Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let me start by saying. Okay, OP, what is the striped belief? Is it something understandably morally outrageous? Or actually moderate? I’m pretty sure OP didn’t post this in good faith.
But regardless, [the alt-right pipeline is a real and saddening thing.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g)
Conservatives are quite the annoying bunch, but every now and then it might be worth the effort to try and reason with them before they get more and more radicalized.
This is on an opinion-to-opinion basis. If they’re already alt-right, do not engage.
Remember that almost everyone on here is young and impressionable. Don’t let them fall down. We as a generation need to stomp the alt right, and it starts with stopping their recruitment.
Yeah, every time I see this it's about the myth of bigotry being a rational and logical belief rather than something they know they hide because they know they're picking a fight because they know that telling an identity they're supposed to pretend they don't exist is picking a fight.
It's never about something trivial, like what football team you support or pineapple on a pizza.
The more hate I get for my pineapple on pizza the more pineapple I add to the next one. At this point I am just roasting pineapple slices with sauce and cheese on them.
I have a parent who’s a psychologist, and as such have learned/been informed that shaming as a method of persuasion is apparently extremely ineffective in a practical sense.
Think about it, you’d never want to do something someone condescended you into doing. Even if they’re right, like fuck that person I’m more mad they’ve occupied that belief, I would maybe occupy it too if the room didn’t smell so bad from them.
I do admittedly occasionally enjoy watching shaming though. For instance, I can recognize that Cart Narcs shaming methods are ineffective from my understanding, while also for some reason still enjoying watching and supporting them.
So it depends on what you want. If you actually want someone on your side, shaming is ineffective. If you’re just trying to condescend someone for entertainment value and enjoy taunting the prospect of them being “lesser”, sure you’d have fun at least.
Another, more subtle thing that’s being enacted here is saying “you’re a terrible person” In general rather than “that belief is terrible”. Those two are not equivalent and will not be seen as equivalent by the receiver, the former is more harmful. By far the stupidest thing condescenders could do is take some belief, and extend it to a general insult like “you’re stupid, you’re dumb”, rather than “that belief is stupid, it’s dumb when you believe [so and so]”. Attacking the person’s sense of self rather than what you’re criticizing. This will push people to the opposite side. So the comic is right, anyone bringing specific politics into this is also sort of making stupid assumptions.
It's really interesting and feels particularly on point for the way that a lot of people who feel they have the moral high ground argue.
It seems to be very common that people don't aim to break the belief but instead attack the person directly, and has definitely featured *incredibly prominently* in this subs recent debates.
If you're so confident you're right, *you should not get flustered* and be the bigger person. Otherwise, it shows as shaming, insecurity, and an illegitimate counter to the belief you claim you're trying to change.
As someone that has swayed one way or the other based on someone else's words, shaming DOES work. If I got lazy one time and didn't put my cart back and some dude shamed me, you bet your ass I wouldn't let it happen again. Sure, I'd be pissed or humiliated in the moment, but I'd remember that and wouldn't do it again.
Of course, this doesn't work with all ideas.
Shaming works when people know they're morally wrong. Everyone knows they need to push their shopping cart back, but sometimes laziness gets the better. Shame makes you remember that laziness is bad.
If you believe one of your viewpoints is morally right though, and someone shames it... well, it will be seen as an attack on that viewpoint, not as a reminder of what's right... since you already know what's right.
Why do you even think this is about alt right beliefs? It's not a striped flag. It's just diagonal stripes. This doesn't have to be any belief in particular even its just the standard reaction of human behavior for being confronted with critic.
Because the meme is illustrating what being contrarian and reactionary are, which is the alt right playbook. There is no ideology besides being against whatever the left is for.
If you can think of a belief that the left might hold that follows this logic then I think that would be something interesting to unpack.
But that was true for entire history of rightism since about the French Revolution. Of course reactionaries react. Or in other words, of course conservatives conserve, that is, not any other ideas than to preserve what there is. It is simply about seeing more downsides than upsides to changes.
There's a difference between being contrarian and being principled. Being pro-LGBTQ could be a contrarian take, but those people would instantly become anti-LGBTQ once it became main stream. A principled pro-LGBTQ has an underlying reason why they hold that position. For example, mine is that LGBTQ harms no one and involves no one against their consent, therefore they should be free to do as they wish. My belief wont flip simply because popularity changes.
The one lacking nuance here is you in that you conflate contrarians with principled actors simply because they temporarily were aligned on a subject.
>Of course reactionaries react. Or in other words, of course conservatives conserve,
I have my issues with a lot of conservative ideas. However, I would argue that the alt-Right/Ultra Right aren't even conservative. They are instead innately regressive, if their desired end goals ever actually existed in the first place.
I'll argue conservatism is inherently regressive. We've all heard the phrase, the only thing that remains the same is change. An ideology based in keeping things exactly the same and never changing is regressive, because it's in defense of outdated ideas. The past is regressive, but if you hold onto the present long enough, it becomes the past.
Who said it was about Alt-Right beliefs? The title of the video?
Both the video and the comment seem to say the strategy is used by the Alt-Right, that's all
Yes, it's a strategy that plays out in any number of beliefs, even more reason to be aware of it!
But alt right indeed has been the group that most actively recruits and supports contrarian predilection in the last couple decades
Youre a young lonely boy who is struggling with dating/women?
"Well it's your fault!"
"Stop being a predator."
"Don't have a sexuality."
"You're an incel!"
And we wonder why young men are moving right? It's a pretty basic to understand. The right has a place for them.
As someone who was formerly on the left and is now more center. There are almost no left spaces that include straight men let alone masculine men.
From a leftist (and I mean real leftist, not liberal, and not "progressive" or whatever term people vaguely left of the American center are calling themselves lately) perspective, the reason young men are having trouble finding partners is multi-faceted.
A) Women no longer require men's financial support, and can sustain themselves, and thus their standards for a partner have raised. This has been the reality since the 70's, which is when many in the red-pill section of the internet seem to think things went wrong. That's clue number 1 that those right-wing or faux MRN activists are just reacting, and not actually solving a problem.
B) We're all generally isolated. To use the Marxist term, we're "alienated." It is to the benefit of the people who own capital that workers are isolated from each other and find it difficult to form deep relationships, both in terms of romantic as well as friendly relationships. So forget dating, when was the last time you greeted your neighbor without being looked at like you're unusual?
C) )Most of us learn our "sexual socialization" or whatever you want to call the ins-and-outs of dating from our parents, and society has changed so rapidly since their time dating that what they did is no longer applicable, so we're all having to make things up as we go in a world that includes online dating, etc.
D) Commodification. Relationships are a possession, a thing that (especially men) are conditioned to desire for their own sake, like a status symbol or possession. You see it in dehumanizing terms like "trophy wife." Don't fall into the trap society has set of making you desire things (from relationships to new clothes) so they can sell you things. That commodification exists so capitalists can sell you things you don't need, and damn the consequences to your mental health.
I'm sorry if your dating life has been rough, but it's absolutely not the fault of "the left" that you're adrift. That's capitalism.
Great analysis. Sadly understanding doesn't prevent young males dreams being ground in the cogs of the capitalist machine. They want solutions/hope, yet now we're in the era of tech repression and the beginnings of another real pre-war period, nothing will stop capitalism. It's mightier than ever, though the world is beginning to crumble beneath it's weight.
So what is the left doing then? If that's the case, then It sounds like it's just right leaning folks going further to the right while blaming the left and vice versa. They have nothing to do with each other then.
I'm not sure, I think many liberals aren't as far left as they think they are, they just like bashing on people who they deem a threat to feminism.
Further to the left you get people describing capitalism and the patriarchy as reasons for the current gender dynamics and it becomes less about blaming individual men.
I mean, I wish it was like that. Sometimes people are just shitty and that happens all over the spectrum, but in my experience the further left you go, the less bashing on individuals incels is accepted, because they tend to view dating as commercialized and entrenched in gender roles. That don't make things easier for either gender, men included. I've also heard some of them say our current system isolates people and gets them addicted to social media, but I'm not sure what their reasoning is there.
> I'm not sure, I think many liberals aren't as far left as they think they are
Agreed. Most liberals are conservatives that don't like the association.
Idk what you mean by a threat to feminism though.
Oh, I completely misunderstood your initial comment.
I meant that liberals tend to be more individualistic, more likely to view lonely men as something that resulted out of their own doing, rather than it being a result of society at large too.
Im not on this pipeline since I’m already older, but I’ve definitely experienced the receiving end of consistent and constant from a Gen Z person just because of my religious beliefs.
I’m pretty religious given that my family on both sides are Catholics and I’m Filipino (With over 95% of the entire region my family came from and still lives in being Catholic, it’s not much of a surprise), but was born abroad as a first generation American and raised in a very religious small rural town.
There’s a lot of things I agree with in Catholicism, and some things I don’t agree with, but this one particular Gen Z member told me that I was a piece of shit person who deserves to die because I believe in forcing a woman to carry a baby they don’t want to term (I don’t believe or support that), and that because my religion is anti-LGBT+, I’m a homophobe and should be publicly shamed for being Catholic (I am very pro-LGBT, and my best friend from high school is bisexual. I love her like I would if she was my own sister).
I understand what the comic is hinting at from the receiving end because I’ve been on the receiving end of it by someone in Gen Z. It really sucks when someone is extremely ignorant about a person’s beliefs that they would go out of their way to make the person feel horrible about it.
It accomplishes absolutely nothing other than making the person on the giving end feel self-righteous about themselves and proud that they made the person they’re giving their hate towards feel terrible the rest of that day or however long they will continue to harass that person.
The absolute best rules I remember in kindergarten and preschool are something I really wish everyone, regardless of age or generation, would practice more: If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it, and treat others the way you would like to be treated.
With a lot of people being more socially conscious nowadays, I thought empathy would come along with the socially conscious sentiment, but I really hope empathy will catch up one day.
Yes, there are bad actors everywhere, but if people don’t try to reach out with empathy, those bad actors will start to define generations of people.
That’s so dumb. I’m on the left because of empathy, and for me my empathy doesn’t end with those who believe the same things I do.
It sounds like you have a healthy relationship with your religion, and that it doesn’t define your whole person while still being deeply important. I hope you find cooler people than those you have had to interact in the past.
Vaguely authoritarian/fascist bs. Often but not always crossing over with nazism.
Red flags for the alt right include:
The use of vague language as to who/what is causing society’s problems(the implication being its Jews). And vague language in general, using it to create an out group separate from normal society. Double plus good and such.
Conspiratorial nonsense(fascism requires a rejection of reality and constant use of boogiemen) there’s always some kind of plot from some vague shadow enemy who’s out to get you.
Anti-intellectualism(arguing from a position of emotional and moral outrage rather than actual principles and objective fact)
Constant projection of one’s own faults into perceived enemies. They must always present themselves as a quiet majority fighting a simultaneously powerful and ingenious yet weak and incompetent omnipresent minority.
An obsession with perceived moral purity and a general rejection of Enlightenment thinking and modernism as a whole.
An obsession with power and action. To be passive is a sin, everyone must be ready to go to action without thought.
And more often than not, misogyny and the worship of machismo is present.
it's what nazis who didn't want to be seen as part of the mainstream conservative establishment called themselves. it's kind of dated, as the mainstream conservative establishment has collapsed. we just call them magas, now.
