Anarchism

If anyone doesn't want to watch the whole thing:

I'd be happy to summarize the main thesis of this transcript in detail.

The transcript is from a video essay by content creator Thought Slime about how to effectively respond to fascism in public discourse. Here's the detailed summary of the main thesis:

The Problem with Debating Fascists

The core argument is that debating fascists is counterproductive because:

1. Fascists manipulate good faith debate to gain legitimacy and normalize their ideas
2. Fascists are fundamentally "losers" - both literally (their movements self-destruct) and figuratively (they blame others for their inadequacies)
3. Fascists view truth differently than most people - they believe in a "mythic truth" that transcends reality and evidence
4. Fascists deliberately waste your time - they will argue endlessly with no intention of changing their views

Why Traditional Debate Fails

The creator argues that:

1. Fascists aren't interested in honest debate - they want attention and legitimacy
2. Evidence against their position often strengthens their beliefs rather than weakening them
3. Most audience members only remember that a debate occurred, not the actual content
4. By debating fascists, you normalize their positions as worthy of discussion

The Effective Response Strategy

Instead of engaging in good faith debate, the creator recommends:

1. Directly calling out fascist behavior: "Shut up, you're being an asshole"
2. Maintaining message control: Don't let them change the subject or sanitize the issue
3. Refusing to explain or justify: Don't get caught in the trap of endless explanation
4. Highlighting their hatred: Focus on the cruelty and hatred inherent in their positions

The creator argues this approach works because:

• It prevents fascists from achieving their goal of normalization
• It exposes the hatred at the core of their worldview
• It addresses the reality that fascists will portray opponents as unreasonable regardless of approach

The thesis concludes that while this approach may seem divisive or rude, it's actually more effective because being calm and polite in the face of extremism signals to others that the extremist views aren't dangerous. The creator contends that fascism should provoke anger and outrage, and displaying these emotions is appropriate.

I felt that all in my flinty little heart. This is a big reason why I don't like "civility" rules on Lemmy. It basically enforces treating with respect and tolerance, debating behaviors that aren't worthy of respect and tolerance.

Notice I said debating behaviors. I actually think that being a shit to someone on a personal level because they have a wrong viewpoint, honestly expressed and offered up for honest criticism, isn't the right way to approach it. But the traditional fascist way of approaching an argument (to "win" at all costs and in order to do that to lie or doublespeak about what you believe, change the subject, attack your opponent, or make up viewpoints for your opponent that are comical and evil and then attack your opponent for believing those horrible things you made up, and then just do that "debate" forever until your opponent gives up) is a pure waste of time, and these are some extremely effective techniques for defanging it.

For some reason, that fascist argumentation style is often perfect and protected on Lemmy, but calling someone a twatface and waste of time for doing it and simply switching over to giving them derision, will often get you in trouble.