“Never Explain. Your Friends Don’t Require It, and Your Enemies Won’t Believe You, Anyway.”
That’s the problem with the far right mindset. You can offer whatever factual and objective evidence you want and they just don’t care. They’re not going to read it and they don’t want their mind changed. Some say your should present the evidence anyway for others to see, but I’ve never seen anyone say, “I was reading this toxic argument and the one person totally changed my view based on the presented evidence!” The one thing I can say is that someone posting factual evidence is that at least those who do know and care understand they’re not alone.
I get where you’re coming from, have felt the same before, and would agree that it’s important to pick one’s battles. That said, I have 100% been the person you describe whose opinion on a topic was changed just because one person took the time to disagree and explain why.
In fact, since it’s often a thankless chore to counter a local consensus or hive-mind opinion using evidence or a well-constructed argument, I’ve come to really appreciate when anyone attempts to do so respectfully and in good faith, even if I’m ultimately not convinced.
WRT Kirk, there’s little room for nuanced opinions: one either knows nothing about him or takes his far-right christian nationalist and white-supremacist statements for what they are. Since fewer people will occupy that first category over time, attempts to reach them will see diminishing returns, so I think it suffices to just direct them to a reputable source re: his statements.
I have a similar philosophy, but framed a little differently: never
argue with an idiot, because the best possible outcome is you’ll win an argument against an idiot.
So it’s more kind of “pick your battles”. Or, to widen the application beyond just discussion - always think “why am I doing this? What am I hoping to achieve?”
“Never Explain. Your Friends Don’t Require It, and Your Enemies Won’t Believe You, Anyway.”
That’s the problem with the far right mindset. You can offer whatever factual and objective evidence you want and they just don’t care. They’re not going to read it and they don’t want their mind changed. Some say your should present the evidence anyway for others to see, but I’ve never seen anyone say, “I was reading this toxic argument and the one person totally changed my view based on the presented evidence!” The one thing I can say is that someone posting factual evidence is that at least those who do know and care understand they’re not alone.
I get where you’re coming from, have felt the same before, and would agree that it’s important to pick one’s battles. That said, I have 100% been the person you describe whose opinion on a topic was changed just because one person took the time to disagree and explain why.
In fact, since it’s often a thankless chore to counter a local consensus or hive-mind opinion using evidence or a well-constructed argument, I’ve come to really appreciate when anyone attempts to do so respectfully and in good faith, even if I’m ultimately not convinced.
WRT Kirk, there’s little room for nuanced opinions: one either knows nothing about him or takes his far-right christian nationalist and white-supremacist statements for what they are. Since fewer people will occupy that first category over time, attempts to reach them will see diminishing returns, so I think it suffices to just direct them to a reputable source re: his statements.
I have a similar philosophy, but framed a little differently: never argue with an idiot, because the best possible outcome is you’ll win an argument against an idiot.
So it’s more kind of “pick your battles”. Or, to widen the application beyond just discussion - always think “why am I doing this? What am I hoping to achieve?”
not anymore!
Honest to God I wish someone had told me that line when I was a kid.