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.
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.
Diversity of tactics 😉