how am I supposed to respond to a blatant bad faith effort to spread historical misinformation?
With facts and sources to back up those facts. You can disagree with someone in a civil manner. If you actually care about my point about delivery, please watch that Bernie video.
Your meme does indeed make fun of all quadrants, but I used it because it’s an example of the type of the insults. And let’s be honest, there’s evidence in those other posts that some of those opinions are not JUST satire for you. I mean, you called me out for being naively kind and employing “flower power”, aka chances are you think I’m one of the useful idiots.
Aside from that, like I said - I can’t stop you from insulting people. Your arguments seem to point to a belief in your right to do so. I don’t think I would force you even if I could since I usually try to convince people instead. If I didn’t change your mind, maybe I will change the minds of some others who may read this.
With facts and sources to back up those facts.
Historical misinformation spreads most readily simply by being repeated and undisputed.
You can disagree with someone in a civil manner.
Disagreeing with someone civilly acknowledges the validity of their point or position. Positions like “Genocide is okay to tolerate” or “Blatant historical misinformation spread in bad-faith and not ignorance” are not valid, and should not be acknowledged in a manner that implies they’re valid.
Your meme does indeed make fun of all quadrants, but I used it because it’s an example of the type of the insults. And let’s be honest, there’s evidence in those other posts that some of those opinions are not JUST satire for you.
I mean, no, but is “Every political position, even the one I’m part of, has flaws” really that bad in your eyes?
If I didn’t change your mind, maybe I will change the minds of some others who may read this.
That’s the right approach, honestly.
Historical misinformation spreads most readily simply by being repeated and undisputed.
This is admittedly a bit nitpickey, but I specifically said you address misinformation with facts and sources to back up those facts. That’s the opposite of repeating and/or letting it go undisputed.
Disagreeing with someone civilly acknowledges the validity of their point or position.
No. You can say, emphatically, “you’re wrong” without also calling someone idiotic, etc.
is “Every political position, even the one I’m part of, has flaws” really that bad in your eyes?
I’ve said right from the start that I agree with some points you make, and I stand by that. Being aware that everyone is wrong sometimes is undeniably a virtue.
That’s the right approach, honestly.
Thank you :) I appreciate that, and respect that you’re willing to give me that even if we have had our disagreements today.
No. You can say, emphatically, “you’re wrong” without also calling someone idiotic, etc.
I occasionally call out people for their stupidity, but more often I call people out for repeating fascist or pro-genocide talking points. Should I be softening that blow, in your eyes? “Yes, you’re repeating fascist propaganda, but I won’t dare call them something mean like ‘literal fascist talking points’, because that might hurt your feelings”?
Fascist talking points must be pointed out for what they are, not given the polite euphemisms of civility. Fascism is not acceptable, and it should not be treated as acceptable; that it is a fascist point being made should absolutely be highlighted in any response.
I’ve said right from the start that I agree with some points you make, and I stand by that.
I mean, it’s a meme, guy, of something I have repeatedly said is a horoscope for political nerds. It’s not posted seriously, and even if it was, it’s really not that offensive.
Thank you :) I appreciate that, and respect that you’re willing to give me that even if we have had our disagreements today.
I’m perfectly capable of civil disagreement. I just don’t extend that courtesy to people who make apologies for genocide or fascism.
