Thread by @abbysyarns

Someone says: "So, our government's doing a bad thing, and it needs to stop."

A Trumpist says: "Something vaguely similar has happened before, so your argument is invalid."

Folks, we already know this is a bullshit argument, but let's take a minute and unpack it.

First, for the purposes of this exercise, let's leave aside the issue of whether or not something similar HAS actually happened before. Let's just say it has, and that it's not a false equivalence, misunderstanding, divorced from context, or an outright lie.

How does "this has happened before" translate to "so, what's going on now isn't a big deal?"

I mean, murder has happened before. But when someone is charged with murder, the principled legal response isn't "Well, murders have happened before, so this one's no big deal."

What you, the person who said "this is bad" in the first place, are supposed to do is: be distracted from what you JUST said, and go research the accuracy of the claim that "this has happened before."

When the trumpist says "Obama did it," you're supposed to get defensive.

At this point, the conversation is no longer about what's happening now. You've been derailed by a sea lion. (knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lion… in case this is the first time you've heard that).

So instead, respond: "Obama did what, exactly?" Make THEM do the work.

I mean, they won't do the work -- because that's not in the propaganda scripts -- but especially in a public discourse, that pushback method plays well to audiences who like reason and thinking.

Remember, you're not convincing the trumpist. You're playing to the lurker.

When I push back by asking the trumpist to be specific in defining what they're talking about, common responses are: another deflection, a thinly-veiled (or sometimes totally unveiled) insult, or a passive-aggressive tone shift in which the trumpist claims to be the victim.

Examples:

"But what about overzealous social workers?"

"Typical libt*rd. Your [sic] so stupid."

"This is why I don't talk to libt*rds! Stop attacking me, you bully!"

There was never an intent on their part to have a good faith discussion.

But, anyway, why are you supposed to be shut down by someone claiming "Obama did it too" or "Clinton made this law?"

Because the trumpist derailer knows the thing you took issue with actually IS bad, indefensible, etc.

So that's the chink in their armor. They KNOW.

This is also supposed to imply that you didn't care when whatever similar thing may have happened previously -- that's supposed to be the obvious conclusion. And since you didn't care before, it's invalid if you care now.

(it doesn't matter if it's false and you did care)

That part is ALSO supposed to imply that there's no point in changing your mind and starting to care. That's supposed to play to the same lurkers who are your actual audience. If they were wavering in their support of the thing, this is supposed to make them go "why bother?"

Yes, in fairness, you WILL look bad to trumpists. So, you have to not care if they think you look bad. This is a good idea across the board, because nothing you do or say is actually going to sway them, and what they think looks bad is "not being a nazi."

Wrapping up though, I suggest: stick to your original point, namely that this is bad. If it happened before, it was bad then, just as it is bad now.

Push back on your derailer with questions. Like:

"So, let's clarify: are you in support of this bad thing, right now?"

Sometimes they'll say yes, but most of the time they're going to keep trying to deflect, play the victim, or insult you. And it'll make you mad. Which is the point. You're supposed to lose your cool so they can say "typical of the intolerant left" or whatever.

On that note: it's actually okay to lose your cool at, and be emotionally invested in standing up to, trumpists. They're screwing with you. You're not a bully for standing up to them. You're not intolerant for drawing a line in the sand about this.

And, the lurking audience isn't necessarily looking for clinically-delivered facts; if they were, we wouldn't be here. They're looking for the statement, & the person, that makes them feel connected, understood, etc. They're often looking for solidarity or backup or validation.

When you let them make you feel bad for caring, in a discussion which they derailed by implying you didn't care before so obviously can't care now, it's a form of gaslighting, and it's letting them dictate the terms of verbal engagement. Don't fall for it.

Keep steadily asking them to define what they're saying happened before, to cite sources, and most importantly, don't let up on asking whether or not they think this is okay here, now, and moving forward.

That's the real question. Not if it happened before or if you cared then.