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.
I’d say don’t believe in it.
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.
Publicly denounce them, then block them.
Reinforces to the public at large that they are unacceptable, and removes their agency to engage you.
Reply to their remark with a warning for other users then block them.
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.
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.
Block users and instances is the only way.
Block em
Ignore it. It is really that simple. Like what are you going to do?
Get into arguments because someone disagrees with you on the internet? LOL
Life is already short enough as it is.
bully them until they give up
Block user/community/instance.
Report if advocating for violence.
There’s really isn’t enough time to argue with everyone, and these people are probably used to being argued with, and might even take it as evidence of some big conspiracy. – If you want to make changes in the word, there are more productive ways then arguing on obscure forums.
I tag them as ‘shit-head’ and don’t engage with them.
i just like to tell them all the horrible ways they should die. it’s about as effective as anything else (not at all)
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.
This is really rare on Lemmy, but a direct logical rebuttal is not the right answer. That’s like trying to force your way out of a finger trap. They have no obligation to be constrained by logic themselves, and since just giving the appearance of it is easy they’ll come out looking decent on a fast, casual read.
Sending pigpoopballs is also not the best answer, since that makes them look persecuted, and blocking them just stops you from downvoting. Something in between works best.
Here’s an example I remember because it did work spectacularly well: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/23469562/14918633
OP didn’t know anything about the science or the history, and was obviously going off of their shitty Facebook feed. So I sidestep a bit, supplied new facts about issues they hadn’t heard of a bit, and set them up to have to talk about several things they definitely do but wouldn’t admit to (not reading, homophobia, and moving on when they start to lose). Boom, feigned medical emergency.
Edit: And importantly, in the actual typical Lemmy case, be nice and listen to other viewpoints. If you try this kind of approach with someone who’s making a good faith effort you’re the asshole and will look like it.
