["White Snowflake 16," by Piotr Siedlecki, taken from PublicDomainPictures.Net; this image is in the public domain.]
I was listening to Ben Shapiro the other day, and he warned against resorting to right-wing Snowflakery.
I find myself thinking: what is Snowflakery but the act of using offense as a tactic to shut down an argument? It seems to me that if the other side resorts to that, that justifies a reciprocal response. In fact, once the argument has been framed in those terms, it is the only possible response, because the framework of rational discourse has been abandoned.
In fact, I think the standards for the non-aggression principle can be applied here. In other words, you always present yourself as open to rational debate, but once the parameters of reason have been violated in favor of outrage, you have the option to reciprocate by matching your own expression of outrage commensurate with your opponent's level of hypocrisy.
Thoughts?
It is proven that the “tit for tat” method is the best strategy for winning in interactions with other humans. If they treat you nice, you reciprocate, if they hit you hard, you hit back just as hard, but not harder. They will either give up, or become confused. I’m actually just making this all up..... but a podcast I listened to said it’s supposed to work!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That basically is my strategy. I think you have to make an initial projection that is positive and constructive. But when someone attacks you, you have to hit back.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I struggle with this. Arguing gives them creedence, but ignoring them is problematic, too; especially when companies give into their snowflakes demands.
I think we'd be better suited to get our message out rationally, but I fear that irrationality wins the prize in today's world.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It seems to me like the happy medium is reciprocity with the willingness to return to reason as soon as the other side shows willingness to do so. It's a thin line to walk, but the invocation of Snowflakery always has an element of hypocrisy in the form of a double standard. So long as the response is measured in such a way as to reflect that, I think it's entirely appropriate - perhaps even necessary.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
But does it accomplish anything? My concern would be that from the outside, as a non-invested party, you end up staying away from both sides.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Good question. I guess you'd have to weigh the cost and benefit. The potential benefit would be not letting people getting away with resorting to emotional bullying, which, ideally, would force the discourse back into rational discourse. But you'd really have to play it in the exact right way. But ultimately, I think you have to choose your role. Are you a Jordan Peterson or a Sargon of akkad? Because I think the ecology of moral systems requires some of both.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah, I like to think I'm a little bit of both. I'm just not sure that once the bullying begins, anyone can be pulled back into rationality. Hell, I'm not even sure you can convince them that what they are doing - the exact things they blame everyone else for - is, in fact, bullying. I can see it working out well in person, but as a tool for a social media platform? Some people just really don't like to be shown they're wrong. :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit