My own toxicity threshold

[Matthew Jabour]

I like to consider myself a pretty nice guy. I do my best to support all views and weigh things evenhandedly, as futile as that may be. I don't bring up personal attacks when arguing with someone else, and if a thread lapses into a pissing match, I try my best to bring it back to the center.

That said, there are some things I just can't tolerate.

Occasionally I hear a viewpoint so ludicrously misinformed and unintelligible that I can no longer bring myself to these standards. Something like, "Hollywood and Wall Street are controlled by Jews," or "Obama is a socialist Muslim who's tearing our country apart!" I can barely comprehend that a human being intelligent enough to operate a computer would ever even think that such a point could be a reality. And sometimes, I wonder, is it better to try and debate them and, in doing so, bring some sort of legitimacy to their point, or just abandon all pretense and call out their outrageous claims for the lunacy they are? It's a Catch 22. What can I do?

P.S. To all those replying: please, do not make a reply simply about the two examples I listed above. They are only examples, and not something I would actually like to debate. If you would like to have a discussion about either of these examples, message me, and we can discuss to your heart's content. Just not in this thread, okay?

 

[Fappy]

I step away from the computer in such cases (assuming it is online). It's happened to me a few times recently, actually. Just get up and walk away. Try to forget. Obvious bigots and idiots are simply not worth my time nor will I risk getting my own ass in trouble if I sink my teeth into them.

As for face-to-face confrontations... well, you can ask my step dad about that

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

But Hollywood is controlled by Jews. Why do you think Michael Bay and J.J. Abrams get to keep making movie.

But it is silly to think Obama is a socialist Muslim. He's just an incompetent Socialist.

My advice to you is to not worry about it and let people express their own opinions. If they spout mindless drivel, you now know they are morons who you shouldn't take seriously.

 

[briankoontz]

Why assume that the people saying such things believe them? Propaganda isn't usually honest - the point of saying these things is to lead discussion and other aspects of reality in the way desired by the propagandist.

"Muslims are terrorists" isn't supposed to be some rational descriptive reality, it's supposed to signify a proposed target. So "Native Americans are savages" is part of a system of exterminating them, but once the job is done and everything of value is stolen from them it switches to "Native Americans have had such an unfortunate history".

Calling Obama names is designed to make Obama a target, and reactions to the propaganda signify who is siding with or against Obama (or by omission, who is not taking sides).

Once enough people get on-board with any hate train the next step can be taken - enforcement of the hate. So then violence can be conducted with the understood backing that a certain number of people are ok with it.

Agreeing with propaganda is a kind of Pledge - so people in the Old South would get together, say how terrible black people were, and once enough people agreed with the propaganda a lynching could be conducted.

Consider what would happen WITHOUT such propaganda. Let's say someone wants to lynch a black person but he doesn't conduct the propaganda first. Then he finds out that he's the only one who wants to lynch black people. Oops, off to jail he goes instead of getting a promotion in the KKK.

I don't want to offend human beings by saying this, but I find that quite possibly the majority of human communication is not part of rational descriptive reality. Humans have a lot of different agendas and reasons for saying the things they do, and truth is often not much of an issue. Or maybe I just need to hang around different people.

 

[Vault101]

you know what? sometimes I can deal with toxicity

toxicity you can pick out and ignore

but disingenuous people....oh man does that get under my skin

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

But Hollywood is controlled by Jews. Why do you think Michael Bay and J.J. Abrams get to keep making movie.

The controversial aspect of this statement has always confused me. Everybody knows every major studio was founded by Jewish immigrants. Paramount, Columbia, Universal, Warner, RKO, Fox, MGM. Why is it supposed to be such a big secret?

 

[Skatologist]

I got a 2nd forum health downgrade recently for just pointing out I was "done" with someone. Talked to chill friend bro about it. His advice, either leave and treat it like they can't/won't matter in the long run or treat it like an actual debate and you are the one is the calm, level headed, knowledgeable, understanding one with simply evidences and opinions. You may not be able to change the mind of the person you debate, but you can open new minds of observers. For me personally, I don't care if someone I see is as abrasive in an argument if other factors are not a problem, but that is not for everyone.

 

[Dimitriov]

I like to consider myself a pretty nice guy. I do my best to support all views and weigh things evenhandedly, as futile as that may be. I don't bring up personal attacks when arguing with someone else, and if a thread lapses into a pissing match, I try my best to bring it back to the center.

That said, there are some things I just can't tolerate.

Occasionally I hear a viewpoint so ludicrously misinformed and unintelligible that I can no longer bring myself to these standards. Something like, "Hollywood and Wall Street are controlled by Jews," or "Obama is a socialist Muslim who's tearing our country apart!" I can barely comprehend that a human being intelligent enough to operate a computer would ever even think that such a point could be a reality. And sometimes, I wonder, is it better to try and debate them and, in doing so, bring some sort of legitimacy to their point, or just abandon all pretense and call out their outrageous claims for the lunacy they are? It's a Catch 22. What can I do?

P.S. To all those replying: please, do not make a reply simply about the two examples I listed above. They are only examples, and not something I would actually like to debate. If you would like to have a discussion about either of these examples, message me, and we can discuss to your heart's content. Just not in this thread, okay?

To be fair Hollywood and Wall Street are largely controlled by Jews. Not the Jews, as in some crazy Zionist conspiracy. Because that is a silly idea.

 

[carnex]

Debating is good, debating is healthy. But do not overextend yourself. Chose one narrow group of subjects and go only there. It's also smart to do that because if you go wide you are not going to be able to learn enough to be effective debater.

There are too many crazies out there to confront them all. Pick your battles and go at it as long as you enjoy it because, if you don't enjoy it its useless. You can change someone's mind over internet but it wont hold in most cases.

 

[000Ronald]

Occasionally I hear a viewpoint so ludicrously misinformed and unintelligible that I can no longer bring myself to these standards. Something like, "Hollywood and Wall Street are controlled by Jews," or "Obama is a socialist Muslim who's tearing our country apart!" I can barely comprehend that a human being intelligent enough to operate a computer would ever even think that such a point could be a reality. And sometimes, I wonder, is it better to try and debate them and, in doing so, bring some sort of legitimacy to their point, or just abandon all pretense and call out their outrageous claims for the lunacy they are? It's a Catch 22. What can I do?

Bringing attention to their clams does not necessarily mean that you are legitimizing them. In fact, it's much more effective to debate them AND bring attention to the ridiculousness of their claims at the same time. In fact, I've often discovered approaching a debate in that context makes it even easier; not only will you be refuting their claims, but they'll be stumbling over themselves in the process.

Furthermore, as I keep saying in the Gamergate needs Damage Control thread, a debate, even one as simple as a discussion on a forum thread, isn't just a debate; it's a performance, and people are going to judge you and your point of view based on how well or poorly you perform. For me, it's not always a matter of refuting someone; it's a matter of performing well enough that people understand my point does have legitimacy, and that I don't need to rely on insults or vitriol to get them across.