Small minds, they are not used to braining. They think making a statement means promoting that thing. They think criticizing an argument automatically means you disagree with it.
Social justice topics are particularly sticky to navigate, especially as someone who isn’t visibly a minority. Like if I say “[such-and-such] minorities aren’t oppressed,” they’ll say “how dare you say that, yes they are!” But if I say “[such-and-such] minorities are oppressed,” they’ll say “how dare you say that, that’s so patronizing!” And if I don’t say anything, they’ll say “how dare you remain silent about the plight of so many people!” Again, there’s no winning.
They think criticizing an argument automatically means you disagree with it.
Yeah, I’m far more likely to criticize an argument that I agree with in essence but disagree in substance or method. Like, if someone is completely wrong about something and has no inclination of being convinced otherwise, usually I won’t waste my time. I don’t argue with right-wingers online anymore because there’s no fucking point, I don’t have the time and energy for that, and I don’t even visit the same spaces of the internet as them. The most I’ll do when I see them in the wild is ridicule them and move on.
If I see a leftist arguing poorly, however, I’ll usually chip in my ten cents as to how they could improve their argument. Whether the focus should be slightly different, or there’s a better way to argue the same thing, or the premises could be more factual, or the logic more structurally valid. If I disagree about the nuances of their argument, I’ll present a nuanced argument of my own.
But some people seem to think that if I’m arguing with leftists, then I must be a right-winger. That’s incorrect. If I was a right-winger, I would be spending more time in right-wing spaces and less in leftist spaces. I wouldn’t bother arguing with people who’s perspectives and worldviews are so categorically different from my own. If I wasn’t a leftist, I wouldn’t care if leftists online could be making better arguments.
Also, more and more these days I find myself treating tankies like I treat right-wingers. They’re equally as deluded, irrational, heavyhanded, and authoritarian. They don’t listen to reason or facts and evidence. It’s all ideology, propaganda, DARVO, gaslighting, insults, and accusations with them.
But I do still argue with them, because they’re so pervasive in left-wing spaces, and I don’t want them dominating the narrative. I want other leftists, less extreme leftists, rational and empathetic leftists, to have spaces where they feel comfortable having intelligent discussions without it turning into a tankie circlejerk.
Example:
When I was still on reddit, a few years ago the democratic socialists sub was overrun with tankies. Like, they already had all the other leftist subs, couldn’t they just leave this one that’s supposed to be the least extreme and most inclusive of diverse opinions? So I started arguing with them about why authoritarian behavior shouldn’t be tolerated there, that it’s a democratic socialist sub and should be treated as such. It caught on, and other peoplw picked up the argument. Eventually the mods had a vote on whether to ban ML harassment. It passed, and now MLs are still allowed there, but if they attack people for disagreement then they get banned.
But tankies don’t actually engage with my arguments in good faith, they just call me a fascist because I refuse to kowtow to their moral pedestal-standing and ideological purism. And in effect, they water down the meaning of the word ‘fascist’ and make it harder to be taken seriously when I point to actual examples of fascism.
Small minds, they are not used to braining. They think making a statement means promoting that thing. They think criticizing an argument automatically means you disagree with it.
Both true statements.
Social justice topics are particularly sticky to navigate, especially as someone who isn’t visibly a minority. Like if I say “[such-and-such] minorities aren’t oppressed,” they’ll say “how dare you say that, yes they are!” But if I say “[such-and-such] minorities are oppressed,” they’ll say “how dare you say that, that’s so patronizing!” And if I don’t say anything, they’ll say “how dare you remain silent about the plight of so many people!” Again, there’s no winning.
Yeah, I’m far more likely to criticize an argument that I agree with in essence but disagree in substance or method. Like, if someone is completely wrong about something and has no inclination of being convinced otherwise, usually I won’t waste my time. I don’t argue with right-wingers online anymore because there’s no fucking point, I don’t have the time and energy for that, and I don’t even visit the same spaces of the internet as them. The most I’ll do when I see them in the wild is ridicule them and move on.
If I see a leftist arguing poorly, however, I’ll usually chip in my ten cents as to how they could improve their argument. Whether the focus should be slightly different, or there’s a better way to argue the same thing, or the premises could be more factual, or the logic more structurally valid. If I disagree about the nuances of their argument, I’ll present a nuanced argument of my own.
But some people seem to think that if I’m arguing with leftists, then I must be a right-winger. That’s incorrect. If I was a right-winger, I would be spending more time in right-wing spaces and less in leftist spaces. I wouldn’t bother arguing with people who’s perspectives and worldviews are so categorically different from my own. If I wasn’t a leftist, I wouldn’t care if leftists online could be making better arguments.
Also, more and more these days I find myself treating tankies like I treat right-wingers. They’re equally as deluded, irrational, heavyhanded, and authoritarian. They don’t listen to reason or facts and evidence. It’s all ideology, propaganda, DARVO, gaslighting, insults, and accusations with them.
But I do still argue with them, because they’re so pervasive in left-wing spaces, and I don’t want them dominating the narrative. I want other leftists, less extreme leftists, rational and empathetic leftists, to have spaces where they feel comfortable having intelligent discussions without it turning into a tankie circlejerk.
Example:
When I was still on reddit, a few years ago the democratic socialists sub was overrun with tankies. Like, they already had all the other leftist subs, couldn’t they just leave this one that’s supposed to be the least extreme and most inclusive of diverse opinions? So I started arguing with them about why authoritarian behavior shouldn’t be tolerated there, that it’s a democratic socialist sub and should be treated as such. It caught on, and other peoplw picked up the argument. Eventually the mods had a vote on whether to ban ML harassment. It passed, and now MLs are still allowed there, but if they attack people for disagreement then they get banned.
But tankies don’t actually engage with my arguments in good faith, they just call me a fascist because I refuse to kowtow to their moral pedestal-standing and ideological purism. And in effect, they water down the meaning of the word ‘fascist’ and make it harder to be taken seriously when I point to actual examples of fascism.