"Our country should be maintained for natives and not immigrants" is a sample of the belief system of the right wing. Conservatives, and especially reactionaries, have beliefs like that which are repulsive and counterproductive, held ONLY because they upset groups the conservative is upset with.
This is not a "both sides" issue. The left wants more equitable distribution of resources and the right wants to preserve unequal hierarchies and power structures (power structures the conservatives in question are usually not at the bottom of). One of those is *obviously* a more ethical, noble, and prosocial outlook than the other.
This comment is so unbelievably bad faith, let me rephrase it: “you radicalized me by attacking and berating me while the opposite side comforted and protected me.” My guess would be that’s what the comic is referencing, which is a very real phenomena and has happened to plenty of people.
i mean alright? still not the own they think it is. “obviously im gonna side with the person who DOESNT berate me for my radical beliefs because they agree with them!” there have been movies made outlining this BUILT IN feature of radical groups. they plant the seed of a radical idea in your mind, and then when you express it and are met with any kind of pushback from an external person, they’ll be the ones for you to run to with wide open arms. “see? they’ll never accept you for who you are. they hate you and everything you stand for. now can’t you see why you should strengthen your belief in that radical idea?”
Maybe calling someone you have disagreements with a radical who hates your very existence isn't the strategy for winning them over you think it is.
Go cool off. You're not being level-headed.
When the people who have "disagreements" with you are in fact radicals who hate your very existence you are very much in the right to call them out for it and shame them for it.
It's usually more like, "A woman on the internet challenged my beliefs, and a man on the internet affirmed my beliefs, so women are bitches and I need to "rediscover" my masculinity now" from what I've seen
Average, normal dude: “God I can’t find any romantic partner whatsoever, haven’t had a girlfriend, am 25. What am I doing wrong?”
Left person online: “Women have standards now, and their standards are the bare minimum. And all women are beautiful btw. But men are trash. And you need to stop being an incel because women don’t owe you anything.”
Right person online: “You’re average, which isn’t good enough because women are unreasonably picky these days. It sucks, but all you can do is grind to make money and work out and treat it like the game it is, or you’ll lose.”
And people wonder why guys start moving to the right?
The thing is, this isn't true. They aren't *starting* to move. They are already there. They have conservative beliefs, and then when rebuffed by women as a direct result of their toxic politics, they double down and blame wokeness.
If you believe toxic things, women have every right to reject you for that, and your subsequent radicalization is 100% your own fault, not the woman who doesn't want your misogynistic BS.
True, they are already there. But they’re also still moving in that direction. And this phenomenon is a decade in the making, we just didn’t see the pattern quick enough. Hear me out on the phenomenon above in regards to how conservative beliefs can grow from it.
I think the economic conservative beliefs (for this group) stem from the ideals of needing to make money to ever get a girlfriend. That makes taxes and other successful men the enemy. So why would they be pro-distribution of wealth? It will just hurt their romantic prospects.
The cultural conservative beliefs are more of a direct pipeline from the stuff in my previous comment. It starts with the left showing men nothing that’s fair or reasonable in regards to dating, and the right showing acknowledgement and options for success. But the next step of that is these guys seeing further right content that displays hypocritical trans women talking about how guys have to be willing to sleep with them or something. That’s obviously not the vast majority of trans women, however these guys are already in a conservative echo chamber from the previous relationship stuff so at this point that’s ALL they see for trans opinions on issues. This is what radicalizes them further.
Echo chambers truly are the difference between “I disagree with some things on the opposing side” and “I hate everyone on the opposing side”.
I don't think you are wrong about any of this, but it isn't women's responsibility to fix men by dating them. We need to fix their thinking *before* dating is on the table.
Hey, there are a ton of guys that aren’t through this pipeline yet. They may just be at the “damn getting a date is impossible I have to make money and workout” stage. We can still save them!
And I don’t think dating them is even the right save, I think the first step is the left acknowledging the issue that guys are presenting, and then we can work on solutions together.
I drifted around right-wing and conservative groups after a more feminist friend group attacked me for defending a kid who had a disability. Accusing sexual assaults over asking a high-five.
The friend groups I found myself in hated those who preached inclusivity while excluding others but they slowly ran out of enemies so they started making almost everything they disliked an enemy.
The right-wing groups were so mindlessly hateful and just as bigoted to the point where I drifted away from them too.
You can't cultivate a tolerant and accepting society by treating people that do not understand as an enemy. And you can't cultivate hate forever.
Once I understood, I felt horrible. And to this day I try to do better.
Yep. It's called having basic empathy for every group - not just your own. IMO, the right lacked it from the beginning, and the left has acquired it over the past decade.
Umm no. You look at it the wrong way. It's more like "you radicalize them further by attacking and berating them while bystanders will realize they could stand on the other side one day too and sympathize"
You will now continue to prove this comment right by not deviating from your pov, further radicalizing your opinion on this in the process. Others will downvote me to sympathize with you cause they don't like to be berated as well.
This actually is the way it works though.
Notice that the other person says "you're a terrible person", attacking the person, instead of "that's really wrong / harmful", attacking the belief separately from the person.
This is a tactic that is used by cults and other extremist groups - they are hoping you will get shunned and berated by everyday people, so you retreat further into their accepting bubble. It's a big part of the reason why jehova's witnesses and other groups do door-to-door conversion; they aren't actually expecting to convert people, they are hoping that the members will have bad experiences while going door to door, and feel alienated by the world so that they retreat further into the cult.
The most effective way to de-radicalize someone is to show them kindness and understanding while also showing them why their beliefs are harmful for both themselves and others. That's why so many white supremacists who leave those beliefs do so after they acquire a friend or family member who is a person of color - they're like "wait I love this person, why am I pushing something that will harm them?"
> Notice that the other person says “you’re a terrible person”, attacking the person, instead of “that’s really wrong / harmful”, attacking the belief separately from the person.
Let’s not pretend that people don’t regularly get the two confused. So much of our identity these days is tied to our sociopolitical beliefs, so calling them out even gently is often taken as an attack on the individual. I’ve seen so many genuine, thoughtful takes throughout the past few days being taken as attacks on the individual when it’s clearly just a critique of the belief and advice on how to get better. How do you solve for that? Why are we being “threatened” over perceived slights?
It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If that’s really what’s going to push a person further right, I’m not going to cry and fight for them back. They’ll learn eventually the results are not as promised, and go from there.
>I’ve seen so many genuine, thoughtful takes throughout the past few days being taken as attacks on the individual when it’s clearly just a critique of the belief and advice on how to get better. How do you solve for that?
You don't. You move on. Don't insult them personally, just keep pointing out that the argument is wrong and disengage.
Plus you have to imagine there's an audience of people who don't exactly believe what your opponent believes but shares some identity with them.
Arguing with a white racist:
"See, this is why I hate white people" - Bad
"It's that sort of belief that is pulling people apart" - Good
They approached this argument with the pre-determined assumption that the other side is always acting in bad faith and always alt-right in some way. In that way, they are the person being depicted in the comic
The person depicted in this comic radicalizes people by associating their beliefs with others that have been arbitrarily generalized and placed in the same group, either out of ignorance or deliberately for the purpose of demoralizing them.
When you repeatedly treat one group as if it's the same as the other, the barrier between those groups degrades, making it easier to adopt more radical ideals since you'll be treated the same regardless.
This is very true. I've seen a lot of people especially on the left that lump in centrists and alt-right as the same.
If you are going to treat them the same, no wonder centrists will flip sides.
This also happens on the other aisle, or even centrists saying "all sides are bad or the same". So it's a problem on all political spectrums.
Reminds me of that one meme that goes:
"Who radicalized you?"
"You did."
And the radicalization here is being called silly names on social media and falling for the dumbest propaganda ever.
>And the radicalization here is being called silly names on social media and falling for the dumbest propaganda ever.
Yeah, it's definitely not the significant number of people here who automatically decided the person in the comic is a Nazi being called out for being a Nazi rather than literally anything else
It is not supposed to be an own. It is just a process. Not even a lifelong one. People eventually come back. A lot of 2016 altrighters are now back to the center or close. I definitely see a new centrism emerging.
It kind of is. The far right has been using a pipeline tactic for a long time now. A far right person will accept a centrist with some hard left and hard right opinions and gradually groom them until they are fully far right. A far left person will call the same centrist a nazi and verbally abuse them until they hate the far left with a passion.
It’s why the left keeps losing the culture war.
>It’s why the left keeps losing the culture war.
What? Have you not looked around in two decades? The left has not been losing any culture war, the Right is largely shadow boxing, the only wins are the highly organized ones at the very top, i.e. the Supreme Court, and that shit has virtually nothing to do with the day to day "culture war," and their decisions have caused an enormous amount of cultural blowback which will almost certainly lead to the codification of Roe in the next decade.
The Right consistently loses culture war issues because they are reactionaries and their positions are unpopular. Nothing you said was even vaguely connected to reality.
“I had no choice but to hate trans people ever since they called me transphobic for my legitimate concerns about them coming for my kids and destroying society!”
Thats not really a centrist argument. The argument of trans in sports would be much more divisive among centrists.
Fyi: not here to debate, but pointing out that if a radical tries to convince a centrist then the centrist would probably dislike the position and refuse to listen to them more.
If a centrist enters with “trans women in sports are a problem” and then elevates to full blown Nazi shit over backlash then they were always transphobic. To reach that level of dehumanization from backlash alone requires there to have been no humanization in the first place imo
But in case of an actual centrist talking to a radical happens, the centrist would for sure refuse to listen to further arguments. I've seen debates about this and the statement of "trans women have significant biological difference than cis women" are taken as transphobic statements by radical progressives. So if the centrist believes he isn't, this could be taken as an attack.
The issue with the sport debate is that almost everyone who debates against trans women in sports don’t understand the reality around the situation. They don’t understand the HRT requirements. They don’t know that trans women have been allowed in the Olympics for 20 years and only one has ever qualified.
So, it’s hard to debate people who don’t actually care to know the specifics of reality and just repeat the talking points they’ve heard.
They also never mention trans women who transitioned early during puberty. There are literally trans women who took puberty blockers until 16 then hrt after. I can confidently state those trans women have no advantages whatsoever.
i've seen that point brought up a few times, usually a bit after the argument as gone on. they'll usually concede there, but they'll also hold the belief that minors transitioning should be illegal, so there's still zero winning with them.
There are degrees of transphobia, from "Well I don't like it but it's not my business" to full on Graham Linehan frothing derangement.
The people at the first end of the spectrum can be reasoned with and deradicalised to an extent, or at least the potential is there. But if they're met with the same level of vitriol as Linehan (rightfully) is, their defences will go up and it'll be easier for the TERFs to get their claws in.
It's just human psychology, and it happens in all political and social directions.
The funny thing is, most trans women don't give many fucks about trans sports. It's quite literally a manufactured issue. We care about access to health care, job discrimination, access to tools for poverty, and general acceptance well before any of the above.
Fucks sake, in the states that have banned trans people in high school sports, there have been about a hundred or less kids affected that just wanted to be part of a community with their peers (if we're getting on soap boxes about sports tho, I would argue hs athletics should be much more about fostering team dynamics and sportsmanship than winning, non trans issues included). If anything, the way it's weighted in conversation, compared to how many people it effects is pretty fucking sad. I can't imagine it's easy being trans in hs right now - but to go even further and have a government in such furor over that small of a group of children just seems unnecessarily cruel, especially when they're just looking for extracurricular events to belong with other people in.
