No, a hypothetical is just helping people see a logical inconsistency. If you agree that people should be free to refuse vaccinations with no negative consequences, then you are logically consistent when you leverage the “my body, my choice” stance. Is that your stance, for vaccines? Many people in this thread insist that there should be consequences to refusing a vaccine (no interaction with society, for example), but that is not really a choice then.
Dismissing points out of hand does not dispute those stances; it does not move to convince the people that hold those stances that the stances are flawed.
No, a hypothetical is just helping people see a logical inconsistency
Yes, just like JAQing off. That’s all that they want to do right? Just ask questions that point out logical inconsistencies? What’s so wrong about that? Who would possibly say that Tucker Carlson didn’t always have the best of intentions using this exact same method?
If you want to push the vaccine angle, then yes, sometimes, nuance exists in life. Government workers and military should absolutely be required to choose between vaccination and being let go. That does not mean that women should be forced into organ donation slavery by the government, and you continuing to try to link the two is absolutely JAQing yourself the fuck off.
No one who’s in favor of government-forced organ donation slavery is going to change their mind. The only way to fight fascism is to dismiss it out of hand. Giving it any amount of validity is letting it win.
Who would possibly say that Tucker Carlson didn’t always have the best of intentions using this exact same method?
Tucker uses whataboutism. He would never strive for logical consistency; that would ruin his entire stance. You do want logical consistency, right? That is something you strive for? Or are you like Tucker?
Government workers and military should absolutely be required to choose between vaccination and being let go. That does not mean that women should be forced into organ donation slavery by the government, and you continuing to try to link the two is absolutely JAQing yourself the fuck off.
It means that “my body, my choice” isn’t the argument people pretend it is. Because in some situations, “my body, my choice” doesn’t apply. So now you need to defend why it applies to pregnant people and not anti-vaxxers. Logically. And you know what? I bet you could do it if you really tried-- but what’s the point? Why bother with the “my body, my choice” defense at all, if the defense itself needs a defense?
No one who’s in favor of government-forced organ donation slavery is going to change their mind.
This is untrue. After Roe was struck down, polls indicated rising support in nationally-available abortion. People can change their mind, but it’s very unlikely if no one bothers to try to change it.
It means that “my body, my choice” isn’t the argument people pretend it is
On this I am in agreement with you, and have never used that argument. The only valid argument is “government can’t force people into organ donation slavery”.
but it’s very unlikely if no one bothers to try to change it
Those people who have “changed their mind” on abortion haven’t done so through rational discussion with those who know that forced organ donation slavery is wrong. Like any conservative, they had to see the results of their lack of concern for others have an impact on themselves or others that they care about, or at least others who look the same as they do.
Once white forced-birth mothers started dying, being forced to give still births, and crying on the witness stand, some of the “centrists” (i.e. conservatives who want to pretend they’re not) began to see the monsters they had become.
On this I am in agreement with you, and have never used that argument. The only valid argument is “government can’t force people into organ donation slavery”.
As I said elsewhere, I’ve had success by crafting a hypothetical wherein a person is forced by the government to provide a liver transplant to “save a life” and comparing it to forcing a pregnant person to give birth to “save a life”. I think many people don’t realize what power they’re granting the government.
You should probably dial it back a little with the slavery part. While I’m sure you could justify it being there, it’s not going to convince anyone that isn’t already in agreement with you. Makes you seem a little out there. Just a tip.
Those people who have “changed their mind” on abortion haven’t done so through rational discussion with those who know
While it’s entirely possible I was lied to, I have had people admit that I have changed their stance on abortion. Not a lot, but also not zero. You give up too easily.
Once white forced-birth mothers started dying, being forced to give still births, and crying on the witness stand
Undoubtedly, but wouldn’t it be worthwhile to try and mitigate this instead of cynically waiting to take advantage of it?
You’re right, I do give up on “conservatives” and fascists. I don’t hold it against you for trying, but I believe that the only way to win with fascists is to not play their game, and to simply oppose them wherever and whenever they crop up. No, ultimately I don’t believe that you or anyone else who claims to have swayed a few opinions have ultimately made any difference in people with no regard for others, so I will continue to have no regard for them.
That’s a pretty dangerous game to play. It just strengthens their resolve and blinds you from the genuine understanding of your fellow humans. I think your stance harms society.
You make the mistake of thinking that their resolve isn’t already absolute. I think it’s a luxury of ignorance of people who don’t live in deep red states and don’t know just how deep-seeded their fear and hatred of others is.
And no, I will no longer strive for “understanding” of fascists who hate and harm others. I understand them perfectly well, and their views disgust me. Those who do continue to “strive for understanding” are only enabling them, and are the people who have allowed the situation to get as bad as it has in the U.S.
You’re advocating for tolerating the intolerant. All you’re doing is being the Kaiser Wilhelm-looking character in this comic about the Paradox of Tolerance:
Karl Popper described this as a paradox, but it’s not even that.
