this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024

45 points (95.9% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26903 readers

1745 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

How might one co-opt bad faith methods to spread helpful, good information instead? (lemm.ee)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/22757703, but revised to try to find less individual focused ideas/responses.

In thinking on the classic Sartre quote concerning the folly of arguing with anti-Semites as if they're arguing in good faith, as well as the Swift quote regarding reasoning being unable to correct an ill opinion one didn't reason themselves into...

It's made me wonder if there might be some ways to play off of these approaches to spread beneficial information more than the harmful info they've otherwise enabled to abound. What might be some ways to pass along helpful or generally benign info without getting as caught in the weeds explaining things, continuing to allow more harmful info to flourish?

For those unfamiliar, here are the quotes in question:

“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.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre

And: "Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired." ― Jonathan Swift.

(This second one takes on various forms.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Since you like quotes so much, here's another one:

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Mark Twain

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

A wise man told me don't argue with fools
'Cause people from a distance can't tell who is who

Jay-Z

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Tbh I'm not a big fan of quotes, but those two captured what I wanted to prod at that I felt them useful. Also yours is pretty much exactly why I'm asking this. It's a waste to argue, so what might be alternatives to change people's minds and spread good info?

Perhaps free food and beer and some good babble?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

What I've been doing lately is using conspiritorial logic to push my narrative. Who knows if it's actually working but when you start to think about it you start noticing patterns and things...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I tend to think the only way of changing minds is by building community. Most anti-Semites didn't get that way by knowing a bunch of Jewish people and developing a keen understanding of their culture and customs. They got that way by being alienated and being told by someone with an agenda that their problems were all caused by "the Jews".

It may not always be easy or correct, but if you want to change someone's mind, they need to feel like they would benefit from changing their mind, which means they need to feel the social pressures that come with a genuine sense of belonging to a community.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. A lot of belief is social.

If you say something to someone that threatens their group membership, the brain reacts similarly to how it responds to a physical threat.

So if you tell a Trump supporter "trump is a dangerous bad man", their brain likely goes down a largely subconscious path of "if I accept this I will be rejected from the group and left to die alone in the woods". So they have to do a lot of work to avoid that. Facts and truth are less important.

Appealing to another group they also have membership in can work, though. Like you might not get a conservative to recycle by appealing to environmentalism, because that's an out group thing to them. But you might be able to get it by saying like "only America has the ingenuity to turn trash into treasure like this" or something.

So if you want to get someone out of anti semitism, you need to make them not see that as an important group.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

So if you tell a Trump supporter "trump is a dangerous bad man", their brain likely goes down a largely subconscious path of "if I accept this I will be rejected from the group and left to die alone in the woods". So they have to do a lot of work to avoid that. Facts and truth are less important.

This is why I find a lot of the rhetoric about people with politically incorrect views to be very dangerous. It's popular nowadays to say that someone with wrong opinions is not just a bad person, but irredeemable, and not deserving of an opportunity to be better. It means that the person in your example knows that they'd not only be rejected from their current group, but that no other group would take them because of their previously held views.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How about:

Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I seem to recall one about not wrestling a pig because you both get covered in shit, but the pig likes it. Can't remember the exact quote though.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Edit to replace with canonical link: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/