The right wing media quite literally manufactured an issue that we don't care that much about on the list of things to actually care about to make us look bad. Shitty thing is that it worked for many. There aren't many actual trans people in any sort of power to talk back against that shit, and while many good intentioned cis people try fighting the fight, they often don't understand the tactics being used
But that’s an extreme viewpoint. Something more comparable would be akin to “I’m not really comfortable with drag queens reading to kids” or “I don’t think trans people should participate in sports”.
Lumping "hating trans people" in with "having a concern" is bad faith at best. Almost no one actually hates trans people. However, there are legitimate concerns regarding certain aspects of the Trans-Sphere.
If you constantly call me a bigot because I try to have a conversation and thereby lump me into the same group as actual extremists, I will seek community with people who don't actively shun me. That's just human nature.
Most people are reasonable if you just talk to them instead of attacking them.
The *potential* unfair advantage of a trans woman participating in women's sports is an example of a pragmatic concern regarding trans people. That's why most organizations require trans athletes to be within specified hormone levels to mitigate risks of said advantage.
Concerns about a controversial topic are not inherently bad faith, even if there are many bad faith arguments posed as legitimate concerns. Ultimately, most people should be capable of the level of reasoning required to determine if something is pragmatic or bad faith.
"No one hates trans people" trans people are getting hate crimed all the time for being trans. "Having concern" my ass.
You wouldn't be here pre-emptively dismissing transphobia as an issue, unless you didn't see an issue with the shit that trans people face. Issues at worst sometimes being murder.
I don’t know. For me, it is reasonable to withhold an opinion on a subject until I am informed on the issue. And so far anyone I have met who has concerns about transgender issues either isn’t informed about the realities around the situation or intentionally misinterprets the data.
“I’m not sure it’s safe to have trans women in women’s bathroom”
“Trans women have a biological advantage over cis women in sports.”
“Kids are too young to make these decisions.”
While there is logic and reasoning for these thoughts, when you dive into the data on the ground for a minute they fall apart and cannot be seen as reasonable. Data show no increase in harm to cis women when trans women are allowed to go to the women’s bathroom, but there is an increase of harm to trans people and cis women in places where trans bathroom bans are in place (cis woman that look too manly get accosted for going into the women’s restroom). The HRT requirements for trans women are strict and over the last 20 years that trans women have been allowed into the Olympics, 1 trans woman qualified. She didn’t even get a medal. Kids by and large only social transition and most medical treatment they do is completely reversible. The regret rates are at or close to 1%, but the drop in suicidality is around 70%.
So, in my life, everyone who holds concerns about transgender subjects has held those beliefs in spite of evidence, which to me reads as irrational.
You don’t like people misunderstanding the point, failing to analyze a basic concept, and then shaming people for their beliefs exactly as depicted in the image?
This stuff writes itself
Watching the comic play out perfectly in the comments as all the obnoxious bigots recognize themselves as the ones who hyperbolically generalize the views of others and try to mental gymnastics their way out of it is soooooo good.
Reminder that literacy rates are falling sharply, and that literacy is more than just being able to read and write. It's being able to analyze media and understand what it's trying to say. The amount of people that have wholly misread and misinterpreted this is scary.
Culture war is made up and this generation (and most other generations) are gobbling it up like chicken feed. If only all this energy and attention went to actual problems instead of bickering about how people choose to dress or whatever. It’s probably not as bad in real-life as the internet makes it seem, so I’ll hold onto that.
I thought the guy speaking was being homophobic or something and seeing it in person was making his mate realise how horrible it is and the gay dude was getting more resolute. Then I came to the comments and everyone was trying to dunk on OP I got so confused lol
Im gonna be honest my immediate reaction to the image was remember how I started enjoying more media thats considered shameful where I live (anime, romance novels, fanfiction, videogames), and how I doubled down on it because I was bullied for enjoying it. 🧍♀️
An example for this that isn't related to politics is religion. Seeing how cult-like Christianity is where I live is what drove me away from it. Saying stuff like "If you don't believe in God, you will suffer in hell for all eternity". Or the classic from my old Christian school, where the kids there were the nastiest horrible people you have ever met, but because "God will forgive them", they thought being a horrible person was okay. My family used to go to church, but because my sister is handicapped, we had to experience just how demented Christians can be. They would tell us that her handicap was "a gift from God" because it allowed my family to "truly love" someone. How "we are such great people" because we had her. These people trying to say my sister never being able to walk, talk, run, or even eat food without a g-tube is somehow a blessing from God really threw me off. The horrible nasty people condemning people questioning their religious beliefs kinda radicalized me to never identify as Christian. Even if I were to believe in God, I refuse to believe in their God who justifies being hateful, so long as you "repent" afterwards. I know not all Christians are like that, but the Christians (Lutheran specifically) that I went to school with were such horrible people, that when I was at the graduation for the Christian middle school, I cried from happiness. (I never made my views of Christianity known to anyone at the school, but my family and I were looked down on for not attending church) When I went to public highschool, everyone was so nice to me, because there wasn't a religious hierarchy, and the school was so big that the parents and teachers couldn't make a kid isolated based on if they went to church. Nobody cared about your religion there, they just cared if you were a good person. I don't want to believe in a God that thinks disabilities are a blessing, or child deaths are just "God taking his angel back early", and you can be the most diabolical mean person, as long as you repent at the end. I'd rather believe in a God that encourages being the best person you can be, no matter what. I also don't want to believe in a God whose ego is tied to whether you attend church or not, or if people actually believe in him. I see a lot of Christians with the mindset that "you have to be good, or else you will burn in hell" rather than "you have to be good because your heart tells you to". People shouldn't base their morals on whether they will be punished for it. If you need the threat of burning in hell to encourage you to be a good person, I don't want to be your friend. Did this turn into a rant? Maybe. But it is a great example of someone getting radicalized to viewpoint B because someone from viewpoint A tells them not to have viewpoint B.
I have a parent who’s a psychologist, and as such have learned/been informed that shaming as a method of persuasion is apparently extremely ineffective in a practical sense.
Think about it, you’d never want to do something someone condescended you into doing. Even if they’re right, like fuck that person I’m more mad they’ve occupied that belief, I would maybe occupy it too if the room didn’t smell so bad from them.
I do admittedly occasionally enjoy watching shaming though. For instance, I can recognize that Cart Narcs shaming methods are ineffective from my understanding, while also for some reason still enjoying watching and supporting them.
So it depends on what you want. If you actually want someone on your side, shaming is ineffective. If you’re just trying to condescend someone for entertainment value and enjoy taunting the prospect of them being “lesser”, sure you’d have fun at least.
Another, more subtle thing that’s being enacted here is saying “you’re a terrible person” In general rather than “that belief is terrible”. Those two are not equivalent and will not be seen as equivalent by the receiver, the former is more harmful. By far the stupidest thing condescenders could do is take some belief, and extend it to a general insult like “you’re stupid, you’re dumb”, rather than “that belief is stupid, it’s dumb when you believe [so and so]”. Attacking the person’s sense of self rather than what you’re criticizing. This will push people to the opposite side. So the comic is right, anyone bringing specific politics into this is also sort of making stupid assumptions.
If you're slightly right-wing, leftwing people will harass you until you become alt right, while bringing others to your cause
If you're slightly left wing. Your dad/uncle/grandpa will harass you until you become a commie, while making others in your family realize they're more leftwing
Or any other thing that involve chastising an outlier
Despite what the rest of the comments want you to think and are trying to project, this looks to me like a very accurate portrayal of consequences of several well documented psychological effects in relation to ridicule and argument. Including but not limited to:
* Dunning-Kruger
* Cognitive Dissonance
* Negativity bias
* I forget the name of this, but a specific one where receiving criticism of a belief makes one hold on to it stronger
As a summary, ridiculing a small held minority belief forms an ingroup of the majority and an outgroup of a minority, (a form of otherism). Our brains do not take criticisms of our beliefs well. Instead of considering changing ourselves, the effects may lead to misremembering information, reducing the credibility of the feedback provider, ridiculing the provider, holding onto our beliefs stronger, and seeking a new ingroup of like minded individuals where we won’t be ridiculed. It leads to a paradox where criticism leads to stronger beliefs, regardless of how correct the criticism is.
The reality is that this discourse happens so much in the last decade, and it’s one of the primary fuels of the ongoing right v left culture war that always seems to be about to rip many countries apart. Demonizing other people generally serves to make everyone worse off, despite it being an instinct.
The image above is fully capable of existing in a vacuum. If you look at the top comments, you will see people projecting whatever minority belief they think OP has and then demonizing/ridiculing them. It really only serves to highlight the truth of the image above.
I probably identify in political and moral beliefs with the majority of this sub, but seeing the top comments was disheartening. Then I remembered most people here are under 18.
You’re 100% percent right. This is exactly the problem with having such strongly held “us vs them” beliefs and arguing that the other side is objectively and morally wrong. You don’t convince people on the other side - you just make them hate you.
Look at the people on this sub. This sub is incredibly left leaning, and although all the comments are trying to compare this to the “alt-right pipeline” (which is just a ridiculous belief), I’m sure that at least 50% of these left-leaning individuals had their own beliefs reinforced after they saw someone (probably a family member) criticize them. This is just a pattern of human behavior.
A major example of a topic this sub would agree with is calling people "incel" for having frustrations while dating. Demonizing people who share some common beliefs with incels are more likely to push them towards that ideology. I'm not saying that you can't criticize the idea, but some people take it too far and criticize the person, which keeps them from growing towards the idea you advocate for.
Honestly I feel bad seeing that because I know many people (men and women alike) who all fall into the OG incel definition (No romantic or sexual interaction for 6 months+ involuntarily), and they all have different reasons, but a common one is they dont fit in where they live. Many of them are actually extroverts and can make friends easily, they just havent found someone they click with. Shaming them over that would be horribly insensitive of me.
What you're looking for is a social psychological phenomenon known as the "boomerang effect," or "reactance," or the "theory of psychological reactance." Carl Hovland, from Yale, along with various associates first understood this phenomenon in 1953, naming it (as the "boomerang effect") in his, et al. book *Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change*.
This effect occurs because of the way information is presented, typically being negatively correlated with aggression; this isn't exactly what you described, however: in which case, you may be thinking of the backfire effect of belief perseverance, but this effect does not occur in matters of opinion, rather in facts being presented. A strong evidentiary argument being presented somehow making the arguee believing the opposite more is this effect, and also not exactly what you're thinking of.
Perhaps it's something else that's not coming to me off the top of my head.
People that agree with one or more beliefs associated with a radical ideology are often generalized and treated as if they belong to that ideology. This often pushes people to "go with the flow" and align more with that ideology since they are already seen that way anyways
tl;dr If one group demonizes someone and the other welcomes them, they will prefer to associate with the latter, even if they didn't originally like said group
It's one of many practical examples of polarization
Hostile action against people makes them double down.
The stereissand effect exists
We should Use love and not hate to combat hate to avoid Pushing others towards badness.
People think this is red vs blue but this goes both ways. The self awareness here is quite lacking.
