90
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
90 points (89.5% liked)
No Stupid Questions
41542 readers
1431 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sounds like someone just looking to pick a fight. Disengage.
That said, I reckon as long as they're not hurting anyone, people can be whatever they like. Mind your own business. It's a slippery slope to start considering whether a fellow human is 'valid' or not.
Their argument indirectly hurts transgender people. It's akin to when BLM (the movement, not the corrupt organization) was big and to counter it, conservatives parroted All Lives Matter. I'd say using the term transracial is arguably worse, because it's all bullshit, while technically All Lives Matter is true, but it's bad faith argument. I personally feel it's the duty of rational people to fight against that sort of speak.
And you don't engage with bad faith arguments. Just tell them to fuck off and grow a brain.
I'll say fuck off without saying fuck off as to not get my shit removed, but bad faith arguments still need to be refuted so that ignorant people don't only see something like that and believe it's true. The amount of effort put into that only needs to be enough so that there exists a counter point.
I would say never disengage. We've all lost so much disengaging especially if the argument is difficult. It leaves the argument unchallenged and if you can't answer it and you feel strongly about trans issues what did you think someone casually viewing it would think.
We need better arguments and we need honesty. If it's a good argument, it's a good argument denying it out of feels only weakens the entire thing.
Lemmy is filled with people who gave the right a red carpet treatment. Probably the last place we should ask questions about engagement to.
It's like asking r/relationship about relationship advice. It's a terrible idea
You can't rationally debate someone out of a position they didn't reach through rational consideration.
So you allow them to influence other people with their ideas?
It's stuff like this why people in real life all share the same opinion on trans issues and other right wing issues. It's this stuff that has allowed their arguments to spread. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what you were supposed to be doing. You gave them a red carpet and helped contribute to the spread of their propaganda by disengaging. Changing their opinion was not ever said as a goal. You need to challenge their opinion to show it is badly formed. If it isn't then you need to evaluate yours.
No, absolutely not. I run instances to give gender diverse folk safe spaces. I ban transphobes the instant they appear, I don't debate them. Offline, I'm visible, active and proud. I am an volunteer at my local parkrun, I've spoken openly with people at my workplace, I've hosted a queer community radio show, I host a vodcast, and I used to be active in organising events for my local gender diverse community. Because what gets people to change their minds, is an emotional connection with the group they're targeting. When they start to see us as people, just the same as them, then they start to make choices that aren't harmful to us, and they start to wind back their own arguments.
Pushing back is incredibly important, but debating them isn't effective. Like most people, when confronted with debate points in regards to a topic they hold on to for emotional reasons, they will shift goal posts, and only see the things that validate what they already believe, whilst ignoring the things that challenge it. When they get to the point where they're ready to challenge their ideas (because their emotional position has shifted) then, lots of the talking points you would normally debate become relevant, but by that stage, it's a discussion, not a debate.
Thanks for all you do Ada, you continue to be an inspiration.
Disengaging does not help spread propaganda. Engaging and giving horrible ideas a platform does help spread propaganda.
Your "debate bro" advice is about ten years out of date.
You're wrong. Completely wrong on so many levels. This is all about engagement. That whole "too enlightened to engage" attitude is exactly how the right managed to take over so much of the online space. Right-wing think tanks and PR firms invested in engagement, nonstop posts, repetition, platform saturation. And it worked.
People see the same ideas echoed over and over again, and eventually it shapes how they think. That’s why regular, everyday people, people who aren’t even political start parroting right-wing talking points. Even my kids and their friends are saying this stuff.
It's not because they believe it. It's because that’s what they see. All the time.
The reason it's gotten this bad? A whole chunk of people on the left thought disengaging was smart. That if they just ignored it, it would go away. It didn’t. It spread. And now we’re here.
You are 100% correct on this part.
The problem is, arguing with them magnifies that effect, it doesn't challenge it.
That's not to say you shouldn't push back. I don't mean smile and agree, or just ignore them. Deplatforming works, protests work, proud visibility works, civil disobedience works. Responding negatively works. Making it so that there is a social cost to being a transphobe works.
But debating them isn't any of those things. Debating them is engaging with them, and in the act of arguing with you, they actually solidify the beliefs they already hold, and this is especially true of heavily polarised issues. Here's some research on it https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01623-8 (PDF link), and an article that goes in to the topic a bit https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/why-is-it-that-even-proven-facts-cant-change-some-peoples-minds
As much as it feels right to argue with them, all you are doing is strengthening their already held beliefs when you do. It might feel like its helping, but it isn't. You'll read my response, and you'll likely go "screw that, you're wrong, I'm going to keep arguing". And that's the exact effect I'm talking about at play. Every time you argue with someone, they have that same internal reaction to your comments, no matter what you say, or how strongly you believe it.
I'm prepared to trust other people's intelligence to see through it, and if they can't, fuck them as well.
Part of being intelligent is being social. Being social means we mirror and sometimes go with the crowd. That's just how it is. Which means if you think people are intelligent, it means it also should understand they will be susceptible to certain things like this. I think it's a sign of intelligence to be susceptible to certain things like this because these tactics are built on the idea that groups of people share similar social habits. Shared social habits is a sign of intelligence. It's anti social people who failed to socialize that are harder to manipulate.
Absolutely. If people like the idiot this post is referring to are allowed to spew bullshit without push back, then other idiots will believe it and spread it. These people need to be shamed and publicly corrected for their bullshit stance that can hurt others. I say hurt others, because an idea like this can be used to delegitimize transgender people.
I remember a study once showing that you can skew the views of any group if only 10% of that group change their opinion.
I think this is really important here because if you're on an social media and you see nothing but right wing views, I think it does influence lots of people. This is why I get so mad seeing attitudes suggesting we should all just ignore it all like it's a waste of time.
My second paragraph covered that, I thought.