We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13024277.

I hope you can see the irony in suggesting that any argument you disagree with (isn't "good") is "pseudo-sociological abstract bullshit".

The "alt-right" is not a great example of a rational "movement". The hyperbole about Clinton is/was similar to some of that used against Trump and their apparent champion (Trump) was repeatedly proven to have lied and seems unable to present a consistent response on many issues - Climate Change, Obamacare, whether Clinton will be investigated, removing any conflict of interest he may have, his foreign policy, his economic policy etc.

The "left" had a laundry list of falsehoods Trump's campaign was built on and it didn't matter at all. The (completely fair!) discussion of racism and bigotry as part of Trump's appeal was far from the "left"'s only argument.

That's not at all a valid statement. People rightly pointed out, over and over again, the inconsistency of Trump's views on several issues. The trope that the argument was nothing but shouting about racism is just not correct.

Just today Brietbart published articles pushing climate change denial and brigading Amazon reviews of a book because the said author disagrees with Donald Trump. How does one reason with such an obstinate worldview?

Well for me the way to deal with the whole "climate change" is wrong, if they were to say - "who wants cleaner air and water" - Nobody would argue and things would just move forward and avoid getting hung up on debate and endless papers and research to spell out the common sense. It is like arguing the compass direction to the nearest degree when if you said is the general wind N,S,E or west then everybody would agree it's just one of those and things would move in the right general direction instead of doing circles for years upon years, whilst time waits for nobody.

In short, its how you define the issue in a way that everybody can relate too better and if that means going indirectly with the side-effect being the target, then so be it.

SlateStarCodex once outlined how you might make a conservative case for dealing with climate change; the Archdruid Report discusses the subject, too. The key is to only argue climate change; it's much easier to persuade people that climate change is an issue, than to persuade them that climate change is an issue and the only solution is Communism. Think cap-and-trade, lasting strategic independence (at least one Iraq hawk drove a Prius), and the irresponsible foreigners fouling up the atmosphere while we do our bit to help...

> Well for me the way to deal with the whole "climate change" is wrong, if they were to say - "who wants cleaner air and water" - Nobody would argue and things would just move forward

I've tried this argument many times with climate change skeptics. It almost always comes down to economics for them. They want cleaner air and water, but not at the expense of their wallets.

Bringing up the long-term economic effects of climate change just brings us back to the original argument.

Easy: "I can breath and drink water just fine, so why do you hate progress?"

For one thing, come with an open mind. Don't just label it denial just because you disagree with it. Don't force your beliefs upon anybody else.

Not that any of that matters, we are way past the point now where this house can be united (other than, ironically, a war with Mexico), we can only wait for it to collapse.

You want their ad network to argue with them?

Are you even trying to understand what other people say, or trying to sound good by attacking straw men?

Sorry if that was too snarky. I guess my point is there obviously isn't one correct tactic. The people who run ad tech (or any other) businesses have a very binary decision: either they allow someone to be a customer or they don't.

> In reply to knz, I hope you see the illogicality of interpreting what I wrote above as "suggesting any argument [I] disagree with is [...]". Passing off the whole of the "alt-right" as "irrational" is exactly the sort of attitude that encourages previously-neutral people to leave social and progressive political groups. Unless you have a mathematical proof of this statement, I would be more humble in what one chooses to believe, and how one conducts one's arguments.

Sorry, I assumed from your choice of language ("pseudo-sociological abstract bullshit") that you were implying that much of the dissent falls into that category. Personally I have seen many good arguments made against the ideology of the "alt-right" but like most conservations it usually ends with the group being refuted rejecting any semblance of rational conservation ("lying media even if I was caught on video saying it").

I don't disagree that it would be a mistake to assume the concerns of the "alt-right" are all irrational or should be dismissed without consideration. I also don't believe that this problem is unique to media organisations on the right of the political spectrum but as others have pointed out they are far more effective at it.

Very True and often see some view dragged and labeled and dismissed under some label (however justified or not) and countered with polar-opposite extremist mentality and that is equally not acceptable.

Constructive debate without rhetoric and sound facts always wins over and does wonders. Indeed it is the glib dismissal and labeling that alienates people and fuels there issues even more.

Sure people can just boycott and ignore, that is a life chocie we all have from purchasing and engaging and something we should all do if we do nto do already. Be that buying products localy instead of shipped in and buying seasonal local products is a form of positive and sound purchasing on so many levels.

Today we have more than enough tools to avoid and block what we do not wish to engage in and nobody is forcing anything upon you via social media that you can not just block and avoid. Which is a better choice than just tossing of a glib you a racist rhetoric rant at hair trigger speed for something that was more than not a badly worded concern from somebody without a racist angst in their bone.

But certainly see extremist views form both wings and it does nothing more than fuel the concerns and transform them into hate, making things much worse for all.

But in a time in which one bad punctuation or worded comment can be straw-maned into something it is not and that gets run with and ridiculed in a way that is more vile than the straw-manned comment, then the word sanctimonious ends up being overlooked too often.

So in some area's it is hard to even talk about migration, economies, politics, religion and many other topics without the risk of just one person dragging it down into something utterly unproductive and the glibly tossing of labels in a way that fits those labels more than what they object to.

Just sad many people can't accept we are all different and this is why we do not all dress the same and look the same and have the same tastes and interests. But we are all human after all, even if humanity escapes so many at times.

But two area's in which I like to handle things and how:

people who are anti-gay: I point out that why are they trying to convert them into straight people, isn't that what you accuse gay people of doing and yet you the one actively actually trying to do that and why. If say you a male and you do not like male gays then think about it, statistically the more gay males then the more women there are for you and the better chance for you, so why are you trying so hard to create problems for yourself. Along those lines

as for race: Well it is fun to educate people upon how colour works and how we see refracted light and ends up pointing out that people who many class as white are actually darker skinned and refract back what light is not absorbed. As we know grass is not green but blue and red in colour so absorbs the red and blue light and refracts the green light, hence looks green. This gets down to explaining that what they think of as black people are actualy white skinned and what we see as white skined are actualy black skinned. This confuses them and all down to science proving that they hate themselves.

But doing things constructivly is an effect and need to be in the right mood, but always a way to have a constructive debate if you avoid the rhetoric and deal with the issue constructivly over having a playground flamewar.

Anyhow I hope I've worded that well and no offence ever intended.