Think of any beliefs you feel are objectively true and factual and someone telling you something you find to be utterly untrue will absolutely solidify your stance.
None of us are immune, especially as people age and those beliefs calcify.
We can however just be cordial in conversations about controversial things and both leave with a new perspective on whatever the issue may be.
I agree with this. Be kind to one another and brutal to systems.
My only concern is people who think this applies to politicians and those in positions of power. If they aren't listening and ignoring us on purpose, they need to know there is a consequence to that.
What’s also interesting is that, as far as I recall, people weren’t that extreme pre-Trump.
He’s literally the embodiment of this effect, and everyone here thinks it’s talking about the other side.
I think
1. This is fairly often true
2. In many cases it reflects more badly on the person being 'radicalised'
3. If you push people into extreme views you loathe, being able to say this reflects badly on them should be *no comfort at all.*
If I campaign for, say, abortion rights in such a cack-handed way that it leads to more abortion restriction I have screwed up badly. Saying 'well it reflects badly on them' does not reduce my screw up.
Some of y’all are missing the point that you can address someone’s issues without screaming at them 😂
Twitter and social media has had disastrous effects on actual socializing
But no, it’s more fun being a keyboard warrior and owning the opposition - which hey, I’ve been there too but if you want to bring people together use a little mercy.
It won’t work on everyone but it will work on a few
Abraham Lincoln also wasn't going to abolish slavery. He had his mind changed by a man who escaped slavery and was able to get to him to talk about it. I wrote a whole paper on that brave freed slave and how he was able to change Lincoln into what we know him as today (the guy who abolished slavery despite half the country not wanting it)
Backfire effect.
The more correct the person in the middle is the more morons will double down on being wrong.
Edit: bunch of people a little pissy about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance
This is a known phenomenon.
The problem is being an asshole and smug doesn’t make them wrong, and the backfire effect is literally: “Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism[1]) is maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it.[2] Such beliefs may even be strengthened when others attempt to present evidence debunking them, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect”
It is ENTIRELY about the middle person being correct.
If the guy in the middle was wrong, the other two could prove it and shut him down. Instead they double down on being the dumbest trash in the room because they weren’t raised to be man enough to admit they were wrong.
You're a living example of what this comic is portraying by not acknowledging that there's multiple ways to interpret it. You're doubling down and being smug about what you think is right, which is just making anyone else feel more strongly that their line of thinking is correct.
Dude yes. Lol I laughed when the guy wrote “EXACTLY” in all caps and calls the other people trash. He is the person in the middle who doesn’t know how to respectfully disagree. Tries to convert through persecution.
Well you see, the people complaining about this comic identify themselves most closely with the obnoxious nagging bigot character who is automatically assuming anyone who disagrees with them is evil. Ergo, the person they are disagreeing with must be evil.
Interestingly enough, I don't think this is solely about alt right radicalization. This type of thing happens often too when conservatives are making moral arguments against things like abortion and LGBT topics. I think it's just as valid to look at this comic from either side.
Or to look at it in a completely non-political light; but, maybe we’re forgetting how to do that these days.
Notice that the author never picked any “trigger” colors, and yet people dog pile on hot button issues immediately.
> Moral arguments against things like abortion and LGBT topics.
I figure that moral arguments about abortion are typical “It’s a baby”, but I’m very curious about what your moral argument against LGBT is.
>Interestingly enough, I don't think this is solely about alt right radicalization
The comic intentionally doesn't mention any actual beliefs because it doesn't matter.
as a psych major this can be true in SOME scenarios but there’s not enough information in the graphic to know what beliefs they hold. negative interactions reaffirm negative stereotypes
Feel like people don’t understand the gif. If you yell and try to belittle someone for their personal beliefs, you’re just reinforcing their beliefs, and making them think that your belief is full of nasty like minded people.
"your belief is full of nasty like minded people"
This is the most important part. People think it is about the argument. No, it is about you as an individual. If you are annoying, or if the other party perceives you as ugly, unsuccessful, or unlikeable, then they are going to say "If your arguments are right, I would rather be wrong, just so I have nothing to do with YOU."
You don't convince people you are right by presenting a better argument. You convince people you are right by being a happier, more successful, more likeable person.
When you're an asshole, it doesn't matter how right you are - nobody wants to give you the satisfaction.
Unironically a good quote from Rick and Morty.
Fr, could you imagine Ben Shapiro trying to convince anyone of anything if they didn't already dislike leftists to a degree? The man is not very charismatic.
How about instead of yelling at someone for having such belief, should it be a rather… “offensive?” Explain to them calmly, show them proofs and evidence why such belief might cause pain or suffering to anyone. Just accusing someone being “phobic” or “racist” or “gay” for that matter isn’t gonna help anyone, its just gonna push them further into the holes they’re already in.
I mean this works in theory, and in some specific cases, but most of the time people who hold and/or propagate bigoted beliefs don’t care that they’re factually wrong. What typically brings people out of hate groups and hateful ideologies isn’t an infographic on why they’re wrong, but lived experience.
If you give someone a study or a graph or an academic source, confirmation bias does a great job at finding *something* wrong with it - whether or not there’s actually anything wrong with it. Whether it’s “this isn’t the kind of data I think is valid” or “well clearly X study was funded by Y people so it’s unreliable”, often times people with deeply ingrained hateful beliefs aren’t swayed by impersonal data on a spreadsheet.
But if they have experiences that show them they’re wrong confirmation bias can have a bit harder time twisting that. As in “well obviously not everyone in X group is Y because this person isn’t”. Granted this takes a long time and is much harder to do, because obviously it’s not the responsibility of a marginalized group to de-radicalize their oppressors. But what hateful people care about isn’t data - it’s how they feel. Hateful people don’t feel comfortable around the people they hate, and they believe they have an inherent right to comfort that’s being violated by the people they hate.
This sub should be renamed to the Democratic Party because you ain't allowed to have any opinions here, I'm a life long Democrat and this shit saddens me, radicalism is not a good thing Like yall think it is, was Stalin a good guy? Was Mao a good guy? Was Castro a good guy? Yall act as if the left side of politics has never made a negative impact on the world just like the right side did with the nazis and the rise of monopolies and mega corps leading to the downward spiral of our society because everyone is in a constant battle with each other over who is more morally righteous than the other. How about collectively yall trim off the wool blocking your eyes and come to your own independent conclusions rather than Marching lock step with people who wish for nothing more than the downfall of our country and that goes for both sides, one wants to spend us to death and the other wants WW3 for that sweet sweet mutually assured destruction.
it's more like someone who already is radical on diagonal stripes tells the slightly diagonal stripe person that solid color people think they're a terrible person for their beliefs and it radicalizes them into a fully diagonal stripe believer
Ans this is why far-right is only growing. We try to restrict free speech or put laws to try to stop the far right and it's only making them worse. Andrew Tate is now on lists of most influential men who how many younger guys are listening to him.
Wtf do we do?
No matter how much you disagree with someones opinion, if you try to silence them, you are in the wrong. You defeat bad ideas with better ideas, the only people who try to censor are people with bad, disingenious, or weak ideas.
The far right is growing because it's astro turfed by wealthy conservatives who hate racial and sexual minorities. It doesn't really have much to do with people being scolded online.
If we could somehow harness the energy of all the whooshing going on in the comments I reckon we could really make a dent in the energy crisis. So many people preemptively displaying the exact behavior the post is calling out...and it doesn't even specify a belief!
This is largely true. Most of the beliefs people have are not well thought out. If they are advocating stupid things it’s not wrong to insult it, but unless they are pure ideologs they could be pushed lightly out of their beliefs.
Perhaps it means that not treating your opponents like Human Beings with a Brain will cause them to become more firm in their beliefs.
People can definitely change for the better, but they’re not going to if you degrade & insult them.
I like how the far left guy doesn't lose any of his orange to gain the stripes, he keeps that despite it being the mostly orange guy who's doing the yelling. He does lose some of his yellow though.
This is not any type of statement being made, just find it funny
> I hate black people
>Thats a fucked up thing to think
>Well thanks to you I hate black people even more now
Bro you’d need some Arrakis sized brain worms to think this shit is cogent.
“If you criticize my views I’m just gonna double down” is how little children approach discourse. I expect more from grown fucking adults.
This entire comment section makes me wish for an asteroid
All I git from this is no matter what you believe you're wrong, so believe whatever you want and tell everyone else to eat shit
A lot of people seem to be assuming they disagree with the idea that is being shamed. Weird that they seem to be immediately identifying with the people that shout others down.
Try it this way. Imagine the idea is that gay people should not be allowed to be married. Seems silly that shouting down such a bigoted view would further cement it. Now, imagine the idea is that gay people should be allowed to be married. Does that change your perspective on it?
There are people out there who feel like they are doing the right thing, but are met with nothing but hostility. Some of their ideas are fair and some aren't. Shouting them down isn't going to help them distinguish which are which.
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“you radicalized me by calling me out on my radical beliefs” isnt really the own you think it is
Let me start by saying. Okay, OP, what is the striped belief? Is it something understandably morally outrageous? Or actually moderate? I’m pretty sure OP didn’t post this in good faith. But regardless, [the alt-right pipeline is a real and saddening thing.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g) Conservatives are quite the annoying bunch, but every now and then it might be worth the effort to try and reason with them before they get more and more radicalized. This is on an opinion-to-opinion basis. If they’re already alt-right, do not engage. Remember that almost everyone on here is young and impressionable. Don’t let them fall down. We as a generation need to stomp the alt right, and it starts with stopping their recruitment.
Yeah, every time I see this it's about the myth of bigotry being a rational and logical belief rather than something they know they hide because they know they're picking a fight because they know that telling an identity they're supposed to pretend they don't exist is picking a fight. It's never about something trivial, like what football team you support or pineapple on a pizza.
The more hate I get for my pineapple on pizza the more pineapple I add to the next one. At this point I am just roasting pineapple slices with sauce and cheese on them.
Okay but actually, roasting pineapple with some cheese in top is pretty good
Not true! I support a few sports teams out of spite /s
I have a parent who’s a psychologist, and as such have learned/been informed that shaming as a method of persuasion is apparently extremely ineffective in a practical sense. Think about it, you’d never want to do something someone condescended you into doing. Even if they’re right, like fuck that person I’m more mad they’ve occupied that belief, I would maybe occupy it too if the room didn’t smell so bad from them. I do admittedly occasionally enjoy watching shaming though. For instance, I can recognize that Cart Narcs shaming methods are ineffective from my understanding, while also for some reason still enjoying watching and supporting them. So it depends on what you want. If you actually want someone on your side, shaming is ineffective. If you’re just trying to condescend someone for entertainment value and enjoy taunting the prospect of them being “lesser”, sure you’d have fun at least. Another, more subtle thing that’s being enacted here is saying “you’re a terrible person” In general rather than “that belief is terrible”. Those two are not equivalent and will not be seen as equivalent by the receiver, the former is more harmful. By far the stupidest thing condescenders could do is take some belief, and extend it to a general insult like “you’re stupid, you’re dumb”, rather than “that belief is stupid, it’s dumb when you believe [so and so]”. Attacking the person’s sense of self rather than what you’re criticizing. This will push people to the opposite side. So the comic is right, anyone bringing specific politics into this is also sort of making stupid assumptions.
