And by ‘mature manner’ I mean, without resorting to name calling, being illogical, unreasonable .etc
I’ve recently tried addressing the immigration issue and as expected, three people just came at me emotionally charged than simply discussing the issue I’ve had with it. I’ve seen what I’ve seen, read what I’ve read of it and nothing I believe that I have a problem with it is being stemmed from some underlying hatred towards a group of people.
My problem with it is the prioritization and lack of regulation in regards to immigration. It is a serious issue. But god forbid you want to talk of it, people resort to “U XENOPHOBIC” or “WE ALL WER IMMIGRANTS AT ONE POINT!”. Just completely wiffing on the issue I’ve already presented with it.
What is this subject for you?
Do you really think this is a “mature manner”?
You gave your opinion in another thread, got some replies that were trying to engage in discussion with you, then you ignored them all and came over here to whine about how everyone else is immature and can’t handle discussions about those topics. Seems pretty ironic to me
I think a better title for this question might be “What issue do you feel strongly about but have weak arguments for and can only tolerate agreement with your position about?”
I know this one. Ummmm…God! No, wait. Forced birth! Wait wait, umm….the horrors of Ranked choice voting! No no, no no, it’s the superiority of toxic alpha masculinity. Wait, ok, no this is really it, I swear: Everyone should be vegan!
Ah, i had the vibes from the post that it was a textbook case of “the most offensive thing you can call a liberal racist is racist”.
Not all views are mature nor logical, and as such shouldn’t be respected nor dignified.
Most political issues are a waste of time even trying to talk about on social media, because people on all sides love their echo chambers, and any reasonable argument from a different viewpoint is met with consternation, rather than a healthy debate.
Generally agree with this, and I say this as a Marxist debate pervert. However, I have managed to win over people, so it isn’t all a waste.
How did you win them over?
Different from person to person. Usually someone comes in with misconceptions surrounding Marxism, AES, Capitalism, or some other subject I happen to have read up on enough to speak on. I try to correct said misconceptions, non-confrontationally. Then, it can go a few ways:
-
They respond extremely hostilely, and I’ll admit I’m not always level-headed in response
-
They are receptive, at which point I offer a an article or two, or maybe even a full reading list
-
They are semi-receptive, but don’t actually bother countering my points, just asserting Marxism is “wrong” or something along those lines, which is tiring and generally goes nowhere
-
They are a “Marxist” but haven’t read theory. By far the least receptive, so confidently incorrect. These are where the “Marx was an Anarchist” or “the PRC isn’t Socialist” types reside, and are extremely hostile usually as well. These types cannot be reached unless they agree to read theory. Regretably, I used to be one of these kinds of people…
-
AES-sympathetic Anarchists. One of my favorites to talk to, usually semi-familiar to full-on familiar with Marxism, genuine conversations can be had and disagreed upon
-
Anti-AES Anarchists. Usually fall in between category 3 and 4, usually exhausting to talk to and only believe one style of leftism to be “pure enough,” while playing into the hands of US Imperialism. Usually not at all familiar with Marxist theory.
Honestly, it’s more of a lottery on an individual by individual basis. However, by consistently pushing back against misunderstandings, myths, and other problems, more people tend to be able to be receptive to Marxism.
Why do you ask?
-
I have some small discussions with Cowbee and my experience was that he’s much more reasonable to talk to than most other people with similar viewpoints.
Toilet paper: under or over.
People just talk shit.
