When you combine ignorance with combativeness you are a roadblock that needs to go.
If he was simply uninformed and sough to learn, he wouldn’t trying to make himself to be a victim to ‘win’ an argument in his head. This is reactionary behaviour, and reactionaries are the enemy.
“being combative” is not a constant character trait, but rather a response behavior.
And everyone can be wrong even in their strongest opinions, including yourself. Would you prefer to be the “roadblock that needs to go” when such occurs, or you’d rather have a chance to correct your opinion?
Unlike the popular belief, people can and do change. Your words here haracterize you just as combative on the matter. What makes you better than any other human being? They too believe their ideas to be the correct ones.
Treating anyone, however wrong in their ways, as nothing more than an obstacle that needs to be removed, you only make yet another person hostile towards you and your ideas, making everything only worse.
You treat them as less than human, unworthy to have a dialogue with. They treat a group of people as less than human too. The only difference is the pretext. The cause can be good or bad, it doesn’t justify crappy behaviour.
I’m not saying “turn on another cheek”, I’m saying that an individual is not responsible for the deeds of another individual, both of which you’ve attributed to the same group. Groups are abstractions anyway, people should be judged individually and based of their actions, otherwise it’s just plain bigotry.
I also said that it’s only human to make mistake in your judgements and worldviews. That means that someday anyone could end up on the receiveing end, yourself included. If such people are ostracized, it will only lead to further radicalization of their erronous views, further polarizing both sides of conflict.
You treat them as less than human, unworthy to have a dialogue with. They treat a group of people as less than human too. The only difference is the pretext. The cause can be good or bad, it doesn’t justify crappy behaviour.
You don’t open dialogue with Nazis, you punch them. Likewise you don’t debate bro reactionary rightists, we’re not playing that Charlie Kirk bullshit game.
Groups are abstractions anyway, people should be judged individually and based of their actions, otherwise it’s just plain bigotry.
Cool, which is exactly what this comic is about. The individual man is being a dick, and getting judged for it.
I also said that it’s only human to make mistake in your judgements and worldviews.
I have been wrong many times, and I’ve been rightfully ripped into for it. I’ve grown because of that. I do not accept that as a reason to coddle pricks.
we’re not playing that Charlie Kirk bullshit game.
Charlie Kirk was a politician, and operated on political level. His reason for doing all the “debate me” charade is purely of media representation interests.
By punching a “nazi” you’ll only get punched in return, and further villanize yourself in “nazi’s” view. Considering that there still lots of people with quite conservative views, by “punching a nazi” you would do a counter-productive job at proving your worldview, thus making your opponents more confident in theirs.
Cool, which is exactly what this comic is about. The individual man is being a dick, and getting judged for it.
Except my issue is not with the comic. It’s with you treating people as obstacles. Dehumanization is a not nice thing to do due to multiple reasons.
I have been wrong many times, and I’ve been rightfully ripped into for it.
you seem to fail at differentiating between critique and pure hatred. Right now you’re spreading nothihg but hatred, and that’s why i said that you’re not much better than the people you hate. You use your sense of morality to justify the hatred, they use theirs. The result is the same: no actions taken, only people going for each other’s throats. Basically, you’re just as “nazi”, the difference is only in the agenda you push. They too believe to be morally correct, you know.
People won’t be able to change unless you point them out, where they ought to change and why, and society is kinda not a thing without the communication.
Yes, there are people incapable of change, and yes, they deserve the hate. Only those are always in a minority.
I just don’t know what to say because I was that person before. A lot of people men especially are extremely pigheaded and argumentative, and you can be justifiably upset at them. If your goal is to help women and further feminism though, even a “correct” gotcha like this makes people less receptive to feminism. It’s just making enemies out of people who might be wrong, stubborn, and combative, which unfortunately is basically everyone at some point in their life.
Wasn’t there a meme post about how people don’t change their opinions when presented with facts? I think not even explanations, for me it was listening to someone I trusted talk to someone about their experiences. I think it’s often just people not imagining themselves as the other person and how they would feel experiencing all that, or just not knowing what the average woman deals with day to day.