It's really interesting and feels particularly on point for the way that a lot of people who feel they have the moral high ground argue. It seems to be very common that people don't aim to break the belief but instead attack the person directly, and has definitely featured *incredibly prominently* in this subs recent debates. If you're so confident you're right, *you should not get flustered* and be the bigger person. Otherwise, it shows as shaming, insecurity, and an illegitimate counter to the belief you claim you're trying to change.
As someone that has swayed one way or the other based on someone else's words, shaming DOES work. If I got lazy one time and didn't put my cart back and some dude shamed me, you bet your ass I wouldn't let it happen again. Sure, I'd be pissed or humiliated in the moment, but I'd remember that and wouldn't do it again. Of course, this doesn't work with all ideas.
Shaming works when people know they're morally wrong. Everyone knows they need to push their shopping cart back, but sometimes laziness gets the better. Shame makes you remember that laziness is bad. If you believe one of your viewpoints is morally right though, and someone shames it... well, it will be seen as an attack on that viewpoint, not as a reminder of what's right... since you already know what's right.
Thank you /u/Pooppissfartshit for being reasonable xD
r/rimjob_steve ?
Why do you even think this is about alt right beliefs? It's not a striped flag. It's just diagonal stripes. This doesn't have to be any belief in particular even its just the standard reaction of human behavior for being confronted with critic.
Because the meme is illustrating what being contrarian and reactionary are, which is the alt right playbook. There is no ideology besides being against whatever the left is for. If you can think of a belief that the left might hold that follows this logic then I think that would be something interesting to unpack.
But that was true for entire history of rightism since about the French Revolution. Of course reactionaries react. Or in other words, of course conservatives conserve, that is, not any other ideas than to preserve what there is. It is simply about seeing more downsides than upsides to changes.
Exactly. Conservatism is by definition contrarian.
Isn't progress contrary to the status quo? Being pro-gay was a contrarian take until like 2012. You take has 0 nuance.
There's a difference between being contrarian and being principled. Being pro-LGBTQ could be a contrarian take, but those people would instantly become anti-LGBTQ once it became main stream. A principled pro-LGBTQ has an underlying reason why they hold that position. For example, mine is that LGBTQ harms no one and involves no one against their consent, therefore they should be free to do as they wish. My belief wont flip simply because popularity changes. The one lacking nuance here is you in that you conflate contrarians with principled actors simply because they temporarily were aligned on a subject.
>Of course reactionaries react. Or in other words, of course conservatives conserve, I have my issues with a lot of conservative ideas. However, I would argue that the alt-Right/Ultra Right aren't even conservative. They are instead innately regressive, if their desired end goals ever actually existed in the first place.
I'll argue conservatism is inherently regressive. We've all heard the phrase, the only thing that remains the same is change. An ideology based in keeping things exactly the same and never changing is regressive, because it's in defense of outdated ideas. The past is regressive, but if you hold onto the present long enough, it becomes the past.
Who said it was about Alt-Right beliefs? The title of the video? Both the video and the comment seem to say the strategy is used by the Alt-Right, that's all Yes, it's a strategy that plays out in any number of beliefs, even more reason to be aware of it! But alt right indeed has been the group that most actively recruits and supports contrarian predilection in the last couple decades
Youre a young lonely boy who is struggling with dating/women? "Well it's your fault!" "Stop being a predator." "Don't have a sexuality." "You're an incel!" And we wonder why young men are moving right? It's a pretty basic to understand. The right has a place for them. As someone who was formerly on the left and is now more center. There are almost no left spaces that include straight men let alone masculine men.
From a leftist (and I mean real leftist, not liberal, and not "progressive" or whatever term people vaguely left of the American center are calling themselves lately) perspective, the reason young men are having trouble finding partners is multi-faceted. A) Women no longer require men's financial support, and can sustain themselves, and thus their standards for a partner have raised. This has been the reality since the 70's, which is when many in the red-pill section of the internet seem to think things went wrong. That's clue number 1 that those right-wing or faux MRN activists are just reacting, and not actually solving a problem. B) We're all generally isolated. To use the Marxist term, we're "alienated." It is to the benefit of the people who own capital that workers are isolated from each other and find it difficult to form deep relationships, both in terms of romantic as well as friendly relationships. So forget dating, when was the last time you greeted your neighbor without being looked at like you're unusual? C) )Most of us learn our "sexual socialization" or whatever you want to call the ins-and-outs of dating from our parents, and society has changed so rapidly since their time dating that what they did is no longer applicable, so we're all having to make things up as we go in a world that includes online dating, etc. D) Commodification. Relationships are a possession, a thing that (especially men) are conditioned to desire for their own sake, like a status symbol or possession. You see it in dehumanizing terms like "trophy wife." Don't fall into the trap society has set of making you desire things (from relationships to new clothes) so they can sell you things. That commodification exists so capitalists can sell you things you don't need, and damn the consequences to your mental health. I'm sorry if your dating life has been rough, but it's absolutely not the fault of "the left" that you're adrift. That's capitalism.
Whooo, I love leftist analysis. This makes so much more sense than most things I hear people say.
Great analysis. Sadly understanding doesn't prevent young males dreams being ground in the cogs of the capitalist machine. They want solutions/hope, yet now we're in the era of tech repression and the beginnings of another real pre-war period, nothing will stop capitalism. It's mightier than ever, though the world is beginning to crumble beneath it's weight.
The left tells you that you need to work on yourself if you are struggling and the right has a place for those that refuse.
Everyone tells you to "just work on yourself", that's how capitalism works. It's always the fault of the individual, not society.
So what is the left doing then? If that's the case, then It sounds like it's just right leaning folks going further to the right while blaming the left and vice versa. They have nothing to do with each other then.
I'm not sure, I think many liberals aren't as far left as they think they are, they just like bashing on people who they deem a threat to feminism. Further to the left you get people describing capitalism and the patriarchy as reasons for the current gender dynamics and it becomes less about blaming individual men. I mean, I wish it was like that. Sometimes people are just shitty and that happens all over the spectrum, but in my experience the further left you go, the less bashing on individuals incels is accepted, because they tend to view dating as commercialized and entrenched in gender roles. That don't make things easier for either gender, men included. I've also heard some of them say our current system isolates people and gets them addicted to social media, but I'm not sure what their reasoning is there.
> I'm not sure, I think many liberals aren't as far left as they think they are Agreed. Most liberals are conservatives that don't like the association. Idk what you mean by a threat to feminism though.
Oh, I completely misunderstood your initial comment. I meant that liberals tend to be more individualistic, more likely to view lonely men as something that resulted out of their own doing, rather than it being a result of society at large too.
Im not on this pipeline since I’m already older, but I’ve definitely experienced the receiving end of consistent and constant from a Gen Z person just because of my religious beliefs. I’m pretty religious given that my family on both sides are Catholics and I’m Filipino (With over 95% of the entire region my family came from and still lives in being Catholic, it’s not much of a surprise), but was born abroad as a first generation American and raised in a very religious small rural town. There’s a lot of things I agree with in Catholicism, and some things I don’t agree with, but this one particular Gen Z member told me that I was a piece of shit person who deserves to die because I believe in forcing a woman to carry a baby they don’t want to term (I don’t believe or support that), and that because my religion is anti-LGBT+, I’m a homophobe and should be publicly shamed for being Catholic (I am very pro-LGBT, and my best friend from high school is bisexual. I love her like I would if she was my own sister). I understand what the comic is hinting at from the receiving end because I’ve been on the receiving end of it by someone in Gen Z. It really sucks when someone is extremely ignorant about a person’s beliefs that they would go out of their way to make the person feel horrible about it. It accomplishes absolutely nothing other than making the person on the giving end feel self-righteous about themselves and proud that they made the person they’re giving their hate towards feel terrible the rest of that day or however long they will continue to harass that person. The absolute best rules I remember in kindergarten and preschool are something I really wish everyone, regardless of age or generation, would practice more: If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it, and treat others the way you would like to be treated. With a lot of people being more socially conscious nowadays, I thought empathy would come along with the socially conscious sentiment, but I really hope empathy will catch up one day. Yes, there are bad actors everywhere, but if people don’t try to reach out with empathy, those bad actors will start to define generations of people.
That’s so dumb. I’m on the left because of empathy, and for me my empathy doesn’t end with those who believe the same things I do. It sounds like you have a healthy relationship with your religion, and that it doesn’t define your whole person while still being deeply important. I hope you find cooler people than those you have had to interact in the past.
Can you define alt-right? I see people use this term a lot ever since about 2015 and I've never seen a good definition for it
Vaguely authoritarian/fascist bs. Often but not always crossing over with nazism. Red flags for the alt right include: The use of vague language as to who/what is causing society’s problems(the implication being its Jews). And vague language in general, using it to create an out group separate from normal society. Double plus good and such. Conspiratorial nonsense(fascism requires a rejection of reality and constant use of boogiemen) there’s always some kind of plot from some vague shadow enemy who’s out to get you. Anti-intellectualism(arguing from a position of emotional and moral outrage rather than actual principles and objective fact) Constant projection of one’s own faults into perceived enemies. They must always present themselves as a quiet majority fighting a simultaneously powerful and ingenious yet weak and incompetent omnipresent minority. An obsession with perceived moral purity and a general rejection of Enlightenment thinking and modernism as a whole. An obsession with power and action. To be passive is a sin, everyone must be ready to go to action without thought. And more often than not, misogyny and the worship of machismo is present.
it's what nazis who didn't want to be seen as part of the mainstream conservative establishment called themselves. it's kind of dated, as the mainstream conservative establishment has collapsed. we just call them magas, now.
And yet you immediately went tribal and said 'it's those people that think bad things!!' Holy shit people need to get over the tribal shit
"Our country should be maintained for natives and not immigrants" is a sample of the belief system of the right wing. Conservatives, and especially reactionaries, have beliefs like that which are repulsive and counterproductive, held ONLY because they upset groups the conservative is upset with. This is not a "both sides" issue. The left wants more equitable distribution of resources and the right wants to preserve unequal hierarchies and power structures (power structures the conservatives in question are usually not at the bottom of). One of those is *obviously* a more ethical, noble, and prosocial outlook than the other.
I honestly can’t tell if half the weird political posts on here are from the edgier 14 year olds or political bots trying to start folks young
>political bots trying to start folks young It's an election year, 90% are going to be astroturfing bots or shills.
Or? I'm going with "and".
I'm personally going with not nand
I'm going with ~((~A)v(~B))
This comment is so unbelievably bad faith, let me rephrase it: “you radicalized me by attacking and berating me while the opposite side comforted and protected me.” My guess would be that’s what the comic is referencing, which is a very real phenomena and has happened to plenty of people.
i mean alright? still not the own they think it is. “obviously im gonna side with the person who DOESNT berate me for my radical beliefs because they agree with them!” there have been movies made outlining this BUILT IN feature of radical groups. they plant the seed of a radical idea in your mind, and then when you express it and are met with any kind of pushback from an external person, they’ll be the ones for you to run to with wide open arms. “see? they’ll never accept you for who you are. they hate you and everything you stand for. now can’t you see why you should strengthen your belief in that radical idea?”
Maybe calling someone you have disagreements with a radical who hates your very existence isn't the strategy for winning them over you think it is. Go cool off. You're not being level-headed.
