How are you supposed to have a "nuanced discussion" about a guy doing literal Hitler salutes in public?

When you're either unwilling or incapable of understanding other people's perspectives it is indeed very difficult.

Try this: steelman the argument that what Musk did all those months ago wasn't a "literal Hitler salute". If you can do that, I suspect you'll find it a lot easier to have nuanced discussions about that topic (and possibly others) going forward.

▲

platevoltage 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Or we could look at everything else he does, like advocate for the AFD in Germany.

	▲	oulipo2 a day ago \| parent [-]
		And Reform UK in Great-Britain...

▲

oulipo2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Looool is that all your argument? "Everyone hates this one simple trick against nazi: try to forget that they do nazi things, and boom!, you're no longer scared of actual nazis"

▲

sjsdaiuasgdia 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Fuck the salute. I can look at everything else he's done and still think he's a terrible individual that should not be given money or power.

▲

Ajedi32 2 days ago | parent [-]

Speaking of nuance, I find it rather unintuitive how it often seems like it's harder for people to have a nuanced opinion of other people than to have a nuanced opinion about a policy or software feature or specific situation.

You'd think given how complicated and faceted people are it would be especially easy to find both good and bad things to say about them, but online at least it almost seems to be the opposite: there's even less nuance when discussing people than there is discussing other topics. (Case in point.)

▲

sjsdaiuasgdia 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not required to find the good in a person like Musk. I'm allowed to look at the many shitty things he's done and terrible opinions he expresses and say "that is a shit man, and I do not like him or trust him."

He has probably done something for someone somewhere that wasn't terrible. Does it counterbalance the rest? Not really!

There's that (possibly apocryphal) saying, "and Magda Goebbels made a great strudel." Just because a nazi has a redeeming quality somewhere does not undo them being a nazi.

▲

Ajedi32 2 days ago | parent [-]

You're not required to do anything. Consider though that if you refuse to see the good in people you disagree with, you have little room to complain when they refuse to see the good in you.

▲

sjsdaiuasgdia 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'll happily do that for the guy who cuts me off in traffic.

One of the fascists that is destroying my country? Fuck no, no consideration for them.

▲

Ajedi32 2 days ago | parent [-]

There's a lot of overlap between those two groups. Half of the country voted for Trump in the last election, a few of them are probably your neighbors. They control the presidency and a majority in the house and senate. You better hope they don't all decide they feel the same way about you that you apparently do about them.

	▲	sjsdaiuasgdia 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The largest share of the eligible voting population was the 'did not vote' group. I'm OK with calling fascists what they are. I'm also OK with recognizing a neighbor who has been consumed by fascist propaganda. The fascist is not one that can be negotiated with. As Sartre said: "They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words." I can negotiate with the propaganda poisoned neighbor. There is no negotiating with the people who are running the fascist show. Giving a fascist the benefit of the doubt is playing into their strategy.