@bender@twtxt.net @tkanos@twtxt.net I’m blanking on where I first read it–might be Jared Yates Sexton, or maybe Sarah Kendzior–but I’m of a mind that sentiments like “debate is the best way to resolve disputes” are kind of nostalgic and naive because they ignore the conditions we’re currently living in. Sure, if we lived in a healthy society with a healthy information space, widespread respect for differing points of view, a relative lack of suffering, etc etc etc, then yes, maybe that would be true. There were points in our history (I’m speaking of the US because that’s where I’m from) when we approximated those ideals, at least for some people, and many of us aspired to perfect them. But today, in 2022, we do not live in those conditions. There are many people who actively want to destroy any progress towards these ideals we’ve managed to make, and who actively, publicly advocate for going backwards from there. Debate is no longer the best way to resolve disputes, in these conditions, not with people who are trying to force the world backwards.
It is foolish to think otherwise. It is just as foolish as believing water puts out all fires and throwing water onto an oil fire. You have to recognize the reality you’re living in, then choose the right tool for the job. If you’re living in a time where political violence is normalized/is being normalized and demonization is rampant, and you’re facing a bad faith argument from a bad actor who is preaching something like antisemitism, you don’t reach for “debate” as your tool of choice. You reach for “deplatforming” (for example), because that demonstrably works. You take them, and their damaging ideas, off the public square completely and keep them out of it.