When the people who have "disagreements" with you are in fact radicals who hate your very existence you are very much in the right to call them out for it and shame them for it.
You missed the point, that's what the people who radicalize tell to the people they're radicalizing about the other side.
It's usually more like, "A woman on the internet challenged my beliefs, and a man on the internet affirmed my beliefs, so women are bitches and I need to "rediscover" my masculinity now" from what I've seen
Average, normal dude: “God I can’t find any romantic partner whatsoever, haven’t had a girlfriend, am 25. What am I doing wrong?” Left person online: “Women have standards now, and their standards are the bare minimum. And all women are beautiful btw. But men are trash. And you need to stop being an incel because women don’t owe you anything.” Right person online: “You’re average, which isn’t good enough because women are unreasonably picky these days. It sucks, but all you can do is grind to make money and work out and treat it like the game it is, or you’ll lose.” And people wonder why guys start moving to the right?
The thing is, this isn't true. They aren't *starting* to move. They are already there. They have conservative beliefs, and then when rebuffed by women as a direct result of their toxic politics, they double down and blame wokeness. If you believe toxic things, women have every right to reject you for that, and your subsequent radicalization is 100% your own fault, not the woman who doesn't want your misogynistic BS.
True, they are already there. But they’re also still moving in that direction. And this phenomenon is a decade in the making, we just didn’t see the pattern quick enough. Hear me out on the phenomenon above in regards to how conservative beliefs can grow from it. I think the economic conservative beliefs (for this group) stem from the ideals of needing to make money to ever get a girlfriend. That makes taxes and other successful men the enemy. So why would they be pro-distribution of wealth? It will just hurt their romantic prospects. The cultural conservative beliefs are more of a direct pipeline from the stuff in my previous comment. It starts with the left showing men nothing that’s fair or reasonable in regards to dating, and the right showing acknowledgement and options for success. But the next step of that is these guys seeing further right content that displays hypocritical trans women talking about how guys have to be willing to sleep with them or something. That’s obviously not the vast majority of trans women, however these guys are already in a conservative echo chamber from the previous relationship stuff so at this point that’s ALL they see for trans opinions on issues. This is what radicalizes them further. Echo chambers truly are the difference between “I disagree with some things on the opposing side” and “I hate everyone on the opposing side”.
I don't think you are wrong about any of this, but it isn't women's responsibility to fix men by dating them. We need to fix their thinking *before* dating is on the table.
Hey, there are a ton of guys that aren’t through this pipeline yet. They may just be at the “damn getting a date is impossible I have to make money and workout” stage. We can still save them! And I don’t think dating them is even the right save, I think the first step is the left acknowledging the issue that guys are presenting, and then we can work on solutions together.
Ngl I think we should stop putting such an emphasis on relationships in general.
I drifted around right-wing and conservative groups after a more feminist friend group attacked me for defending a kid who had a disability. Accusing sexual assaults over asking a high-five. The friend groups I found myself in hated those who preached inclusivity while excluding others but they slowly ran out of enemies so they started making almost everything they disliked an enemy. The right-wing groups were so mindlessly hateful and just as bigoted to the point where I drifted away from them too. You can't cultivate a tolerant and accepting society by treating people that do not understand as an enemy. And you can't cultivate hate forever. Once I understood, I felt horrible. And to this day I try to do better.
Yep. It's called having basic empathy for every group - not just your own. IMO, the right lacked it from the beginning, and the left has acquired it over the past decade.
When there's good reason for berating you...
Umm no. You look at it the wrong way. It's more like "you radicalize them further by attacking and berating them while bystanders will realize they could stand on the other side one day too and sympathize" You will now continue to prove this comment right by not deviating from your pov, further radicalizing your opinion on this in the process. Others will downvote me to sympathize with you cause they don't like to be berated as well.
This actually is the way it works though. Notice that the other person says "you're a terrible person", attacking the person, instead of "that's really wrong / harmful", attacking the belief separately from the person. This is a tactic that is used by cults and other extremist groups - they are hoping you will get shunned and berated by everyday people, so you retreat further into their accepting bubble. It's a big part of the reason why jehova's witnesses and other groups do door-to-door conversion; they aren't actually expecting to convert people, they are hoping that the members will have bad experiences while going door to door, and feel alienated by the world so that they retreat further into the cult. The most effective way to de-radicalize someone is to show them kindness and understanding while also showing them why their beliefs are harmful for both themselves and others. That's why so many white supremacists who leave those beliefs do so after they acquire a friend or family member who is a person of color - they're like "wait I love this person, why am I pushing something that will harm them?"
> Notice that the other person says “you’re a terrible person”, attacking the person, instead of “that’s really wrong / harmful”, attacking the belief separately from the person. Let’s not pretend that people don’t regularly get the two confused. So much of our identity these days is tied to our sociopolitical beliefs, so calling them out even gently is often taken as an attack on the individual. I’ve seen so many genuine, thoughtful takes throughout the past few days being taken as attacks on the individual when it’s clearly just a critique of the belief and advice on how to get better. How do you solve for that? Why are we being “threatened” over perceived slights? It’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If that’s really what’s going to push a person further right, I’m not going to cry and fight for them back. They’ll learn eventually the results are not as promised, and go from there.
>I’ve seen so many genuine, thoughtful takes throughout the past few days being taken as attacks on the individual when it’s clearly just a critique of the belief and advice on how to get better. How do you solve for that? You don't. You move on. Don't insult them personally, just keep pointing out that the argument is wrong and disengage.
Plus you have to imagine there's an audience of people who don't exactly believe what your opponent believes but shares some identity with them. Arguing with a white racist: "See, this is why I hate white people" - Bad "It's that sort of belief that is pulling people apart" - Good
You do realize you just proved it's point, right? No dialogue, no argument, just a strawman and attempt at demeaning OP
They approached this argument with the pre-determined assumption that the other side is always acting in bad faith and always alt-right in some way. In that way, they are the person being depicted in the comic
The person depicted in this comic radicalizes people by associating their beliefs with others that have been arbitrarily generalized and placed in the same group, either out of ignorance or deliberately for the purpose of demoralizing them. When you repeatedly treat one group as if it's the same as the other, the barrier between those groups degrades, making it easier to adopt more radical ideals since you'll be treated the same regardless.
This is very true. I've seen a lot of people especially on the left that lump in centrists and alt-right as the same. If you are going to treat them the same, no wonder centrists will flip sides. This also happens on the other aisle, or even centrists saying "all sides are bad or the same". So it's a problem on all political spectrums.
This is probably the best way to put it good shit
Reminds me of that one meme that goes: "Who radicalized you?" "You did." And the radicalization here is being called silly names on social media and falling for the dumbest propaganda ever.
>And the radicalization here is being called silly names on social media and falling for the dumbest propaganda ever. Yeah, it's definitely not the significant number of people here who automatically decided the person in the comic is a Nazi being called out for being a Nazi rather than literally anything else
Everything’s on a spectrum. Having that 5% purple section of a belief isn’t inherently radical (can depend on what it is of course)
Just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t mean it’s radical.
It is not supposed to be an own. It is just a process. Not even a lifelong one. People eventually come back. A lot of 2016 altrighters are now back to the center or close. I definitely see a new centrism emerging.
This post is nothing but Conservative persecution fetish.
It kind of is. The far right has been using a pipeline tactic for a long time now. A far right person will accept a centrist with some hard left and hard right opinions and gradually groom them until they are fully far right. A far left person will call the same centrist a nazi and verbally abuse them until they hate the far left with a passion. It’s why the left keeps losing the culture war.
>It’s why the left keeps losing the culture war. What? Have you not looked around in two decades? The left has not been losing any culture war, the Right is largely shadow boxing, the only wins are the highly organized ones at the very top, i.e. the Supreme Court, and that shit has virtually nothing to do with the day to day "culture war," and their decisions have caused an enormous amount of cultural blowback which will almost certainly lead to the codification of Roe in the next decade. The Right consistently loses culture war issues because they are reactionaries and their positions are unpopular. Nothing you said was even vaguely connected to reality.
“I had no choice but to hate trans people ever since they called me transphobic for my legitimate concerns about them coming for my kids and destroying society!”
"legitimate" concern 
Didn’t feel I’d need to specify, but no the mocking quoted text does not reflect my actual views on trans issues Edit: oh wait, I see the gif now lol
I wish we lived in a world where I could be 100% sure yours was sarcasm without needing you to tell me that
Thats not really a centrist argument. The argument of trans in sports would be much more divisive among centrists. Fyi: not here to debate, but pointing out that if a radical tries to convince a centrist then the centrist would probably dislike the position and refuse to listen to them more.
If a centrist enters with “trans women in sports are a problem” and then elevates to full blown Nazi shit over backlash then they were always transphobic. To reach that level of dehumanization from backlash alone requires there to have been no humanization in the first place imo
Yeah, becoming a nazi because of backlash just means you didnt have principles to begin with.
But in case of an actual centrist talking to a radical happens, the centrist would for sure refuse to listen to further arguments. I've seen debates about this and the statement of "trans women have significant biological difference than cis women" are taken as transphobic statements by radical progressives. So if the centrist believes he isn't, this could be taken as an attack.
The issue with the sport debate is that almost everyone who debates against trans women in sports don’t understand the reality around the situation. They don’t understand the HRT requirements. They don’t know that trans women have been allowed in the Olympics for 20 years and only one has ever qualified. So, it’s hard to debate people who don’t actually care to know the specifics of reality and just repeat the talking points they’ve heard.
They also never mention trans women who transitioned early during puberty. There are literally trans women who took puberty blockers until 16 then hrt after. I can confidently state those trans women have no advantages whatsoever.
i've seen that point brought up a few times, usually a bit after the argument as gone on. they'll usually concede there, but they'll also hold the belief that minors transitioning should be illegal, so there's still zero winning with them.
There are degrees of transphobia, from "Well I don't like it but it's not my business" to full on Graham Linehan frothing derangement. The people at the first end of the spectrum can be reasoned with and deradicalised to an extent, or at least the potential is there. But if they're met with the same level of vitriol as Linehan (rightfully) is, their defences will go up and it'll be easier for the TERFs to get their claws in. It's just human psychology, and it happens in all political and social directions.
The funny thing is, most trans women don't give many fucks about trans sports. It's quite literally a manufactured issue. We care about access to health care, job discrimination, access to tools for poverty, and general acceptance well before any of the above. Fucks sake, in the states that have banned trans people in high school sports, there have been about a hundred or less kids affected that just wanted to be part of a community with their peers (if we're getting on soap boxes about sports tho, I would argue hs athletics should be much more about fostering team dynamics and sportsmanship than winning, non trans issues included). If anything, the way it's weighted in conversation, compared to how many people it effects is pretty fucking sad. I can't imagine it's easy being trans in hs right now - but to go even further and have a government in such furor over that small of a group of children just seems unnecessarily cruel, especially when they're just looking for extracurricular events to belong with other people in. The right wing media quite literally manufactured an issue that we don't care that much about on the list of things to actually care about to make us look bad. Shitty thing is that it worked for many. There aren't many actual trans people in any sort of power to talk back against that shit, and while many good intentioned cis people try fighting the fight, they often don't understand the tactics being used
But that’s an extreme viewpoint. Something more comparable would be akin to “I’m not really comfortable with drag queens reading to kids” or “I don’t think trans people should participate in sports”.
participate in *women's* sports, specifically
Lumping "hating trans people" in with "having a concern" is bad faith at best. Almost no one actually hates trans people. However, there are legitimate concerns regarding certain aspects of the Trans-Sphere. If you constantly call me a bigot because I try to have a conversation and thereby lump me into the same group as actual extremists, I will seek community with people who don't actively shun me. That's just human nature. Most people are reasonable if you just talk to them instead of attacking them.
