The United States is ramping up (not “starting,” “becoming,” “implementing,” etc.) an Oligarchical/Totalitarian agenda. It’s crystal clear: a masked, armed, police-lite, federally-backed force is assaulting, kidnapping, and killing unmasked, unarmed civilians. That’s bad.
The powers-that-be, along with their water carriers, would like to deny the obviousness of that observation. They’ll lob emotion-laden (false) dichotomies, display signs of Stockholm syndrome, and perform enormous feats of mental gymnastics to justify authoritarian figures in order to achieve that aim.
It’s tempting to duck and dodge (or fight) those efforts. But that’s a time suck. Stop that.
Debate smarter with these tips.
So You Want To Talk About Polar Conditions On The Internet
First, for those who aren’t chronically online: I’m using the phrase “Polar Conditions” to talk about ICE (the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and their rampage of terror. But I’m not putting “ICE” in the title of this article, to not dampen its reach.
Debating fraught topics on the internet is not for the weak (cuz of the insults) or the mentally inefficient (cuz of bad faith arguments).
But that’s ok, we only have two jobs: staying on message and dismissing logical fallacies.
Stay On Message No Matter What
No matter what, you hear me?? No. Matter. What.
Despite Personal Insults
In these kinds of debates, things can get insulting. Let it happen. (No, I do not care what they say or do. If you’re threatened, etc, document it and press charges. Otherwise, carry on.)
In fact, agree with them. Laugh at and joke about yourself. Here, I’ll do me. That can look like:
- “I’m such a try-hard with my bangs! Tryna look like Taylor Swift lol is it working??”
- “Between being a housewife, I don’t have much going on.”
- “Give me sugar cubes before I kick this stall in.”
You’re unbothered, wry, and on message. Got it?
Reminder: the message is that a masked, armed, police-lite, federally-backed force exists that is assaulting, kidnapping, and killing unmasked, unarmed civilians. (And that is bad.)
Despite Identity Politics
Another diversion used by authoritarians and their minions is identity politics, which exist to distract individuals and dismantle our message.
Identity politics can be loyalty (of any kind) to rulers/businesses/ideologies/funding sources, championing (or decrying) ideologies to anger (or build rapport with) perceived social enemies (or social peers), or fear of refuting Group Think (all groups).
We’re all victims of and slaves to them. That’s the price of being human.
How do we combat the siren call of identity politics? By separating our identities and worth from our perceived ingroups and affiliations.
Despite Insults To Perceived In-Groups/Affiliations
Listen: insulting your perceived in-groups or affiliations is not the same as insulting you.
Really take that in. Chew it. Now swallow, hard as you can.
Good. Is it deep in your gullet? It needs to permeate your very bones. If it doesn’t, it’s gonna be really hard to talk about Polar Conditions on the internet.
Amidst any provocative topic debate on social media, an internet user is going to comb your profile page, pick up clues about your perceived in-groups/affiliations, and insult them. Just, absolutely going to happen. So be ready. (And don’t pretend readiness, truly be ready. This will require hard, internal work.)
You will do one of two things in that situation: ignore or agree with them. If you choose to ignore it, then do so completely. Respond neutrally, and stay on message.
But…may I suggest that you lean into those insults?
Most importantly, because it’s good for you (nothing is safe from criticism, especially perceived in-groups/affiliations, that’s how you get manipulated). Secondly? It disconcerts the insulter.
I’ll use myself as an example again. Leaning into insults against perceived in-groups/affiliation looks like:
- “Yeah, Millennials are the worst! All those participation trophies, amirite?? I sleep with mine.”
- “I know, I know, Swifties are lame. I’m such a little class warrior, until I’m cheering Pop Star Mommy’s wealth accumulation.”
- “Haha, yeah, I’ll do anything for online attention and camaraderie, call me Algorithm Whore.”
Combating Bad Faith Arguments
I’m tempted to go into heuristics in general (the foundation of bad faith arguments), but there’s no time. So here are some common logical fallacies specific to Polar Conditions and (the gist of) how to respond.
“Just Comply!”
This response is a sure fire way to earn my contempt. The idea of “comply and you won’t get hurt” is for tyrannical states and situations. People who agree with the idea of “comply, and you won’t get hurt” are Bootlickers. Period.
One cannot present themselves as tough, a renegade/rugged individualist, or a fan of small government and also cling to the idea that compliance equals safety. And people who do so must be disabused of those notions.
You can do this gently or mockingly.
“But So And So Did This!”
This is “Just Comply!” wearing victim-blaming clothes. Don’t engage.
Make it clear that you do not care what a person did or did not do to “deserve” their fate. Stick. To. The. Message. This isn’t about individuals or situations. This is about a system that allows masked, police-lite forces to rove city streets.
“What About???”
Typically, “what about this situation or another leader/ideological platform doing this?”
If anything, agree. They’re probably right! Remember, history is complicated, we contain multitudes, and more than one thing can be true at one time.
This can look like:
- “Yeah, that was terrible.”
- “I know, man, chump behavior, smh.”
- “I didn’t agree with that, either.”
- “Right. More than one thing can be true at one time.”
Find points of congruence, rather than engage in a debate. It’s easy to get sucked into whataboutisms (due to that difficulty in hearing criticism of our perceived in-groups/affiliations thing). Resist!
“But Why Didn’t You Care/Post About This, Then?
It isn’t anyone’s job to police or monitor what people post, how they articulate and publicize (or not) their personal and political beliefs, or what they agree/disagree with, when.
Don’t be boxed in or box others in. We can all change positions, loosely hold ideologies, and take what is needed and leave what is not from any stance, at any time. As we should.
Explaining this looks like:
- “It took me a while to realize blah blah blah. I was wrong/uninformed/stubborn then.”
- “I post whatever I want, however I want, whenever I want, especially on my own page.”
- “My opinions change often, especially as I age and accumulate more information/experiences.”
- “Eh, I’m not committed to ideas or groups.”
Miscellaneous
Let’s wrap things up with some general tips/observations:
- Don’t forget spectators: you’re not just responding to some troll, you’re modelling to others how to handle themselves in similar online situations.
- Gloves are off if they come to you, meaning: any comment or post on your social media page (as opposed to a public group page, article comment section, etc) is yours, to do with what you will.
- Especially hateful or stupid comments should be screenshot (to save, send out, or make a separate post about), not engaged with.
- But not engaging is not the same as not responding, always help the algo with neutral responses (like “sure” or “ok”).
- Some people get really mad when emotional outbursts are met with neutrality; keep going.
- These same people have a visceral reaction to being called a “bootlicker,” “cuck,” “simp,” or the like; lean into that.
- If there are trolls that won’t debate with you, but bother others, slide into the harassee’s inbox with helpful information and tips.
- Seek out spurts of uncomfortableness (mental, physical, and emotional) to thicken skin.
- Knowledge is power. Read more than you type.
Conclusion
Remember, even if (more like, when) you don’t “get through” to anyone, you’re sharpening your rhetoric. The more you engage, the quicker and sharper you’ll be. And that’s not nothing.
Want More?
Check out some more rant-y articles here:
Happy debating!
Love,
