Hacker News Reader

Comment by fzeroracer | Hacker News Reader

You cannot argue against people that believe an entire race or an entire people should be systematically eradicated. There is no rational argument to be had against them because they specifically argue on an entirely different level.

They want you to treat them at equal in the world of debate because that's how their views are legitimized and given power. I find it honestly disturbing that people are more willing to defend the 'ironic' people calling for the death of their enemies than the minorities trying to get them to stop.

View on HN

> You cannot argue against people that believe an entire race or an entire people should be systematically eradicated.

I think we can, and indeed should argue against such ideas. The goal is not to convince a zealot that his views are wrong, but rather convince the majority of those on the sidelines that those ideas are stupid and will lead to no good. If the ideas are outlandish, arguing against them on merits is easier, not harder. As long as the vast majority of the society sees those ideas as crazy, arguing them stays pretty harmless.

And what is the alternative to arguing on merits? It is tempting to be able to silence unpopular views, but that can backfire -- tomorrow control could change and someone might deny us the ability to speak. "I know the world is flat" needs a better answer than "No! It is round, end of discussion".

If this was honestly the case, then can you explain why we see the rise of neo-nazis as well as the rise in scientific distrust with regards to things like vaccines?

If arguing against those beliefs worked then by your own arguments we should see the amount of believers dwindling over time. Yet as they gain exposure even when people attempt to debate them in good faith, their numbers grow.

How do you explain this?

Arguing in bad faith, and exploiting logical technicalities exist, and are widely used to sway the opinion of the masses. this is something any rational society needs to take into account in my opinion.

Both of those are cases where people tried to suppress movements and legitimate problems via authority.

So to me, your comment comes across as “But what about those cases where what GP said is true?”

I don't think almost anyone has faced consequences for being anti-vaccine. That's been extremely free-speech, and it hasn't helped people come to the right conclusions at all.

That’s just not true — consequences for not having their children vaccinated are legislated lots of places; the arguments against anti-vaxers are often appeals to the same authorities that happily over-prescribed opiates and based around shaming them; etc.

I'm talking about what people say, not what they do with their children.

But can you be more specific? What consequences can you name, especially in the US? I'm not aware of there being almost anything in the US, except that they might not be allowed into some schools, which barely even counts as a punishment.

And yet the idea proliferates wildly.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41504796

"Michigan parents are legally allowed to skip or delay their children's vaccinations due to personal beliefs.

But Bredow fell foul of the law because she reneged on agreements with her former spouse dating back to November 2016 to have the boy immunised."

Sounds like an edge case that's more about custody than legal rules over vaccination.

I do hope you realize that people being anti-vaccine can and does result in the deaths of completely innocent parties.

The consequences for people not vaccinating their kids goes beyond just belief. Even then in America we're incredibly lax on those people despite the fact that it seems to be growing movement fueled by quackery.

How do you reconcile your world view with the story of someone like Daryl Davis, who verifiably contradicts what you think?

The argument works better the other way. Do you believe the reason David Duke has 85k YouTube subscribers is because it's difficult to find any rational argument that the KKK is not an unalloyed good?

DD spending a lot of time being personally nice to Klansmen might swing a few of them back the other way, but I suspect making their recruitment harder in the first place might be the more scalable and less risky approach.

Well, I personally believe that the reason David Duke has 85k YouTube subscribers is because any dumb shit in the world with an internet connection and a browser can press a button completely detached from any sort of consequence whatsoever.

I also think that Daryl Davis is one man on a mission. If others were perhaps similarly motivated maybe more progress could be made.

Because while it might persuade a few, the onus is not and should not be on the minorities to convince people who literally want them dead that no, their lives are worth living.

I didn't intend to give the impression that I think that minority groups ought to tackle this problem alone. I certainly don't believe that they should, or that this is their fight and theirs alone. At the same time, I believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com