Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
This can easily backfire, though. The fascist will rarely start the debate by glorifying the Third Reich. Instead, he will start off by lamenting the state of the working class, or complain about foreign policy, and only progressively reveal his true agenda. Showing contempt for him at this stage could be interpreted as contempt for these issues.
What the fascist attempts to do in these debates is to acquire legitimacy, since their political position sits outside the overton window. Using logical fallacies against him is to basically hand him that legitimacy for free by making him appear “reasonable”. The easiest solution to all this is not to debate them at all.
Eh, that seems equivalent to saying gardening can backfire because you could stab yourself in the foot with a pitchfork or something. You can show contempt for their solutions while acknowledging the problems. Obviously, if you suck at rhetoric you shouldn’t get into debates in the first place.
The sort of people who are swayed by fascist rhetoric aren’t the sort that have a keen eye for reasonableness and logical fallacy. It’s an emotional stance based on posturing. Weakness is a far greater sin to the fascist than irrationality.
That’s not a solution at all. If no one pushes back on their messaging, they get implicit control of the narrative. That’s a lot harder to do when their audience tunes in to watch their idol own the libs, but then see him get dog walked.