I agree that having opinions challenged is the best (possibly only) way to refine, research and rationalise them. Hey, who knows, maybe even change them!
But I know from experience though that online communities revolving around discussion of a "controversy", there is a tendency for the "sides" to retreat to entrenched positions, to go over the same ground again and again, even to descend (on less well-moderated fora) into name-calling and flamewar. It gets tedious after a while.
RicheyJames wrote:but why should he "take 'f**k off' for an answer"? the man's as entitled to his opinion as you are. you wanted to know about my personal beliefs?
Voltaire never wrote:i disapprove of what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it
that'll do for a start.
All fine and dandy; everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But what people are not entitled to is their own
facts.
Some people seem incapable of realising that their viewpoint has no factual basis; indeed seem quite insulted that facts are being used against them. If the facts don't fit your explanation, you should junk the explanation. Unfortunately, people tend instead to junk the facts.
To take this white supremacist as an example, I don't know what he's saying, but I'd be willing to bet that his
modus operandi goes something like this:
- Start a thread with a copy-and-paste of some text like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and claim it proves that The Jews want to take over the world.
- Be bombarded with several hundred posts explaining that The Protocols are well known to be a forgery, etc.
- Pick nits with a few minor points in these several hundred posts.
- Claim victory and disappear for a few days.
- Return to (1)
OK, this isn't necessarily how he works, but I've seen enough of it on other fora when someone who is
wrong tries to convince the rest of the world that he's right.
And white supremacism isn't just "another opinion" in a moral relativist continuum, it's
wrong. Wrong as in contrary to the facts.