Social media platforms have literally become the town square. A place where people go to tell the news, share personal stories and discuss current events. It is no secret platforms like Facebook and Twitter have become arenas where people can debate sports, entertainment and politics. Of course, politics being the most popular topic.
Even if you are the most casual observer you know political arguments often become passionate, if not contentious. If you are someone whom considers yourself left liberal or progressive or leftist you are likely well aware Facebook and Twitter can be quite adversarial places if you express an opinion in any fashion. This is because Conservatives, Republicans and rightwingers tend to utilize Facebook and Twitter as well as other social media platforms to express themselves and often do so rather stridently.
Needless to say this strident behavior of some on the right and this need to be heard by those on the left leads to numerous arguments. Many of the rightwingers that will engage in these discussions are reactionaries and ideologues whom also tend to be quiet dogmatic in their opinions. And, what I have noticed with some on the left is they really don't always respond to these people effectively. This includes myself.
So, how does one respond? How should you engage in debate?
Well, through some trial and error and some observations I have come up with some methods and approaches. I have actually been thinking about writing this particular blog for a year but just now getting around to it. I figured what better time with the election season heating up and rightwingers ratcheting up their rhetoric and their attacks.
I am no expert. Ben Burgis or Sam Seder I certainly am not. This is definitely layman's advice. But, I often find myself debating rightwing reactionaries and conservative ideologues online. I hold my progressive values dearly and have intrinsic convictions.
So, I feel an obligation to get the progressive message out there and accrue allies. Even perhaps more than that Progressives and people on the left broadly speaking tend to be passive when it comes to standing up for the policies and values we claim to believe in and I have concluded we cannot do that any longer. We must fight! But, we must be smart and principled when engaging the right.
With that said here is my advice on debating rightwingers especially online.
Actually before I get into the crux of all this I will address the question some always have. Is it even worth engaging these rightwing ideologues and reactionaries? The short answer is yes! As with most things, however, there is gray area.
While I say it is worth engaging these folks I believe there are some variables that come into play. What is your purpose in getting into this discussion? What is your endgame?
If you are arguing or debating rightwingers for the sole purpose of trolling them I honestly don't see much value. If you think you can win the argument, you have likely lost before you began because when it comes to debating these reactionaries winning is subjective and usually not their goal in arguing with you. But, I will get into that a little later. If you think in real time you are going to sway them to your side or induce them into admitting you are right you are on a fool's errand. The chances of that are highly unlikely.
The value in engaging these people doesn't necessarily come from convincing them but from other observers of the conversation. One of the interesting aspects of social media is that you never really know who is following your or someone else's post's thread. So many people will follow a post or comment thread but never comment nor hit the like/dislike button.
These people often are apolitical or lean slightly in one direction or the other. They are presumably more reasonable and open-minded. They aren't firmly tethered to an ideology so it makes them more vulnerable to being convinced.
So, the way you approach the conversation is important. How factual and logical you are can be vital. These are the people you should want to reach.
Also, if you are truly tethered to your own principles, the way you approach these engagements can bring comfort and assuredness to those who are allies.
Now, how to proceed in these online conversations.
You are likely to see from the start what kind of person you are dealing with. People who are reasonable and intelligent are normally easy to detect because they will come at you respectfully. When it comes to these people have civil conversations, debate and get your viewpoints across.
This blog is about the people whom frankly tend to be ignorant, aggressive, confrontational. I am talking about the fools!
We have all dealt with them. Likely, we have been attacked by them. They are the people who are not necessarily concerned with facts but primarily interested in "owning the libs", triggering you and being able to crow to their buddies "I bagged a snowflake". Winning the argument is not important to them; getting you angry and frustrated is.
My number one rule is always remained focus. Stay on topic.
Rightwingers and reactionaries love to corner you. They do this by utilizing a strawman. For an example, I will use socialism. If the topic is the Progressive agenda and you mention Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialism, like a drunk parrot they just repeat "Venezuela" over and over.
The purpose of this is simple. Everyone knows Venezuela is a disaster. It is an ostensibly socialist country. Venezuela embodies every socialist stereotype. War torn, abject poverty, despair. So, what they are doing when they bring up Venezuela is to force you to decry it and it admit it's a disaster. The second you do that they will say, "See! You are admitting socialism is a fiasco and will ruin the country so why are you promoting it? Because you hate America!" Or, they may just use your "admission" to "expose" your naivety.
The way to combat that is to stay on topic. Admit that, yes, Venezuela is a fiasco but it is under authoritarian regime. The socialism Sanders is promoting is Democratic Socialism which is a system that features a mixed economy (socialism and capitalism). It is the Scandinavian style of government. Then explain that America is somewhat a mixed economy now because we already have socialist elements (social security, Medicare, police and fire departments).
The key is never allow them to box you in which is exactly a strawman's intention.