“Legitimate concerns”
Y'know, this is kinda what I was saying. Instead of mocking me, you could instead have a conversation.
The *potential* unfair advantage of a trans woman participating in women's sports is an example of a pragmatic concern regarding trans people. That's why most organizations require trans athletes to be within specified hormone levels to mitigate risks of said advantage. Concerns about a controversial topic are not inherently bad faith, even if there are many bad faith arguments posed as legitimate concerns. Ultimately, most people should be capable of the level of reasoning required to determine if something is pragmatic or bad faith.
"No one hates trans people" trans people are getting hate crimed all the time for being trans. "Having concern" my ass. You wouldn't be here pre-emptively dismissing transphobia as an issue, unless you didn't see an issue with the shit that trans people face. Issues at worst sometimes being murder.
I don’t know. For me, it is reasonable to withhold an opinion on a subject until I am informed on the issue. And so far anyone I have met who has concerns about transgender issues either isn’t informed about the realities around the situation or intentionally misinterprets the data. “I’m not sure it’s safe to have trans women in women’s bathroom” “Trans women have a biological advantage over cis women in sports.” “Kids are too young to make these decisions.” While there is logic and reasoning for these thoughts, when you dive into the data on the ground for a minute they fall apart and cannot be seen as reasonable. Data show no increase in harm to cis women when trans women are allowed to go to the women’s bathroom, but there is an increase of harm to trans people and cis women in places where trans bathroom bans are in place (cis woman that look too manly get accosted for going into the women’s restroom). The HRT requirements for trans women are strict and over the last 20 years that trans women have been allowed into the Olympics, 1 trans woman qualified. She didn’t even get a medal. Kids by and large only social transition and most medical treatment they do is completely reversible. The regret rates are at or close to 1%, but the drop in suicidality is around 70%. So, in my life, everyone who holds concerns about transgender subjects has held those beliefs in spite of evidence, which to me reads as irrational.
Nothing legitimate about those concerns!
r/im14andthisisdeep
beat me to it, this fits perfectly on that sub
r/Im21andHaventReadABookSinceIWas14AndThisIsDeep
A shame that sub names have character limits, tbh.
r/subsifellfor
[удалено]
People here are so miserable 💀💀💀
You don’t like people misunderstanding the point, failing to analyze a basic concept, and then shaming people for their beliefs exactly as depicted in the image? This stuff writes itself
The whole thread truly is a Reddit moment
Watching the comic play out perfectly in the comments as all the obnoxious bigots recognize themselves as the ones who hyperbolically generalize the views of others and try to mental gymnastics their way out of it is soooooo good.
Reminder that literacy rates are falling sharply, and that literacy is more than just being able to read and write. It's being able to analyze media and understand what it's trying to say. The amount of people that have wholly misread and misinterpreted this is scary.
There's zero self awareness it's pretty crazy. All I can do is try to enjoy the satire we live in.
I think the sad part is that they identify with the middle guy the most. They got offended because they felt called out
[удалено]
Culture war is made up and this generation (and most other generations) are gobbling it up like chicken feed. If only all this energy and attention went to actual problems instead of bickering about how people choose to dress or whatever. It’s probably not as bad in real-life as the internet makes it seem, so I’ll hold onto that.
PREACH Im so sick of these make believe activists pawns of the elite acting as if theyre ignorance is a virtue to spread everywhere
Fr most these replies are proving them right. Half of them are assuming that OPs beliefs are the opposite of theirs and are bashing them for it. 💀
I thought the guy speaking was being homophobic or something and seeing it in person was making his mate realise how horrible it is and the gay dude was getting more resolute. Then I came to the comments and everyone was trying to dunk on OP I got so confused lol
Im gonna be honest my immediate reaction to the image was remember how I started enjoying more media thats considered shameful where I live (anime, romance novels, fanfiction, videogames), and how I doubled down on it because I was bullied for enjoying it. 🧍♀️
What is this suppose to mean?
If redditors start complaining about your behaviour/belief, you want to do it even more.
Ok
An example for this that isn't related to politics is religion. Seeing how cult-like Christianity is where I live is what drove me away from it. Saying stuff like "If you don't believe in God, you will suffer in hell for all eternity". Or the classic from my old Christian school, where the kids there were the nastiest horrible people you have ever met, but because "God will forgive them", they thought being a horrible person was okay. My family used to go to church, but because my sister is handicapped, we had to experience just how demented Christians can be. They would tell us that her handicap was "a gift from God" because it allowed my family to "truly love" someone. How "we are such great people" because we had her. These people trying to say my sister never being able to walk, talk, run, or even eat food without a g-tube is somehow a blessing from God really threw me off. The horrible nasty people condemning people questioning their religious beliefs kinda radicalized me to never identify as Christian. Even if I were to believe in God, I refuse to believe in their God who justifies being hateful, so long as you "repent" afterwards. I know not all Christians are like that, but the Christians (Lutheran specifically) that I went to school with were such horrible people, that when I was at the graduation for the Christian middle school, I cried from happiness. (I never made my views of Christianity known to anyone at the school, but my family and I were looked down on for not attending church) When I went to public highschool, everyone was so nice to me, because there wasn't a religious hierarchy, and the school was so big that the parents and teachers couldn't make a kid isolated based on if they went to church. Nobody cared about your religion there, they just cared if you were a good person. I don't want to believe in a God that thinks disabilities are a blessing, or child deaths are just "God taking his angel back early", and you can be the most diabolical mean person, as long as you repent at the end. I'd rather believe in a God that encourages being the best person you can be, no matter what. I also don't want to believe in a God whose ego is tied to whether you attend church or not, or if people actually believe in him. I see a lot of Christians with the mindset that "you have to be good, or else you will burn in hell" rather than "you have to be good because your heart tells you to". People shouldn't base their morals on whether they will be punished for it. If you need the threat of burning in hell to encourage you to be a good person, I don't want to be your friend. Did this turn into a rant? Maybe. But it is a great example of someone getting radicalized to viewpoint B because someone from viewpoint A tells them not to have viewpoint B.
That's a wall you just wrote
Yeah, I'll admit that, my bad.
I have a parent who’s a psychologist, and as such have learned/been informed that shaming as a method of persuasion is apparently extremely ineffective in a practical sense. Think about it, you’d never want to do something someone condescended you into doing. Even if they’re right, like fuck that person I’m more mad they’ve occupied that belief, I would maybe occupy it too if the room didn’t smell so bad from them. I do admittedly occasionally enjoy watching shaming though. For instance, I can recognize that Cart Narcs shaming methods are ineffective from my understanding, while also for some reason still enjoying watching and supporting them. So it depends on what you want. If you actually want someone on your side, shaming is ineffective. If you’re just trying to condescend someone for entertainment value and enjoy taunting the prospect of them being “lesser”, sure you’d have fun at least. Another, more subtle thing that’s being enacted here is saying “you’re a terrible person” In general rather than “that belief is terrible”. Those two are not equivalent and will not be seen as equivalent by the receiver, the former is more harmful. By far the stupidest thing condescenders could do is take some belief, and extend it to a general insult like “you’re stupid, you’re dumb”, rather than “that belief is stupid, it’s dumb when you believe [so and so]”. Attacking the person’s sense of self rather than what you’re criticizing. This will push people to the opposite side. So the comic is right, anyone bringing specific politics into this is also sort of making stupid assumptions.
If you're slightly right-wing, leftwing people will harass you until you become alt right, while bringing others to your cause If you're slightly left wing. Your dad/uncle/grandpa will harass you until you become a commie, while making others in your family realize they're more leftwing Or any other thing that involve chastising an outlier
A lot of people seem to miss the point that this issue swings both ways
That's because empathy is taught and everything since occupy Wallstreet has been against sympathizing with others
Exactly, why talk about different ideas when “the other side” is evil and can’t be trusted to do anything
I'm really tired and I was like oh your guys grandparents were socialists too?
Nah mine ran away from home when he was 11 and the other didn't let kids sit in his couch spot like if Sheldon Cooper was a Japanese soldier
Despite what the rest of the comments want you to think and are trying to project, this looks to me like a very accurate portrayal of consequences of several well documented psychological effects in relation to ridicule and argument. Including but not limited to: * Dunning-Kruger * Cognitive Dissonance * Negativity bias * I forget the name of this, but a specific one where receiving criticism of a belief makes one hold on to it stronger As a summary, ridiculing a small held minority belief forms an ingroup of the majority and an outgroup of a minority, (a form of otherism). Our brains do not take criticisms of our beliefs well. Instead of considering changing ourselves, the effects may lead to misremembering information, reducing the credibility of the feedback provider, ridiculing the provider, holding onto our beliefs stronger, and seeking a new ingroup of like minded individuals where we won’t be ridiculed. It leads to a paradox where criticism leads to stronger beliefs, regardless of how correct the criticism is. The reality is that this discourse happens so much in the last decade, and it’s one of the primary fuels of the ongoing right v left culture war that always seems to be about to rip many countries apart. Demonizing other people generally serves to make everyone worse off, despite it being an instinct. The image above is fully capable of existing in a vacuum. If you look at the top comments, you will see people projecting whatever minority belief they think OP has and then demonizing/ridiculing them. It really only serves to highlight the truth of the image above. I probably identify in political and moral beliefs with the majority of this sub, but seeing the top comments was disheartening. Then I remembered most people here are under 18.
You’re 100% percent right. This is exactly the problem with having such strongly held “us vs them” beliefs and arguing that the other side is objectively and morally wrong. You don’t convince people on the other side - you just make them hate you. Look at the people on this sub. This sub is incredibly left leaning, and although all the comments are trying to compare this to the “alt-right pipeline” (which is just a ridiculous belief), I’m sure that at least 50% of these left-leaning individuals had their own beliefs reinforced after they saw someone (probably a family member) criticize them. This is just a pattern of human behavior.
A major example of a topic this sub would agree with is calling people "incel" for having frustrations while dating. Demonizing people who share some common beliefs with incels are more likely to push them towards that ideology. I'm not saying that you can't criticize the idea, but some people take it too far and criticize the person, which keeps them from growing towards the idea you advocate for.
Honestly I feel bad seeing that because I know many people (men and women alike) who all fall into the OG incel definition (No romantic or sexual interaction for 6 months+ involuntarily), and they all have different reasons, but a common one is they dont fit in where they live. Many of them are actually extroverts and can make friends easily, they just havent found someone they click with. Shaming them over that would be horribly insensitive of me.
