• Tiresia@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you want to have a fact based conversation, it would be nice if you came with facts instead of just claiming they exist.

    If you want to discuss about what kind of killing is worth calling murder, it would be nice if you explained your position.

    Your original comment is incredibly passive-aggressive.

    • TheFonz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      Thanks. I want to get better so if the way I replied came across as passive aggressive then it’s something I need to work on.

      I’ve tried having a factual discussion on this instance about the topic in the past but I ended up spending the whole time arguing if I’m a conservative in disguise or not and honestly that’s the most I can get out of this platform. If you have any tips on a better approach I’m all ears. I really want to get my messaging to a better place.

      • Tiresia@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I guess the main thing is that if you’re going to argue for something very unpopular, rather than arguing for the sake of your opponent as they are today, argue for the sake of uncommitted onlookers and for the sake of the opponent a week from now after they’ve had time to calm down and reprocess. Respond to their arguments, of course, but do it in a way that illustrates to less polarized people that you’ve got a point, rather than trying to convince your opponent or finding specific errors in the opponent’s reasoning/self-justification.

        When an issue is as polarized as this, people very rarely switch sides publicly (unless they’re shilling and they didn’t hold the original position to begin with), but people can cringe from the side making bad arguments, quietly distancing themselves, and a few months or years later show up on a different side.

        If you want that side to be your side, it’s nice to present a pipeline that does that. People who cringe from bottom-of-the-barrel leftist discourse can fall into alt-right pipelines, which you presumably don’t want, so ideally you would want to have examples of (leftist) influencers whose takes you find reasonable, ideally on the case itself. For example, LegalEagle (“it is plausible that the jury was right that murder under Wisconsin law was not proven beyond reasonable doubt”).

        The hate is not really avoidable except by forgoing this venue or not arguing your point, but like with the hate thrown towards peaceful climate activists, it is not a sign that you’re doing a bad job.

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Thank you. I appreciate the thoughts. I understand the onlooker angle Vs trying to convince your opponent. There’s a lot to mull over in your comment. Going to process and reflect. Thanks again.