Antifa InternationalJul 17, 2023

"One thing I don't think people realize is that in arguments about human rights, it's not about trying to persuade the other party. It's not about them at all. They've already made up their mind.

It's about persuading the audience.

If I call out my teacher on being homophobic I'm not trying to change his opinion. I'm trying to convince any closeted kids in the room that they're not the monsters he's made them out to be.

If I argue with my aunt about how racist she's being it's not because I expect her to change her mind. It's because I'm hoping to god my cousin's kids hear and learn that maybe skin color doesn't mean what she says it means.

People will try to hush you and say 'they're not going to change their minds, don't bother' but it's not about them. It was never about them."

-sepulchritude

Show threadAnthony SoraceJul 17, 2023
@antifaintl @Flux This is important not just for whether/when to engage, but *how*. It’s often better to address the “audience” directly and deliver counter-messaging than head-to-head refutations of likely bad faith arguments. The head-to-head is often tempting (and sometimes more satisfying), but isn’t the job.
Show threadSiderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis

@a

I agree and I disagree. Back channeling disagreement can be a powerful way of undermining fascist messaging, and is a totally valid approach.

But the fact that it is a valid approach must never be allowed to become an excuse not to speak up and confront injustice. "Well I'll just talk to the kids later when he's not around" can be an excuse for cowardice, and, pragmatically, leads to the truth being a dirty secret, skulking around in the shadows, like it's afraid of raising its chin or its voice.

@antifaintl @Flux

Jul 18, 2023 at 6:32amWeb
Show threadAnthony SoraceJul 18, 2023

@siderea @antifaintl @Flux Oh for sure. I wasn’t talking about “after the fact”, although that can be valid when safety is a concern. I mean loudly and visibly disrupting the speaker, but addressing the same people he is, rather than him.

A month or so ago, some “gays go to hell” types were pre-walking a parade route I was at, spreading their crap via megaphone. I walked into the street next to him and started shouting, but directed at the audience. Loud and visible, but not “for” him.

Show threadSiderea, Sibylla BostoniensisJul 18, 2023

@a

Sure, but that's not an argument, which is what the OP was about. And I think what the OP was saying is hugely right, hugely important, and something that makes a lot of well-meaning people on our side, for some reason, very uncomfortable, so they try to change the topic away from it, or try to yeah-but it to invalidate it, or otherwise squirrel their way away from confronting the truth of it. So I think it is a point that bears stating and reemphasizing.

@antifaintl @Flux