Analecto

4 de março de 2018

Defending controversial causes online.

I see some people defending controversial causes in the Internet and doing so in a absolutely fruitless way. I don’t know if they are kidding or not. I never defended anything with my nails and teeth, like they claim to be doing, but, if I were to, I would try something like this strategy I’m about to tell you about.

In the book Paedophilia: The Radical Case, O’Carroll tells us how radical homosexuals fought discrimination back in the seventies and eighties. It was something like this: when one of them suffered discrimination, he would speak to others, who would also speak to more people and, when they had enough people interested in counter-attacking, they would crossdress, go to that place where the discrimination happened and camp at the place. So, if you saw fifty drags camping around someone’s house or around a pub, someone in that area was certainly a homophobe. As the protest was peaceful, the police couldn’t do much. On the other hand, if someone tried to attack them aggressively, the drags would call the police on that guy. It was a very effective attempt to force people to accept that homosexuality happens and that the number of homosexuals is huge, that they are sticking together.

That radical drag strategy can be summarized in four points. Some of them are being neglected by my friends with heretical ideas. They are responsive action, coordinated action, secret planning, peaceful action. Online, a protest of that sort would be done to a much less effective extent, but could be done much more frequently.

Responsive action (“do not attack, unless attacked first”).

A responsive action happens after a first action and in response to it. When your point of view is attacked by someone, you should counter-attack, both as means of self-defense and as a way to destroy the opposition. My friends have both scientific evidence and philosophical technique, but that are used offensively. They start the fight. When you start the fight, you may very well end up ignored. But, when you reply to someone’s position, that person can not ignore you without looking like they have no counter-argument. Plus, if the action is coordinated, the opponent may even feel ashamed of the position they hold and silence about it in the future, thus reducing opposition.

Plus, when replying to someone’s message, you are posting something. If it happens in public, then extra kudos for you. Others will see the post exchange and judge which side is the correct one. If you are ignored, that effect doesn’t happen, because people tend to believe more in a person who, in a debate, destroys the opposing point of view. Without an opposing point of view to destroy, your position won’t be magnified.

Coordinated action (“don’t do this alone”).

When several people attack at same time, the blows happen quicker, each person is encouraged to attack with all that they have (due to feeling protected) and it’s hard to point out who is the “head”, the “responsible” for the attack. If several people attack a certain point of view and the proponents of that view don’t have enough arguments to defend themselves, those who are watching the debate and secretely hold a heretical opinion may feel tempted to participate, despite not being “formally” in the ops.

If you are attacking alone, specially if you are the one starting the debate, you are behaving in a suicidal manner: the establishment will consume you. On the other hand, if you are in group and is attacked, depending on what is done, you can appeal to the authorities of the platform where the offense happened. So, both for defense purposes and reporting purposes, it’s important to know the rules that are valid in the site you are using.

Secret planning (“don’t talk about /b/”).

It’s important to plan the action in secret, so that the proponents of the establishment are caught unprepared. If we are talking about Internet, that can be done with a forum approach. Create a board or forum in which the participants can post links, for example, to news that defend the establishment. There, other readers can examine the news, identify weak points, select material to be used against (scientific evidence, rethorics, jokes, news from other sites and so on) and comment, en masse. If four people go, that’s already pretty good, considering the amount of views that garbage news get every day and the amount of evidence available on our side. The same can be done with social media posts, such as Facebook and Twitter. A forum user reports the behavior, others will see the post and evaluate what can be done, then they go and attack. That way, it’s also possible to inflate the number of positive reactions to a post (such as “likes”), which sometimes make people shy to disagree.

Besides the forum approach, Discord servers and Skype groups can also be used, depending on the cause that is defended, as well as the number of partipants. Sometimes even the comment box in a blog works, for the purposes of reporting and organizing.

Peaceful action (“convert, don’t alienate”).

Whenever you write something online, in public, you must also think of those who are reading, not only the person who is the direct receiver of the message. Make your opponent say something stupid and put his position in danger. If he gets mad at you, don’t actively try to make him more enraged, keep going with the plan, don’t let yourself be dragged by emotion, be at your best behavior. If the opponent makes a mistake, acts with emotion or attacks you (rather than you argument), let him do so, without descending to his level. Those who are reading, upon seeing that your behavior is decent, while the opponent is behaving erratically, would be less inclined to associate with a position defended by a lunatic, specially if you speak in clear, easy-to-understand terms. Ask questions, make your opponent feel like he has to prove that he isn’t an idiot, confront him with the contradictions of his position, but always reponsively and never alone.

If you are arguing online, it’s important to shield yourself from personal attacks, so you must stay within the boundaries of the law and must refrain from breaking community guidelines that are valid in that site. That way, if your opponent does something against you, then you have the right and authority to report them. If you get banned for no reason, maybe you will take your opponent with you.

Jumping to reality.

Another advantage of the forum approach is that you are able to track the number of active people in those communities. When the number of individuals is big enough in comparison to a place’s demographics, maybe it’s time to do something in real life, rather than sticking solely with online debates. Maybe that would be a good time to act, in group, and print leaflets or do whatever real life protest you think is suitable, keeping in mind the number of supporters and the conditions surrounding the act. Depending on the cause, online meetings may be the only way for those people to gather around the idea and plan real life protests, that would be similar in structure, even if not in content, to the radical drag thing. We need more people in order to do something like that and a lot of communities are being formed thanks to the Internet. Use it intelligently.

Anúncios

Deixe um comentário »

Nenhum comentário ainda.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Deixe um comentário

Preencha os seus dados abaixo ou clique em um ícone para log in:

Logotipo do WordPress.com

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta WordPress.com. Sair /  Alterar )

Foto do Google+

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Google+. Sair /  Alterar )

Imagem do Twitter

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Twitter. Sair /  Alterar )

Foto do Facebook

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Facebook. Sair /  Alterar )

w

Conectando a %s

Crie um website ou blog gratuito no WordPress.com.

%d blogueiros gostam disto: