
No, I will not debate you - docker_up
https://longreads.com/2018/09/18/no-i-will-not-debate-you/
======
peterashford
I think the article restates Popper quite well on why a tolerant society must
not tolerate intolerance. Free speech absolutists will drown Western society
with their simplistic good intentions

------
erulabs
Sort of a strange issue with the premise, right? On one hand, "I won't debate
you because it only brings legitimacy to your hateful cause" is debatably
valid (I disagree somewhat, but don't think the choice is wrong by any means)
- but the post itself mentions the person she refused to debate six times. I'm
not sure refusing to debate the person and then blogging about them is
consistent with the point of not giving them the spotlight.

Also... "Sunlight is neither literally nor figuratively the best disinfectant.
Modern white supremacy does not grow like bacteria — it grows like a weed,
aggressively, crowding out everything else that stretches towards the light"

That's not how ideas work. Ideas spread from human being to human being - they
aren't infectious like bacteria, nor do they have their own life like weeds.
This is -almost- McCarthy-esque - who would often suggest communism was like a
"fever" or plague.

~~~
dnissley
The idea that fascism is growing out of control is a popular one these days,
but I have yet to see anyone present hard evidence that this is really what's
happening. Does anyone here think this? What's your reasoning?

The people who say these things come of like they are acting in a way, like
they want to play the hero in this super simplistic narrative where the bad
guys are taking over the world. To me it's really off-putting because I can
spot 100 of these self-righteous people for every bigot (and like 10000 of
them for every actual nazi).

~~~
joepie91_
For concrete data, take a look at for example the Netherlands; where right-
wing extremist parties led by Wilders and Baudet have shifted public opinion
such that the 'moderate right-wing' parties have taken on considerably more
xenophobic and fascist rhetoric over the past few years, because that was the
only way for them to compete against Wilders' and Baudet's brand of populism.

This is fundamentally the problem with fascism; it doesn't come into power
through people saying "I'm a fascist". It comes into power by 'infecting'
everything around it, and gradually shifting the Overton window such that the
populace will eventually _willingly grant_ power to the fascists.

That also means that such a 'fascist takeover' can only be detected and
interpreted through a trend in public discourse, not as an easily calculable
single metric.

------
squozzer
Here's an example of why it's useless to debate Ms. Penny --

> If Bannon has to have a public platform, make him work for it.

Fine.

> Have him stand on a stage and play the audio footage of the toddlers at the
> Mexican border screaming for their parents as they’re dragged away to
> detention.

Without examining actual data, how does she or anyone know the adults
accompanying the toddlers were their parents? Or is that an assumption used
for maximum emotional effect?

> Have him answer to the mothers of children who were gunned down by police
> because of the color of their skin

An assumption that we can read the minds of police officers.

> or to the friends and family of migrants who drowned in the Mediterranean.

Whose safety and happiness apparently rests solely on the shoulders of
Europeans.

>That’s not a polite thing to say. It wouldn’t be a polite thing to do. But
the idea that politeness and civility is owed to anyone in a position of power
is one of the great gotchas of liberal thought.

No, it's not Ms. Penny. Moreover, it's as intellectually dishonest as anything
Steve Bannon says. Because implicit in the statements is somehow we have to
take extraordinary measures for children we've never met. To assert otherwise
is to be labeled infanticidal. Not that Ms. Penny would ever use such a term.
But that's the effect her statements intend to achieve.

~~~
captain_perl
> Because implicit in the statements is somehow we have to take extraordinary
> measures for children we've never met.

Yes, we do have to take extraordinary measures for children who arrive on US
soil, because they cannot take care of themselves, and we can afford to do so.

The alternative is simply monstrous, and causes irreversible behavioral harm
to the children.

------
anoncoward111
This is a shame. The author offers reasons why they will not debate white
supremacists, as it would "dignify them".

It is incredibly easy to defeat white supremacy in a debate. Just point out
the arbitrary deficiencies of certain members who are generally agreed to be
white.

Done.

~~~
solipsism
Weak argument, but I don't want to dignify your anon-cowardice with a
response.

~~~
radiantswirl
You just did, also IMO its a a really fuckin strong argument, ad hominems win
debates. What’s your criticism?

------
radiantswirl
Ironically, The author sounds super right wing in her critique of the right
wing. She’s using incredibly conservative and right wing reasoning throughout
this essay. She says she’s a liberal but her reasoning reveals that actually
she’s conservative. She wants to conserve access to the public sphere, not
dole it out liberally. The author is conservative, not liberal.

~~~
justtopost
Can you elaborate? I do not see any of the textbook talking points or
perceptions attributed (usually in a biased way, such as yours) to either
extreme. Why the need to extrapolate some ideology when the topic is clearly
defined? This increasinly is what modern bigotry looks like.

~~~
radiantswirl
I’m not extrapolating anything. The crux of her argument is a desire to
CONSERVE resources (access to the public sphere), not dole them out liberally.
She is quite literally making a conservative argument because her entire
position is based on CONSERVING resources instead of doling them out
liberally. Thus it’s extremely hard/impossible to understand her position
because she is actually adopting the same emotional stance (wanting to
conserve resources) as the people she claims to oppose who also want to
conserve resources. The liberal argument would be to allow anyone into the
public sphere but she is arguing AGAINST that. Which is a fundamentally
conservative argument.

I’m not extrapolating an ideology I’m calling a spade a spade and a
conservative argument a conservative argument.