Tolerance is a social contract that we all agree to participate in. By not tolerating others, conversatives/fascists have broken the contract, and are then no longer bound by or protected by it. Therefore it is not wrong or paradoxical to not tolerate the intolerant.
No, a hypothetical is just helping people see a logical inconsistency. If you agree that people should be free to refuse vaccinations with no negative consequences, then you are logically consistent when you leverage the “my body, my choice” stance. Is that your stance, for vaccines? Many people in this thread insist that there should be consequences to refusing a vaccine (no interaction with society, for example), but that is not really a choice then.
Dismissing points out of hand does not dispute those stances; it does not move to convince the people that hold those stances that the stances are flawed.
Yes, just like JAQing off. That’s all that they want to do right? Just ask questions that point out logical inconsistencies? What’s so wrong about that? Who would possibly say that Tucker Carlson didn’t always have the best of intentions using this exact same method?
If you want to push the vaccine angle, then yes, sometimes, nuance exists in life. Government workers and military should absolutely be required to choose between vaccination and being let go. That does not mean that women should be forced into organ donation slavery by the government, and you continuing to try to link the two is absolutely JAQing yourself the fuck off.
No one who’s in favor of government-forced organ donation slavery is going to change their mind. The only way to fight fascism is to dismiss it out of hand. Giving it any amount of validity is letting it win.
Tucker uses whataboutism. He would never strive for logical consistency; that would ruin his entire stance. You do want logical consistency, right? That is something you strive for? Or are you like Tucker?
It means that “my body, my choice” isn’t the argument people pretend it is. Because in some situations, “my body, my choice” doesn’t apply. So now you need to defend why it applies to pregnant people and not anti-vaxxers. Logically. And you know what? I bet you could do it if you really tried-- but what’s the point? Why bother with the “my body, my choice” defense at all, if the defense itself needs a defense?
This is untrue. After Roe was struck down, polls indicated rising support in nationally-available abortion. People can change their mind, but it’s very unlikely if no one bothers to try to change it.
On this I am in agreement with you, and have never used that argument. The only valid argument is “government can’t force people into organ donation slavery”.
Those people who have “changed their mind” on abortion haven’t done so through rational discussion with those who know that forced organ donation slavery is wrong. Like any conservative, they had to see the results of their lack of concern for others have an impact on themselves or others that they care about, or at least others who look the same as they do.
Once white forced-birth mothers started dying, being forced to give still births, and crying on the witness stand, some of the “centrists” (i.e. conservatives who want to pretend they’re not) began to see the monsters they had become.
As I said elsewhere, I’ve had success by crafting a hypothetical wherein a person is forced by the government to provide a liver transplant to “save a life” and comparing it to forcing a pregnant person to give birth to “save a life”. I think many people don’t realize what power they’re granting the government.
You should probably dial it back a little with the slavery part. While I’m sure you could justify it being there, it’s not going to convince anyone that isn’t already in agreement with you. Makes you seem a little out there. Just a tip.
While it’s entirely possible I was lied to, I have had people admit that I have changed their stance on abortion. Not a lot, but also not zero. You give up too easily.
Undoubtedly, but wouldn’t it be worthwhile to try and mitigate this instead of cynically waiting to take advantage of it?
You’re right, I do give up on “conservatives” and fascists. I don’t hold it against you for trying, but I believe that the only way to win with fascists is to not play their game, and to simply oppose them wherever and whenever they crop up. No, ultimately I don’t believe that you or anyone else who claims to have swayed a few opinions have ultimately made any difference in people with no regard for others, so I will continue to have no regard for them.
That’s a pretty dangerous game to play. It just strengthens their resolve and blinds you from the genuine understanding of your fellow humans. I think your stance harms society.
You make the mistake of thinking that their resolve isn’t already absolute. I think it’s a luxury of ignorance of people who don’t live in deep red states and don’t know just how deep-seeded their fear and hatred of others is.
And no, I will no longer strive for “understanding” of fascists who hate and harm others. I understand them perfectly well, and their views disgust me. Those who do continue to “strive for understanding” are only enabling them, and are the people who have allowed the situation to get as bad as it has in the U.S.
But go ahead, keep tolerating the intolerant.
deleted by creator
How has “not playing their game” worked out so far?
You’re advocating for tolerating the intolerant. All you’re doing is being the Kaiser Wilhelm-looking character in this comic about the Paradox of Tolerance:
https://i.imgur.com/Pelf2ob.jpg
Karl Popper described this as a paradox, but it’s not even that.
Tolerance is a social contract that we all agree to participate in. By not tolerating others, conversatives/fascists have broken the contract, and are then no longer bound by or protected by it. Therefore it is not wrong or paradoxical to not tolerate the intolerant.
You’re all over the place. I asked how “not playing their game” has worked out. Do you feel like your strategy is working?