Yeah, but “applying the same type of stereotypes” is an example of trying to reason about this kind of thinking which can’t be done. You see a parallel between worrying about something silly like how you’re perceived for being green, and other stereotypically feminine behaviours - but prejudiced people don’t see or don’t care about that parallel.
Those prejudiced people aren’t likely to be browsing !/gay - my comments weren’t for their benefit.
Do you think you’re having more success bringing prejudiced people around in here than I am, or do you think there might be reasons to post here that aren’t for the benefit of the prejudiced?
My understanding was exactly that you were reasoning about that kind of thinking - hence the start of that sentence, “It sounds like you’re trying to apply reason…” ;) If not I don’t understand your original comment!
I generally agree, but would also argue that adopting and showcasing their broken reasoning is more effective than simply saying they’re not basing their views in reason. It also has other benefits…
For example, if you speak to a Nazi, they’ll accurately point to disproportionate Jewish representation in banking and media. There’s a (ultimately irrelevant) factual point underpinning their bullshit, and my approach avoids the need to track back through their endless layers of bullshit and misinterpreted nuggets of truth to prove the lack of reason.
It’s concise, and means you don’t need to wade through the ghish gallop of nonsense
The ridicule pokes at the key motivator of non-reason-focused people - emotions
The slight edginess appeals to reactionaries, who tend to view progressives as fragile little snowflakes they’d never align with.
Yeah, but “applying the same type of stereotypes” is an example of trying to reason about this kind of thinking which can’t be done. You see a parallel between worrying about something silly like how you’re perceived for being green, and other stereotypically feminine behaviours - but prejudiced people don’t see or don’t care about that parallel.
Those prejudiced people aren’t likely to be browsing !/gay - my comments weren’t for their benefit.
Do you think you’re having more success bringing prejudiced people around in here than I am, or do you think there might be reasons to post here that aren’t for the benefit of the prejudiced?
Sure, but I don’t know what you’re getting at.
If we’re not posting for the benefit of the prejudiced, there’s no particular need to…
…or worry that
My understanding was exactly that you were reasoning about that kind of thinking - hence the start of that sentence, “It sounds like you’re trying to apply reason…” ;) If not I don’t understand your original comment!
More a case of applying their rationale to demonstrate that it’s not based in reason.
Fair enough. It certainly isn’t - but I think it’s worth understanding and emphasising that prejudice is never based on reason.
I generally agree, but would also argue that adopting and showcasing their broken reasoning is more effective than simply saying they’re not basing their views in reason. It also has other benefits…
For example, if you speak to a Nazi, they’ll accurately point to disproportionate Jewish representation in banking and media. There’s a (ultimately irrelevant) factual point underpinning their bullshit, and my approach avoids the need to track back through their endless layers of bullshit and misinterpreted nuggets of truth to prove the lack of reason.
It’s concise, and means you don’t need to wade through the ghish gallop of nonsense
The ridicule pokes at the key motivator of non-reason-focused people - emotions
The slight edginess appeals to reactionaries, who tend to view progressives as fragile little snowflakes they’d never align with.
It’s more entertaining.
Mmm, makes sense. I will look out for when people are showing inconsistent reasoning rather than arguing with it.