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.
Ignore them, then vote accordingly. Nothing you or I say will have any effect
I tend to not reply because that will just draw more attention to them. I will post a separate top level comment rebutting their statements without referring to them.
That’s a good strategy, thanks.
There’s a lot of other good suggestions here, so I’ll just ask, what outcome are you hoping to achieve?
My conscience. assuaged.
If that’s the case, I’d recommend treating them like spam: reply and you’ll get a lot more.
Mostly, it’s a huge emotional and time investment if you want to change someone’s behavior and from what I gather, it’s a one on one type of thing and really hard. If you want to stop them from interacting negatively with others, your best action would be to report them.
If you’re upset and want to vent, then engaging will be fun for a while, but mostly futile in terms of behaviour adjustments.
Generally, my tactic is to not engage directly, but address the rest of the audience, essentially pointing at the subject and mocking him (“Can you believe this MAGA Traitor?..”). When he tries to respond, again ignore him, and just point and laugh.
They get really frustrated being made fun of, without having the satisfaction of creating liberal outrage.
Report their commdents, most instances will ban them unless they comment on a Nazi instance in which case good riddance.
If its a nazi instance, ask your admin to defederate.
Call them a dumbass bitch idiot
i block those fools, and the community in conservatives, some of them are bots too. theres a reason they are here, banned from reddit for the same thing.
I’d say don’t believe in it.
Publicly denounce them, then block them.
Reinforces to the public at large that they are unacceptable, and removes their agency to engage you.
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.
Reply to their remark with a warning for other users then block them.
Block users and instances is the only way.
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 people 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 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.
Block em
