conuly | Pointless internet conversation of the day

"The Black Panthers were scum, name one good thing they ever did!"
"Free breakfasts."
"Your source doesn't provide enough information! You're full of shit!"
"My source is National Geographic. They're a reputable source. You don't like it, go google it."
"Anyway, the FBI calls them an extremist organization!"
"The FBI called Martin Luther King an extremist. On this issue, they are not a reputable source."

I'm debating whether or not I care to go another round. On the one hand, it passes the time while the girls take their break. On the other... meh.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

monanotlisa

Your source is legion...their source is racist emotions. So, sigh. For what it's worth, I don't believe another round is warranted.

From:

conuly

I'unno, it might be interesting to see how long they can spin it out without reverting to form and using playground insults.

From:

elf

There are three potential reasons to have conversations like this:

1) You find them entertaining
2) You use them to develop rhetoric for discussions with people who are actually willing to listen, but didn't know where to find better info than schools and TV fed them
3) Annoy, distract, and confuse the racist; time they spend arguing with you is time not spent bothering someone who'd be hurt by it, and if you're troublesome enough, they'll be cautious about bringing up their points in the future, for fear of being "suppressed" when they do so.

Basically, as long as you're not looking at the conversation as an opportunity to educate the idiot, it's much easier to accept the results.

There's also the sub-reason of "begin conversation to find out if this person is actually interested in better info than they had, or if they just wanted to feel they 'won' an argument that confirmed their existing biases."

From:

conuly

There's also the sub-reason of "begin conversation to find out if this person is actually interested in better info than they had, or if they just wanted to feel they 'won' an argument that confirmed their existing biases."

Oh, it's definitely the latter.

From:

elf

Yeah, I figured. Anyone who starts with "Black Panthers were scum" rather than "I heard the Black Panthers did a lot of violent things" is not likely to be persuaded by "actually, the mainstream media went out of their way to lie about them."

From:

conuly

Well, I mean, I paraphrased to make it snappy. But that was the gist, yes.

Also: We have a book in the house, One Crazy Summer. Possibly the only middle grade historical fiction book featuring the Black Panthers. As our protagonist mentally snarks when their newly unestranged mom sends them to get free breakfast, she'd never seen the Black Panthers serving eggs on TV, but then, it probably wouldn't be very interesting.

Edited Date: 2017-05-15 04:09 pm (UTC)

From:

dragovianknight

I have nothing useful to add except "what Elf said." I'm just commenting because OMG I love One Crazy Summer.

From:

conuly

YES. Have you read the rest of the trilogy?

From:

dragovianknight

I haven't! I didn't realize it was a trilogy!

From:

conuly

From:

redbird

In some online contexts, I'm arguing with one clueless or malicious person, but I'm writing for whoever else is reading the email list, newsgroup, blog comments, etc. That's particularly likely if it's a context like a local email list (where any number of topics can come up in between the practical questions about eye doctors and car repair, and announcements of park cleanups, and such), a newsgroup with numerous topics, or an open thread on a blog, any of which is likely to have lots of people who don't already have opinions about the Black Panthers, or for that matter whether to allow pet dogs in hardware stores.

From:

conuly

...

What do you think on this issue of letting pet dogs in hardware stores?

From:

redbird

I think that it's generally not a good idea, because some people are either badly allergic or afraid of dogs. Also, random pets are generally not as well behaved as service dogs; too many people say things like "it's okay, he's friendly" meaning "I'm not going to stop my dog from jumping on you" rather than "my dog has never bitten anyone, and hasn't jumped on a stranger since he was a puppy."

Service animals should be admitted (including to food shops, where the Board of Health won't allow pets). But the difference between "I need this dog to guide me around the store" or "this animal will alert me before I have a seizure" and "I am trying to walk more, and I like bringing my dog with me" is large.

From:

conuly

Reasonable. Haven't really given it much thought before myself.

From:

smile_n_cuddle

I watched The 13th recently. No black leader has ever existed who wasn't watched/wanted by the FBI. So racist - and yes, good things came from the Black Panthers. It's sad that violence was needed to effectuate change :(

From:

zesty_pinto

So sad that "Dear White People" was right when they remarked how revolution was started through the most rebellious people to shift the center (well that anarchists were the ones that made equal rights a genuine issue but still).