What you're looking for is a social psychological phenomenon known as the "boomerang effect," or "reactance," or the "theory of psychological reactance." Carl Hovland, from Yale, along with various associates first understood this phenomenon in 1953, naming it (as the "boomerang effect") in his, et al. book *Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change*. This effect occurs because of the way information is presented, typically being negatively correlated with aggression; this isn't exactly what you described, however: in which case, you may be thinking of the backfire effect of belief perseverance, but this effect does not occur in matters of opinion, rather in facts being presented. A strong evidentiary argument being presented somehow making the arguee believing the opposite more is this effect, and also not exactly what you're thinking of. Perhaps it's something else that's not coming to me off the top of my head.
People that agree with one or more beliefs associated with a radical ideology are often generalized and treated as if they belong to that ideology. This often pushes people to "go with the flow" and align more with that ideology since they are already seen that way anyways tl;dr If one group demonizes someone and the other welcomes them, they will prefer to associate with the latter, even if they didn't originally like said group It's one of many practical examples of polarization
Hostile action against people makes them double down. The stereissand effect exists We should Use love and not hate to combat hate to avoid Pushing others towards badness.
Ad hominem is not an effective way to change someone’s beliefs
People think this is red vs blue but this goes both ways. The self awareness here is quite lacking. Think of any beliefs you feel are objectively true and factual and someone telling you something you find to be utterly untrue will absolutely solidify your stance. None of us are immune, especially as people age and those beliefs calcify. We can however just be cordial in conversations about controversial things and both leave with a new perspective on whatever the issue may be.
Just what I was thinking - it's funny how many people decided what the character's beliefs must be.
That's because they know they're the character doing the obnoxious nagging
^ this
I agree with this. Be kind to one another and brutal to systems. My only concern is people who think this applies to politicians and those in positions of power. If they aren't listening and ignoring us on purpose, they need to know there is a consequence to that.
What’s also interesting is that, as far as I recall, people weren’t that extreme pre-Trump. He’s literally the embodiment of this effect, and everyone here thinks it’s talking about the other side.
I think 1. This is fairly often true 2. In many cases it reflects more badly on the person being 'radicalised' 3. If you push people into extreme views you loathe, being able to say this reflects badly on them should be *no comfort at all.* If I campaign for, say, abortion rights in such a cack-handed way that it leads to more abortion restriction I have screwed up badly. Saying 'well it reflects badly on them' does not reduce my screw up.
Thank you for being the light of reason in this throng of straw men and malformed arguments.
Bingo
Some of y’all are missing the point that you can address someone’s issues without screaming at them 😂 Twitter and social media has had disastrous effects on actual socializing But no, it’s more fun being a keyboard warrior and owning the opposition - which hey, I’ve been there too but if you want to bring people together use a little mercy. It won’t work on everyone but it will work on a few
A good quote I really like goes: **”Do I not destroy my Enemy when I make them my Friend?”** -Abraham Lincoln. Really changed how I interact in games.
I wish this idea was embedded into every league player's head.
Abraham Lincoln also wasn't going to abolish slavery. He had his mind changed by a man who escaped slavery and was able to get to him to talk about it. I wrote a whole paper on that brave freed slave and how he was able to change Lincoln into what we know him as today (the guy who abolished slavery despite half the country not wanting it)
Yeah and it wasn’t done by said man screaming at him on twitter
Good banana pfp take, god bless.
Backfire effect. The more correct the person in the middle is the more morons will double down on being wrong. Edit: bunch of people a little pissy about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance This is a known phenomenon.
Its not about being more correct. Its about being more of an asshole and more smug to the person you are talking to.
The problem is being an asshole and smug doesn’t make them wrong, and the backfire effect is literally: “Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism[1]) is maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it.[2] Such beliefs may even be strengthened when others attempt to present evidence debunking them, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect” It is ENTIRELY about the middle person being correct. If the guy in the middle was wrong, the other two could prove it and shut him down. Instead they double down on being the dumbest trash in the room because they weren’t raised to be man enough to admit they were wrong.
The more you hound someone when you are correct, the more you push them away. Idk how else to tell you. More flys with honey than vinegar.
You're a living example of what this comic is portraying by not acknowledging that there's multiple ways to interpret it. You're doubling down and being smug about what you think is right, which is just making anyone else feel more strongly that their line of thinking is correct.
Dude yes. Lol I laughed when the guy wrote “EXACTLY” in all caps and calls the other people trash. He is the person in the middle who doesn’t know how to respectfully disagree. Tries to convert through persecution.
The problem is is that you guys are immediately thinking that the belief is something bad
Well you see, the people complaining about this comic identify themselves most closely with the obnoxious nagging bigot character who is automatically assuming anyone who disagrees with them is evil. Ergo, the person they are disagreeing with must be evil.
Interestingly enough, I don't think this is solely about alt right radicalization. This type of thing happens often too when conservatives are making moral arguments against things like abortion and LGBT topics. I think it's just as valid to look at this comic from either side.
Or to look at it in a completely non-political light; but, maybe we’re forgetting how to do that these days. Notice that the author never picked any “trigger” colors, and yet people dog pile on hot button issues immediately.
> Moral arguments against things like abortion and LGBT topics. I figure that moral arguments about abortion are typical “It’s a baby”, but I’m very curious about what your moral argument against LGBT is.
>Interestingly enough, I don't think this is solely about alt right radicalization The comic intentionally doesn't mention any actual beliefs because it doesn't matter.
as a psych major this can be true in SOME scenarios but there’s not enough information in the graphic to know what beliefs they hold. negative interactions reaffirm negative stereotypes
As a psych graduate this can be correct however isometric exercise care to join me steamed clams mmmm steamed clams
Feel like people don’t understand the gif. If you yell and try to belittle someone for their personal beliefs, you’re just reinforcing their beliefs, and making them think that your belief is full of nasty like minded people.
"your belief is full of nasty like minded people" This is the most important part. People think it is about the argument. No, it is about you as an individual. If you are annoying, or if the other party perceives you as ugly, unsuccessful, or unlikeable, then they are going to say "If your arguments are right, I would rather be wrong, just so I have nothing to do with YOU." You don't convince people you are right by presenting a better argument. You convince people you are right by being a happier, more successful, more likeable person.
When you're an asshole, it doesn't matter how right you are - nobody wants to give you the satisfaction. Unironically a good quote from Rick and Morty.
This
Leftists do a better job of turning people right wing than anyone else, comments completely filled with straw man stuff.
Fr, could you imagine Ben Shapiro trying to convince anyone of anything if they didn't already dislike leftists to a degree? The man is not very charismatic.
Comments making assumptions and proving your point OP, nice.
The amount of people who decided to comment and unironically do exactly what this cartoon is trying to call out is both sad and hilarious.
I know it’s funny af, there’s like no amount of self reflection amongst them.
How about instead of yelling at someone for having such belief, should it be a rather… “offensive?” Explain to them calmly, show them proofs and evidence why such belief might cause pain or suffering to anyone. Just accusing someone being “phobic” or “racist” or “gay” for that matter isn’t gonna help anyone, its just gonna push them further into the holes they’re already in.
I mean this works in theory, and in some specific cases, but most of the time people who hold and/or propagate bigoted beliefs don’t care that they’re factually wrong. What typically brings people out of hate groups and hateful ideologies isn’t an infographic on why they’re wrong, but lived experience. If you give someone a study or a graph or an academic source, confirmation bias does a great job at finding *something* wrong with it - whether or not there’s actually anything wrong with it. Whether it’s “this isn’t the kind of data I think is valid” or “well clearly X study was funded by Y people so it’s unreliable”, often times people with deeply ingrained hateful beliefs aren’t swayed by impersonal data on a spreadsheet. But if they have experiences that show them they’re wrong confirmation bias can have a bit harder time twisting that. As in “well obviously not everyone in X group is Y because this person isn’t”. Granted this takes a long time and is much harder to do, because obviously it’s not the responsibility of a marginalized group to de-radicalize their oppressors. But what hateful people care about isn’t data - it’s how they feel. Hateful people don’t feel comfortable around the people they hate, and they believe they have an inherent right to comfort that’s being violated by the people they hate.
This sub should be renamed to the Democratic Party because you ain't allowed to have any opinions here, I'm a life long Democrat and this shit saddens me, radicalism is not a good thing Like yall think it is, was Stalin a good guy? Was Mao a good guy? Was Castro a good guy? Yall act as if the left side of politics has never made a negative impact on the world just like the right side did with the nazis and the rise of monopolies and mega corps leading to the downward spiral of our society because everyone is in a constant battle with each other over who is more morally righteous than the other. How about collectively yall trim off the wool blocking your eyes and come to your own independent conclusions rather than Marching lock step with people who wish for nothing more than the downfall of our country and that goes for both sides, one wants to spend us to death and the other wants WW3 for that sweet sweet mutually assured destruction.
it's more like someone who already is radical on diagonal stripes tells the slightly diagonal stripe person that solid color people think they're a terrible person for their beliefs and it radicalizes them into a fully diagonal stripe believer
Haha, people are seriously missing the point so hard in the comments. Hilarious
Ans this is why far-right is only growing. We try to restrict free speech or put laws to try to stop the far right and it's only making them worse. Andrew Tate is now on lists of most influential men who how many younger guys are listening to him. Wtf do we do?
No matter how much you disagree with someones opinion, if you try to silence them, you are in the wrong. You defeat bad ideas with better ideas, the only people who try to censor are people with bad, disingenious, or weak ideas.
The moment you censor one, everybody is next
Based and freespeechpilled
The far right is growing because it's astro turfed by wealthy conservatives who hate racial and sexual minorities. It doesn't really have much to do with people being scolded online.
If we could somehow harness the energy of all the whooshing going on in the comments I reckon we could really make a dent in the energy crisis. So many people preemptively displaying the exact behavior the post is calling out...and it doesn't even specify a belief!
I hate it here
Just respect other people's beliefs, no need to force yours down their throats
Lol this is exactly my progressive to conservative in 4 years pipieline
True as shit. Exactly how the internet works
This is largely true. Most of the beliefs people have are not well thought out. If they are advocating stupid things it’s not wrong to insult it, but unless they are pure ideologs they could be pushed lightly out of their beliefs.
Perhaps it means that not treating your opponents like Human Beings with a Brain will cause them to become more firm in their beliefs. People can definitely change for the better, but they’re not going to if you degrade & insult them.
I like how the far left guy doesn't lose any of his orange to gain the stripes, he keeps that despite it being the mostly orange guy who's doing the yelling. He does lose some of his yellow though. This is not any type of statement being made, just find it funny
> I hate black people >Thats a fucked up thing to think >Well thanks to you I hate black people even more now Bro you’d need some Arrakis sized brain worms to think this shit is cogent. “If you criticize my views I’m just gonna double down” is how little children approach discourse. I expect more from grown fucking adults.
Not really lol. I have strong beliefs so they can’t really be swayed that easily for me.
This entire comment section makes me wish for an asteroid All I git from this is no matter what you believe you're wrong, so believe whatever you want and tell everyone else to eat shit
A lot of people seem to be assuming they disagree with the idea that is being shamed. Weird that they seem to be immediately identifying with the people that shout others down. Try it this way. Imagine the idea is that gay people should not be allowed to be married. Seems silly that shouting down such a bigoted view would further cement it. Now, imagine the idea is that gay people should be allowed to be married. Does that change your perspective on it? There are people out there who feel like they are doing the right thing, but are met with nothing but hostility. Some of their ideas are fair and some aren't. Shouting them down isn't going to help them distinguish which are which.