116
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 14 Jul 2026
116 points (92.6% liked)
politics
30415 readers
2471 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I can see the value of debating fascist, as long as you're not trying to debate in good faith. If a fascist invites you to sit down for a televised debate, it's an opportunity to practice hostile, belittling techniques. Don't try to use logic, feel free to cut loose and shower them with emotional degradation and every fallacy you can think of. Steamroll them, laugh in their face, liberally use terms like "boot-licking cuck boy". It's pretty fun honestly, especially if you're the type of person who always avoids disingenuous debate tactics.
Fascism relies on posturing, looking like the strong man against the weak enemy. Making a fascist look meek and pathetic is the most effective tool if you're trying to crush their influence. No one wants to follow a fascist that looks like a floundering loser.
This can easily backfire, though. The fascist will rarely start the debate by glorifying the Third Reich. Instead, he will start off by lamenting the state of the working class, or complain about foreign policy, and only progressively reveal his true agenda. Showing contempt for him at this stage could be interpreted as contempt for these issues.
What the fascist attempts to do in these debates is to acquire legitimacy, since their political position sits outside the overton window. Using logical fallacies against him is to basically hand him that legitimacy for free by making him appear "reasonable". The easiest solution to all this is not to debate them at all.
Eh, that seems equivalent to saying gardening can backfire because you could stab yourself in the foot with a pitchfork or something. You can show contempt for their solutions while acknowledging the problems. Obviously, if you suck at rhetoric you shouldn't get into debates in the first place.
The sort of people who are swayed by fascist rhetoric aren't the sort that have a keen eye for reasonableness and logical fallacy. It's an emotional stance based on posturing. Weakness is a far greater sin to the fascist than irrationality.
That's not a solution at all. If no one pushes back on their messaging, they get implicit control of the narrative. That's a lot harder to do when their audience tunes in to watch their idol own the libs, but then see him get dog walked.