Another popular tactic is the non-sequitur. Recently, many rightwingers have equated people protesting racism and racial inequality with wanting a race war. The assertion is laughable on its face and some rather blatant projecting on their part.
The purpose of this is quite apparent. The non-sequitur is meant to undercut the protests' intent. When they employ this silliness they are attempting to make the protests nefarious. It is an intentional mislead.
The same tactic was used against Colin Kaepernick's kneeling for the national anthem. Rightwingers said it was disrespectful to not only the flag but the troops. Kaepernick made it clear from the start why he was kneeling and why he chose kneeling as his form of protest. (Former teammate and Iraq War veteran, Nate Boyer, told him kneeling was respectful as opposed to him sitting during the anthem which is what he did previously.) Rightwingers and reactionaries knew this but because their real problem was with what Kaepernick was protesting more than the form of protest they made him kneeling the issue. It worked because before long the intended message was buried.
You can't allow these folks to do that. Again, stay focused. Stay on topic.
I found myself in these arguments frequently. I even had someone tell me (online) that Kap was disrespecting God by not standing for the anthem. After I briefly ridiculed the stunning stupidity of that statement I went right back to why Kap was protesting. Eventually, this person said "Whatever" and stopped arguing.
The most frequently used tactic I have encountered is the red herring. Rightwingers absolutely love employing them. The most notable use I have encountered is discussing Black Lives Matter-the group and the message.
As you know, the issues of police brutality against people of color (in particular black males) and the killing of unarmed black males has been a central topic in the mainstream for the better part of the last decade. However, rightwingers argue black people and our anti-racist movement white allies don't really care about black lives because of black on black crime and abortion.
So, every time any discussion turns toward police officers killing unarmed black people the drunk parrot reemerges decrying, "What about black on black crime?" Now, what you should mention and they conveniently gloss over is that black people kill each other at about the same percentage as white people kill each other. The same goes for every racial subgroup. Of course, they don't want to hear that because they are attempting to minimize cops murdering unarmed black people.
Abortion is used in the same manner. It is true abortions are higher among African-Americans than other groups. But, what rightwingers never want to acknowledge is the role poverty and lack of adequate access to birth control play and that they are generally against any policy that would approve both.
Like with the strawmen and non-sequiturs the key is to stay focused and know the facts.
What generally happens if you stay on topic is these rightwingers and reactionaries resort to ad hominem attacks. And, as I am sure many of you know, these attacks can be anywhere from infantile to vicious and threatening.
What people must understand is that many of these folks online are mainly interested in triggering and owning. They don't care about "winning" the argument. To them winning is either triggering you or inciting you to attack back so they can then turn it around on you saying, "See! These liberals are the vicious and uncivil ones."
Their purpose is to get you to cry whether it is figuratively or literally. They want you to be so inside your own head that you essentially stay silent. With them it is all about intimidation.
They will just employ non-sequitur after non-sequitur and ad hominem after ad hominem in an effort to berate you. It is how they can intimidate online. It is similar to how they will attempt to intimidate in person by getting loud and invading your personal space.
My best advice is to hold your ground and have a line. Admittedly my line is pretty deep. In fact, I get told all the time I give folks way too much rope. Do not be like me but don't be quick to end conversations and block people either.
I believe in letting these clowns expose themselves. Once again, I'll say you never know who's watching and who is susceptible to being swayed. Be armed with facts, logic, intellect and maturity.
Never let them deflect because they will. If you make a point and they spew red herrings and nonsense. Respectfully but aggressively call them out on it. Either make them address whatever point you made or expose themselves as vapid frauds by continuously deflecting and refusing to materially acknowledge what you said.
As frustrating as it can be and as much as they reactionaries can make you want to inhale an entire kilo of the cola I firmly believe there is intrinsic value in debating these folks. Because, the best way to combat speech is with speech.
Also, for us on the left it is important to get our message and our actual values out in the discourse. We can't allow the right to set the narrative about us or them. The best way to set the narrative and move the project forward is being in the discussion.
And, it is vastly important to debunk rightwing and reactionary ideology. The best way to do that is directly engaging them online and allowing observers to see the conversation.
Now, please understand I am not saying to go pick fights with these fools. Because, frankly, getting into figurative brawls with them never ends well for our ilk. Also, I understand not everyone is equipped for debate. I am saying when the opportunity presents itself take the fight to them. Don't back down. Don't fall into "civility" arguments. Being aggressive and convicted isn't being uncivil. That is just trite bullshit the right uses to silence us. Unfortunately, too many on the broader left always fall for it.
Let's keep it real here. We are at war so to speak. A definite authoritarian streak exists on the right. The guy they seem to worship is a wannabe clown fascist. The reactionaries most certainly want to suppress poc and other marginalized groups.
The more people who support this we can expose the better.
As with anything when on Facebook, Twitter, the Gram, whatever the platform be prepared and stand your ground.
