Never argue for any particular position; present a series of facts and ideas, then allow your audience to come to their own conclusion. Nobody likes being told what to think, but most people take great satisfaction in joining up the dots for themselves.
Some people might still call you a Nazi, but your obvious reasonableness will be a near-infallible shield; they'll look silly and you'll look dignified.
Study marketing. Major corporations have invested billions in developing powerful persuasion methods, so loot their arsenal. You can sell a political position in exactly the same way as a can of fizzy drink, with immeasurably greater success than someone using the traditional techniques of political rhetoric.
This is probably somewhere where the left could take lessons from rationalist YouTube. Many of the arguments are presented in this way, always taking pains to express their logical credentials and remaining reasonable. Of course the evidence is heavily selected, but that is not mentioned. Then, when 'progressives' shout at them, it is progressives who seem shrill and absurd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAmM872874A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYQo6LI3Y7c
He seems to be fairly big in the ""rationalist"" crowd.
I'd never even heard of The Golden One or Thunderf00t but that youtuber spends a lot of time responding to them.
These people do not decide. They have seen the effects first-hand.
Perhaps seeing it from the other point of view, what point is there arguing with someone whose inherent philosophy is a denial of the rights of others?
An example of this is the one that you used. The "alt-right": people who follow the words of leaders who have clearly and openly called for the extermination and sterilization of PoCs (Richard Spencer, for example), people who openly use Nazi imagery, and who are backed by the American Nazi Party. [Evidence for these claims are in the bottom section].
In such a case, with the sides, quite literally, being:
I wish to live and have a productive and happy life
I wish for people like you, including you, to no longer exist
What kind of meaningful debate do you expect between such groups? The core principles are, by their very nature, severely opposed to each other.
[Citations for the equivalence of the Nazis and the Alt-right]:
Firstly, Richard Spencer, the person who started the alt-right:
""Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. ""
https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alterna...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Spencer
https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/890979293009895424
See also:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-dona...
https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/alt-ri...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/07/26/neo-nazi-misf...
There are more, but I'm pretty sure that you can source the rest for yourself.
> ... physical attack has been socially approved. It's okay to punch a Nazi. And you're free to define Nazi whichever way you want. Quite convenient.
How many Americans actually self-identify with the alt-right? Less than .001%?
How many, on the other hand, are accused of being alt-right to dismiss their arguments and concerns?
If your first move in a potential discussion is to label your opponent with a philosophy you hate (and refuse to entertain,) then it's likely you're interested in things other than discussion.
The article was about techniques you can try to engage people and ideas you disagree with in a more friendly and respectful way. You might want to be more thoughtful of your own posts in that respect.
The author's merely pointing out the obvious - being emotional about complex issues is a childish and counter-productive thing to do.
Well, maybe that's not so obvious, but you know.
Far more effective is realizing that the arguments that may convince you (in the case of the manifesto, perhaps, appeals to natural justice / rights), may not be the arguments that work for someone else.
In the equal marriage debate in Ireland for example (a pretty conservative country, most would agree), campaigners tried for years to talk about 'social justice' but there was a portion of the population (largely older people) who were just not convinced.
What that population needed to hear was a) a message from someone that was like them, and b) an argument couched in terms of the impact that the marriage vote would have on their grandchildren.
That was far more effective and the country ended up voting for equal marriage. The result of the referendum was also much more legitimate - it wasn't a case of one social class / group pushing through a desired outcome. It genuinely came from the whole country, even though different groups voted for different reasons.
Likewise, if someone believes that all affirmative action schemes are inherently wrong-headed, no amount of argument that "the outcome of affirmative action can be good in the long run" is going to sway them. Second guessing their motives and saying "you're just trying to protect your own interest" is a good way of ensuring they never listen to you again.
It takes guts to admit that not only is your argument potentially not convincing to someone, but that you also may be the wrong person to be making it. In this vein, you can, as a result, also spend a long time with someone and still end up talking past them if you're not careful.