When you combine ignorance with combativeness you are a roadblock that needs to go.
If he was simply uninformed and sough to learn, he wouldn’t trying to make himself to be a victim to ‘win’ an argument in his head. This is reactionary behaviour, and reactionaries are the enemy.
“being combative” is not a constant character trait, but rather a response behavior.
And everyone can be wrong even in their strongest opinions, including yourself. Would you prefer to be the “roadblock that needs to go” when such occurs, or you’d rather have a chance to correct your opinion?
Unlike the popular belief, people can and do change. Your words here haracterize you just as combative on the matter. What makes you better than any other human being? They too believe their ideas to be the correct ones.
Treating anyone, however wrong in their ways, as nothing more than an obstacle that needs to be removed, you only make yet another person hostile towards you and your ideas, making everything only worse.
What makes me better than a misogynist and I should be nice to them too?
That’s your argument?
Not the main one, but sure.
You treat them as less than human, unworthy to have a dialogue with. They treat a group of people as less than human too. The only difference is the pretext. The cause can be good or bad, it doesn’t justify crappy behaviour.
I’m not saying “turn on another cheek”, I’m saying that an individual is not responsible for the deeds of another individual, both of which you’ve attributed to the same group. Groups are abstractions anyway, people should be judged individually and based of their actions, otherwise it’s just plain bigotry.
I also said that it’s only human to make mistake in your judgements and worldviews. That means that someday anyone could end up on the receiveing end, yourself included. If such people are ostracized, it will only lead to further radicalization of their erronous views, further polarizing both sides of conflict.
You don’t open dialogue with Nazis, you punch them. Likewise you don’t debate bro reactionary rightists, we’re not playing that Charlie Kirk bullshit game.
Cool, which is exactly what this comic is about. The individual man is being a dick, and getting judged for it.
I have been wrong many times, and I’ve been rightfully ripped into for it. I’ve grown because of that. I do not accept that as a reason to coddle pricks.
Charlie Kirk was a politician, and operated on political level. His reason for doing all the “debate me” charade is purely of media representation interests.
By punching a “nazi” you’ll only get punched in return, and further villanize yourself in “nazi’s” view. Considering that there still lots of people with quite conservative views, by “punching a nazi” you would do a counter-productive job at proving your worldview, thus making your opponents more confident in theirs.
Except my issue is not with the comic. It’s with you treating people as obstacles. Dehumanization is a not nice thing to do due to multiple reasons.
you seem to fail at differentiating between critique and pure hatred. Right now you’re spreading nothihg but hatred, and that’s why i said that you’re not much better than the people you hate. You use your sense of morality to justify the hatred, they use theirs. The result is the same: no actions taken, only people going for each other’s throats. Basically, you’re just as “nazi”, the difference is only in the agenda you push. They too believe to be morally correct, you know.
People won’t be able to change unless you point them out, where they ought to change and why, and society is kinda not a thing without the communication.
Yes, there are people incapable of change, and yes, they deserve the hate. Only those are always in a minority.
I just don’t know what to say because I was that person before. A lot of people men especially are extremely pigheaded and argumentative, and you can be justifiably upset at them. If your goal is to help women and further feminism though, even a “correct” gotcha like this makes people less receptive to feminism. It’s just making enemies out of people who might be wrong, stubborn, and combative, which unfortunately is basically everyone at some point in their life.
I wish more people understood this
Being confronted and having to think about or explain your bigotry is the only way they can learn.
In my opinion, shaming people for bigoted opinions can be effective and even necessary at times, but only serves to change people’s behavior.
I’ve found that the main thing that changes people’s thoughts or values are measured explanations or evidence to the contrary.
Wasn’t there a meme post about how people don’t change their opinions when presented with facts? I think not even explanations, for me it was listening to someone I trusted talk to someone about their experiences. I think it’s often just people not imagining themselves as the other person and how they would feel experiencing all that, or just not knowing what the average woman deals with day to day.