Also, most people bringing up “but the Ukrainian Nazis!!!” are arguing in bad faith (and a lot are fascists themselves, lol). So rather than wasting your time giving a nuanced overview of the far right in Ukraine, Russia, and the West to someone who’s just going to ignore it and reply in bad faith anyways, it’s way easier to just say “Zelensky’s Jewish, lol” and move on with your life.
(To be 100% clear: I DO NOT THINK THE PERSON YOU REPLIED TO IS ARGUING IN BAD FAITH. This comment is more a blanket generalization, not about this specific interaction.)
On reddit I typically ignore them as nearly all are either bots, paid propagandists, or Nazis themselves who are stupid enough to think they’re going to change someone’s mind. But Lemmy is a whole new ballgame, and if the poster IS one of the above trying to be sneaky about sowing doubt, I didn’t want to leave the comment unchallenged for others to get the wrong idea. I mean this whole post could have just been left at “Putin said…” and most of us just have a good laugh and move on. :-)
It’s wild to me that you genuinely think everyone who disagrees with you is either a “bot, paid propagandist, or Nazi”. Are there some of those amongst people who disagree with you? Probably. But to think it’s “nearly all” means you are oblivious. The spectrum of human belief is wide, and people on the opposite side of the spectrum are still people. To call them a bot or paid propagandist is dehumanizing (“no real human could hold such an opinion”). To call them a Nazi is (unless you can show that they likely are) just an attempt to shut the conversation down as well. You act like you’re trying to help foster good conversation, that you’re here to help correct misinformation or the like; but the fact that your first instinct is to just dismiss the humanity of someone who disagrees with you, and shut down the conversation by any means rather than actually having a discussion, contradicts your stated intent.
Hold a conversation, which is a back-and-forth, where neither person should assume bad of the other person; you should both assume you are there to participate in good faith until you have reason to believe otherwise. This assumption of bad-faith helps no-one, especially not the people you think you’re helping; they see someone getting “shut-down”, not “disproven”.
“Zelenskyy is Jewish therefore there is no Nazi problem is Ukraine” is logical nonsense. It’s a quick quip but it doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever.
It’s also not of any value to anyone to assert that people arguing against you must be arguing in bad faith, or are themselves fascists. If something specific can be pointed to that makes either of those seem likely, call that out. Otherwise you’re trying to shut down the conversation, not have real discussion.
Also, most people bringing up “but the Ukrainian Nazis!!!” are arguing in bad faith (and a lot are fascists themselves, lol). So rather than wasting your time giving a nuanced overview of the far right in Ukraine, Russia, and the West to someone who’s just going to ignore it and reply in bad faith anyways, it’s way easier to just say “Zelensky’s Jewish, lol” and move on with your life.
(To be 100% clear: I DO NOT THINK THE PERSON YOU REPLIED TO IS ARGUING IN BAD FAITH. This comment is more a blanket generalization, not about this specific interaction.)
On reddit I typically ignore them as nearly all are either bots, paid propagandists, or Nazis themselves who are stupid enough to think they’re going to change someone’s mind. But Lemmy is a whole new ballgame, and if the poster IS one of the above trying to be sneaky about sowing doubt, I didn’t want to leave the comment unchallenged for others to get the wrong idea. I mean this whole post could have just been left at “Putin said…” and most of us just have a good laugh and move on. :-)
It’s wild to me that you genuinely think everyone who disagrees with you is either a “bot, paid propagandist, or Nazi”. Are there some of those amongst people who disagree with you? Probably. But to think it’s “nearly all” means you are oblivious. The spectrum of human belief is wide, and people on the opposite side of the spectrum are still people. To call them a bot or paid propagandist is dehumanizing (“no real human could hold such an opinion”). To call them a Nazi is (unless you can show that they likely are) just an attempt to shut the conversation down as well. You act like you’re trying to help foster good conversation, that you’re here to help correct misinformation or the like; but the fact that your first instinct is to just dismiss the humanity of someone who disagrees with you, and shut down the conversation by any means rather than actually having a discussion, contradicts your stated intent.
Hold a conversation, which is a back-and-forth, where neither person should assume bad of the other person; you should both assume you are there to participate in good faith until you have reason to believe otherwise. This assumption of bad-faith helps no-one, especially not the people you think you’re helping; they see someone getting “shut-down”, not “disproven”.
“Zelenskyy is Jewish therefore there is no Nazi problem is Ukraine” is logical nonsense. It’s a quick quip but it doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever.
It’s also not of any value to anyone to assert that people arguing against you must be arguing in bad faith, or are themselves fascists. If something specific can be pointed to that makes either of those seem likely, call that out. Otherwise you’re trying to shut down the conversation, not have real discussion.