Best Responses to Accusations of Racism/Sexism/Etc. During a Debate? Some Thoughts…
09-30-2016, 01:43 PM
Accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are normal when having a debate with a liberal, socialist, communist, anarchist or SJW. Has anyone found out the best way to respond to this?
The only possible responses I see are:
1. Deny
2. Ignore
3. Agree
4. Attack
It seems “deny” is the worst strategy because it shows the enemy that you care what you think of them, puts you on the defensive and make the enemy continue with the accusation. Not to mention, when you deny something too much, people think you’re guilty. Bad idea in one on one discussion and absolute suicide when there is an audience.
Ignoring seems high minded and like you are above the fray. Two kinds of ignoring to me a) acting as if the comment was never made or b) acknowledging that the comment was made but saying it is an ad hominem attack and has nothing to do with the discussion. It works okay if there is an audience or it is a recorded debate since it makes the enemy look petty and makes you look high minded. However, it doesn’t really dissuade accusations of racism, sexism, etc. and relies too much on an audience having sympathy. In discussions where there is no audience, it seems that it has little value.
For agreeing, there seems to be a) agree and be totally serious (e.g. someone calls you a Nazi and you say “yes, I am a Nazi”) or b) agree and exaggerate. Agreeing seems effective because it shows that you really don’t care what other think of you and it works well with overused names like racist or sexist. It doesn’t seem to work well for something more emotionally charged like “rapist”. It may backfire during a debate with an audience because some people don’t want to agree with a person who admits to being a racist. Agree and exaggerate is effective because it shows you do not care and it ridicules the person making the insult. In one on one discussions, these seem to work reasonably well.
Seems like the two kinds of attacks are a) using your own insult against the other person and b) calling a person a “bad person” for even calling you those names. Insulting the other person can be good especially if you use stereotypes (fat ugly feminist, pyjama boy, leftist with worthless degree, anti-racist who lives in all white gated neighborhood, etc.) Even better if you are funny because it is almost impossible to beat funny. Only downside I see if that if you continue to insult each other, there is no discussion. And if there is an audience, it can also make you look bad.
In my view, attacking your opponent with your own insults is the best course of action.
Denying doesn’t work at all. Ignoring is too passive; it does nothing to stop the name calling and relies too much on audience sympathy. Agreeing takes the power out of the insult but some of the insults are still stigmatized and cause people to dismiss what you have to say.
It seems that using harsh insults against the left is the most effective strategy. If you are having a discussion with someone and they start name calling it seems that any productive conversation is over and the person insulted you, so why not insult? There are a lot of negative stereotypes of leftists so there is a lot of material to work with.
I think you should frame the discussion as well. The left has framed the national dialogue where “if you don’t agree with me you are either stupid or evil”. I think people who aren’t part of the left need to frame the conversation where “if you don’t agree with me you hate Western Civilization” or something like that.
Thoughts?
The only possible responses I see are:
1. Deny
2. Ignore
3. Agree
4. Attack
It seems “deny” is the worst strategy because it shows the enemy that you care what you think of them, puts you on the defensive and make the enemy continue with the accusation. Not to mention, when you deny something too much, people think you’re guilty. Bad idea in one on one discussion and absolute suicide when there is an audience.
Ignoring seems high minded and like you are above the fray. Two kinds of ignoring to me a) acting as if the comment was never made or b) acknowledging that the comment was made but saying it is an ad hominem attack and has nothing to do with the discussion. It works okay if there is an audience or it is a recorded debate since it makes the enemy look petty and makes you look high minded. However, it doesn’t really dissuade accusations of racism, sexism, etc. and relies too much on an audience having sympathy. In discussions where there is no audience, it seems that it has little value.
For agreeing, there seems to be a) agree and be totally serious (e.g. someone calls you a Nazi and you say “yes, I am a Nazi”) or b) agree and exaggerate. Agreeing seems effective because it shows that you really don’t care what other think of you and it works well with overused names like racist or sexist. It doesn’t seem to work well for something more emotionally charged like “rapist”. It may backfire during a debate with an audience because some people don’t want to agree with a person who admits to being a racist. Agree and exaggerate is effective because it shows you do not care and it ridicules the person making the insult. In one on one discussions, these seem to work reasonably well.
Seems like the two kinds of attacks are a) using your own insult against the other person and b) calling a person a “bad person” for even calling you those names. Insulting the other person can be good especially if you use stereotypes (fat ugly feminist, pyjama boy, leftist with worthless degree, anti-racist who lives in all white gated neighborhood, etc.) Even better if you are funny because it is almost impossible to beat funny. Only downside I see if that if you continue to insult each other, there is no discussion. And if there is an audience, it can also make you look bad.
In my view, attacking your opponent with your own insults is the best course of action.
Denying doesn’t work at all. Ignoring is too passive; it does nothing to stop the name calling and relies too much on audience sympathy. Agreeing takes the power out of the insult but some of the insults are still stigmatized and cause people to dismiss what you have to say.
It seems that using harsh insults against the left is the most effective strategy. If you are having a discussion with someone and they start name calling it seems that any productive conversation is over and the person insulted you, so why not insult? There are a lot of negative stereotypes of leftists so there is a lot of material to work with.
I think you should frame the discussion as well. The left has framed the national dialogue where “if you don’t agree with me you are either stupid or evil”. I think people who aren’t part of the left need to frame the conversation where “if you don’t agree with me you hate Western Civilization” or something like that.
Thoughts?