![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jack"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time" -- Randy Waterhouse, Cryptonomicon.
When quoting characters from books, I never know how much to credit the character and how much the author. Sometimes the quote is clearly a view of the author. Sometimes it clearly isn't. Sometimes it's half and half.
I should stay out of "Mock the stupid". Its amusing, but I *always* end up wanting to say "the stupid comment *could* have been right" and if I do, I end up in a counterproductive argument
Stupid person: blah blah hitler was evil because he was a communist blah blah
Other person: quotes it to mts
Me: Well, he was socialist :) (OK, only nominally, but then was Stalin any better?)
Helpful person: Was a fascist, not a socialist. Don't let the name fool you. [explanation and further argument cut]
Anyway, I should:
( ) Continue to argue to what extent Hitler[1] was a "socialist" and what "nominally" means.
( ) Run and hide
(*) De-escalate. Explain the joke, and put aside the wider issue of how different or contradictory socialism and fascism (as opposed to their most famous incarnations, or their histories) really are.
I was going to make it a poll, but then it was so obvious I should write in option 3 I decided just to do that. I will try to be *de*escalating and polite, wish me luck :)
ETA: No, it's no good. I had to get into the sociopolitical argument. Doh.
[1] Yes, he was mentioned in the post. That's allowed.
When quoting characters from books, I never know how much to credit the character and how much the author. Sometimes the quote is clearly a view of the author. Sometimes it clearly isn't. Sometimes it's half and half.
I should stay out of "Mock the stupid". Its amusing, but I *always* end up wanting to say "the stupid comment *could* have been right" and if I do, I end up in a counterproductive argument
Stupid person: blah blah hitler was evil because he was a communist blah blah
Other person: quotes it to mts
Me: Well, he was socialist :) (OK, only nominally, but then was Stalin any better?)
Helpful person: Was a fascist, not a socialist. Don't let the name fool you. [explanation and further argument cut]
Anyway, I should:
( ) Continue to argue to what extent Hitler[1] was a "socialist" and what "nominally" means.
( ) Run and hide
(*) De-escalate. Explain the joke, and put aside the wider issue of how different or contradictory socialism and fascism (as opposed to their most famous incarnations, or their histories) really are.
I was going to make it a poll, but then it was so obvious I should write in option 3 I decided just to do that. I will try to be *de*escalating and polite, wish me luck :)
ETA: No, it's no good. I had to get into the sociopolitical argument. Doh.
[1] Yes, he was mentioned in the post. That's allowed.