From:

stardreamer

Any attempt to make serious social change requires both extremists and moderates. The extremists do two things: (1) call attention to the problem in a way that's very difficult to ignore or brush off; (2) open up space for the moderates to push for less-extreme solutions which will sound more "reasonable" by contrast with the extremists' demands.

To use a less-fraught example, PETA is a bunch of assholes. But a lot of people have stopped wearing fur, and some have stopped eating meat, and there are a lot more regulations now about the treatment of animals used for medical research, and there's a LOT of pushback against (frex) cosmetic companies using animals for testing. And the progress we've made would probably have been significantly slower without PETA out there screaming and making jerks of themselves. People say, "Well, they're loons, but y'know, they've sort of got a point about this particular thing."

From:

smile_n_cuddle

I never thought about it before, but you are so right! I guess extremists underscore the issues.

And I should probably think a crazy PETA person for the fact that I am an extremely ethical eater!

From:

zesty_pinto

Yes, thank you! It's been a point of contention with current politics in general these days as it seems the two party system is rife with both (although I can't complain too much re: the left).

From:

plicease

ah the internet :/

From:

conuly

What gets me is that these are real people on the other end of the tubes.

From:

plicease

What gets me is that there are real people in "real life" as well. Just they seem less inclined to say such things to someone's face.

From:

siderea

I'm not sure they are less so inclined; I think perceived discrepancy may be more a function of real-life geographically-based social bubbles.

From:

plicease

Perhaps, though the difference in the way that people I know IRL and how some of them interact with others in the Internet tends to suggest otherwise.

I think of the Internet in the same way people will drive like assholes in ways they would not treat their fellow pedestrians when walking on the street.

From:

marahmarie

Which reminds me (sorry, I'm late to my reading list after spending some time offline), maybe they're not, unless you count fighting with Russians posing as dumb-as-bricks right-wingers as dealing with "real people", which is just Reason 364 why I haven't gotten into an online, political fight with anyone since something like 2008, back in a TechCrunch thread, in which no one even responded to whatever I said, at least not that I know of.

It was in that thread that I gave up and decided "never again". I've maybe made a few false starts since then, regretted it, deleted my comments before they were even replied to (thank you, Disqus!) but 2008 was basically it, for me. And never regretted it. Just stick to my own.

The only thing I sometimes regret is being on such a left-wing site as my main blogging home. I'm someone who works better (emotionally, at least) delivering critique/education/opinion from top level posts - I can control the conversation better than in a free-for-all rowdy and disjointed comment section belonging to someone else. But over here, there's no one who actually needs to hear what I'm saying.

Edited (typos) Date: 2017-05-18 05:58 am (UTC)

From:

conuly

Russian paid trolls are always a possibility. But really, not every doofus online can be a shill.

From:

zesty_pinto

Apparently, someone missed the revelation on how they were basically planted with firearms to act as a proxy threat by the FBI.

I'm with others here, proceed if you want lulz, otherwise I wouldn't feel it worth it.

Edited Date: 2017-05-15 05:21 pm (UTC)

From:

conuly

Missed it, and wouldn't believe it if they were told either.

From:

sabotabby

*screaming internally*

From:

conuly

Yes, that.

From:

silveradept

It's going to be a sink, so only invest in it what you can afford to lose.

From:

elenbarathi.livejournal.com

Nah. Anyone who doesn't accept the National Geographic as a reputable source is beyond the reach of rational debate.

From:

conuly

Yup.

From:

mme-n-b.livejournal.com

National Geographic once told me that evidence provided by Spain on war crimes by USSR in Germany is neutral evidence. (Note - I'm not questioning the war crimes, I'm questioning whether Spanish observers invited by Germany and sent by Franco can properly be called a neutral source.)
They also referred to the sinking of the Steuben (and the thousands of Nazi officers it carried) as "the greatest tragedy" and claimed mass crucifixions of German civilians by Soviet troops (Note - I don't question murders or rapes, but crucifixions are a very Christian thing to do, and as such would have been frowned upon by the politruks.)

Because of this I would not automatically accept National Geographic as a _reliable_ source, although it is, of course, a _reputable_ one.

Edited Date: 2017-05-16 12:42 am (UTC)

From:

conuly

At any rate, in this particular case they are correct, and multiple sources can be found to back up the connection between the Black Panthers and free school breakfasts.