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.
This makes it look like the post is popular and draws more attention. Depending on the platform, it signals the algorithm to show it to more people.
Doing this is engaging exactly the way they expect you to engage, it helps no one.
Don't feed the trolls. If you find a bigot willing to have a good faith debate, maybe, but there is no reasoning with cult members. They have to want to change.
On the internet, you're not likely to change their mind, like at all. But in person, if you can connect with someone and bring it back to family, and community, you can slowly change someone's mind and show them that they've been lied too. It doesn't happen overnight, but it can be done.
On the interwebs, don't even bother.
This topic always reminds me of this hero https://www.npr.org/...
I want to see more people like him in this world. But I sure wouldn't have the guts to follow his steps.
When Lemmy first got popular and all debates happened and such, I kept debating politely while they kept bashing, insulting and all that. I’m over that.
When I see such opinions now, I block them. They are seriously not worth my time, energy and effort. Let them wallow in their misery.
They won’t realize it but everything bad they hope happening to others will certainly bite them back sooner or later. The moment they do not fit their (own) ideology of fascism just a tiny bit, it’ll bite them back.
They won’t realize it but everything bad they hope happening to others will certainly bite them back sooner or later.
This applies to all of us. What we put out returns. It's easy to repay hate for hate, but...a lie travels quickly while truth endures and eventually prevails. I'm not saying do not defend ourselves where necessary; but to do so with sorrow and compassion.
I'd say don't believe in it.
Ignore them, then vote accordingly. Nothing you or I say will have any effect
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.
Where are you encountering these types of conversations on Lemmy? I haven't hardly noticed any sort of debates or conversations like that here. I just figured most conservatives just avoid this place either because they are keeping to their own echo chambers or aren't smart enough to figure out how Lemmy works
This is 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.
You may feel that they go unapposed and therefore you should be a countering force, but really your efforts are moot. People have their beliefs that won’t be changed online, at least not from some internet stranger. You can make the best arguments in the world and the opposition will simply ignore your point, move the goalposts, and implement the next logical fallacy to keep proving you “wrong” or “an idiot”.
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.
blocking/not blocking doesnt 'allow' them anything cept maybe free rent in your brain... doesnt affect them at all.
i tend to ignore them. my blocklist is very small
im not saying one is better than the other, just that your experience is not affecting other humans.
whether you block or ignore.. no one else knows what youre doing, so youre not 'influencing' anyone else.
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.
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.
Block users and instances is the only way.
Open hostility. Anywhere nazis are welcome, no one else is.
Doxx them.
What, that isn't allowed? Well neither is white supremacist hate speech. Fuck that trash.
My answer is that it depends on several factors. The first and least impactful thing you can do (and that's in terms of both you and the other person) is to just block them. Next step up is that if they're not on a big instance that you get content from regularly, just block their instance. After that, report them to your instance owner - they might get blocked from interacting with your instance. And the more heavy-duty action is to reach out to their instance owner with evidence and make your concerns known - then if they get booted, you can continue as you were; and if they don't, block the instance.
Fight fire with fire. Assume their gender. 🙂
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...
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.
@lemmy.ml
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
go to feed...
@lemmy.ml
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
go to feed...
i find this very satisfying: gently disagreeing with them via a short single positive message like "gay people do deserve respect", then letting them throw a very lengthy, time-invested tantrum before gently and completely disagreeing with their comment with another short sentence, over and over until they get tired.
i find that both very funny and I'm putting out positive messages that negate their bigotry without too much time or effort.
that's just if you have the time and inclination to engage, you aren't morally obligated to subject yourself to abusive behavior.
if it's real bad, they're probably violating a rule, and reporting them will get them banned
save