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.
There’s a lot of other good suggestions here, so I’ll just ask, what outcome are you hoping to achieve?
My conscience. assuaged.
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.
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
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.
I’d say don’t believe in it.
i block those fools, and the community in conservatives, some of them are bots too. theres a reason they are here, banned from reddit for the same thing.
Publicly denounce them, then block them.
Reinforces to the public at large that they are unacceptable, and removes their agency to engage you.
Bully them. The only way to deal with a bully is to show your strength.
You know how a lot of libs like to police language? That’s weak and only pisses off bullies. Instead, use their language against them. For example, a decent liberal would never do this but you can do more emotional damage to a maga and make a point they would understand by calling them a ‘regarded fage’ (paraphrasing because that is a ban worthy insult in many places online) over and over again than you ever could by using logic against them.
You might not like it, but nut shots and low blows work better.
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
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)
Ooo, that’s good.
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.
Reply to their remark with a warning for other users then block them.
bully them until they give up
Did you report this person? Racists are usually quickly dispensed with, because if they’re allowed to continue unchallenged then this will become a Nazi bar.
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.
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.
You’re not gonna change their mind.
You’d be better spending your time breaking a brick wall with your skull.
Fuck em. Block em.
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 think they mean not letting the ideas go unchallenged. If someone is reading through and sees a bunch of Nazis posting hate all up somewhere with no one else saying anything, they might assume that sort of behavior is just tacitly accepted and influence their perception of the community as a whole.
Yep.
