Nah, that is a hill we have to die on. Iberals care about that kind of thing. We have to say "stalin did nothing wrong", so they instinctively compromise with us and end up at "comunism can do good stuff"
I feel like there's probably a way to start from those infamous pics of farmers dumping tanks of milk down the drain, and get to "destroying the country's most important crop during a shortage to own the libs"
No, really, many years ago I understood change in society can only be achieved thanks to radicals pushing furiously in one direction. Milquetoast acchieve nothing.
I agree that while framing your message in a certain way for your audience can be helpful, compromising it and conceding incorrect points can only be harmful. You don't need to fly into your local community center like a wrecking ball with "Stalin did nothing wrong", but you shouldn't agree with the western view of Stalin just to keep the peace in debates.
There's ways to argue over these things that frame it so people are more receptive, and that's what should be done, without compromising your principles.
It depends. Some people simply do not consider things like we do. The approach you describe is correct for some situations. There are others where it is not. Where people are emotially motivated a forceful argument is better than a well reasoned one. Since most people didn't reason themselves into their current ideology it would be silly to try to reason them out of it.
Nah, that is a hill we have to die on. Iberals care about that kind of thing. We have to say "stalin did nothing wrong", so they instinctively compromise with us and end up at "comunism can do good stuff"
the_marketplace_of_ideas.png
I like to go further and I say I wish Stalin had killed more kulaks
This is actually the power move because it:
Remind them: Those "peasants" that "Stalin killed" were setting their own crops on fire to deny their countrymen food.
I feel like there's probably a way to start from those infamous pics of farmers dumping tanks of milk down the drain, and get to "destroying the country's most important crop during a shortage to own the libs"
That kinda thing is proven to work for the GOP bullying liberals.
In retrospect stalin did at least one thing wrong
yeah this is a great example for the thread
Playing the centrist game correctly
:liberalism: :stalin-gun-1::centrist:
No, really, many years ago I understood change in society can only be achieved thanks to radicals pushing furiously in one direction. Milquetoast acchieve nothing.
I agree that while framing your message in a certain way for your audience can be helpful, compromising it and conceding incorrect points can only be harmful. You don't need to fly into your local community center like a wrecking ball with "Stalin did nothing wrong", but you shouldn't agree with the western view of Stalin just to keep the peace in debates.
There's ways to argue over these things that frame it so people are more receptive, and that's what should be done, without compromising your principles.
It depends. Some people simply do not consider things like we do. The approach you describe is correct for some situations. There are others where it is not. Where people are emotially motivated a forceful argument is better than a well reasoned one. Since most people didn't reason themselves into their current ideology it would be silly to try to reason them out of it.