Do you agree with this quote?

[John Dule]

Truly disgusted by the results of the poll. Atlas is pro-Nazi now?

Yes, you cannot claim to be anti-Nazi if you willingly associate with Nazis.

Is Daryl Davis a Klansman?

Disingenuous comparison and willful misunderstanding of my statement.

Daryl Davis engaged with members of the KKK with the express purpose of convincing them that they were wrong.

And that's not the case with the hypothetical scenario laid out in the quote.

That is exactly the scenario laid out in this quote. People like you object to the idea of "sitting down and convincing KKK members they're wrong" because you wrongly imagine that any discourse whatsoever with unpleasant people somehow validates their views. If progressives had their way, Mr. Davis would never have bothered to engage with those people, and the many Klansmen he turned away from bigotry would still be lonely, isolated, marginalized, bitter, and hateful.

[John Dule]

Truly disgusted by the results of the poll. Atlas is pro-Nazi now?

Yes, you cannot claim to be anti-Nazi if you willingly associate with Nazis.

Is Daryl Davis a Klansman?

Disingenuous comparison and willful misunderstanding of my statement.

Daryl Davis engaged with members of the KKK with the express purpose of convincing them that they were wrong.

And that's not the case with the hypothetical scenario laid out in the quote.

That is exactly the scenario laid out in this quote. People like you object to the idea of "sitting down and convincing KKK members they're wrong" because you wrongly imagine that any discourse whatsoever with unpleasant people somehow validates their views. If progressives had their way, Mr. Davis would never have bothered to engage with those people, and the many Klansmen he turned away from bigotry would still be lonely, isolated, marginalized, bitter, and hateful.

The exact quote is "If there are nine people and one Nazi sitting at a table, there are ten Nazis sitting at a table."

Nowhere in this sentence is it suggested that the nine are there with the express purpose of convincing the Nazi to abandon his ideals.

The way that I read it was that they're all willing to ignore his Nazism for the sake of something else., which is morally unacceptable.

You can't just decide to change the premise that a quote is based on.

At best it's ambiguous, and the recent push among progressives to make certain things "not up for debate" tells me that even if those nine people were trying to change that person's mind, they'd still have a problem with it. The idea that we should shun and refuse to engage with extremists is a symptom of the left's complete unwillingness (and inability) to coherently and calmly argue for its viewpoints on a level playing field. News flash: You aren't the arbiter of right and wrong. It is your responsibility to put forward thoughtful arguments for your positions just like the rest of us.

[John Dule]

No, partly because the wording implies that Nazis aren't people, which would be awfully convenient if it were true.

Also, the customary format here for this type of poll is "Opinion of quote" with "FQ" and "HQ" as the options.

Nazis aren't people.

A dangerous and inhuman sentiment.

[John Dule]

If I think that someone is truly willing to change their mind on something, then I would do all that I can to try and get them to agree with what I think is right. What I won't do is engage with someone that I believe is arguing in bad-faith or is unwilling to change their mind.

And you're not actually addressing my argument, you're just creating a strawman.

I'll ask again: in the scenario that I'm talking about, where nobody at the table is interested in the art of debate, do you think that it's morally acceptable for the nine to be friends with a Nazi?

I think you are not qualified to determine whether someone is arguing in good faith (or if they're a Nazi, for that matter, given how liberally that term has been applied in recent years). I don't think anyone here believes it's ok to treat an actual Nazi like a good friend without seriously trying to reform them and push back against their beliefs. Then again, the poll result tells met that most people didn't read it that way.

[John Dule]

If I think that someone is truly willing to change their mind on something, then I would do all that I can to try and get them to agree with what I think is right. What I won't do is engage with someone that I believe is arguing in bad-faith or is unwilling to change their mind.

And you're not actually addressing my argument, you're just creating a strawman.

I'll ask again: in the scenario that I'm talking about, where nobody at the table is interested in the art of debate, do you think that it's morally acceptable for the nine to be friends with a Nazi?

I think you are not qualified to determine whether someone is arguing in good faith (or if they're a Nazi, for that matter, given how liberally that term has been applied in recent years). I don't think anyone here believes it's ok to treat an actual Nazi like a good friend without seriously trying to reform them and push back against their beliefs. Then again, the poll result tells met that most people didn't read it that way.

Who is, in your opinion?

I think it is impossible for anyone to read the mind of another person, so we should approach all conversations with the assumption of good faith. It takes a lot for me to assume someone is arguing in bad faith or trolling. Ascribing malice without proof is a common tendency among modern progressives, and it has been weaponized against them by people who know how to make them look as if they're jumping to conclusions. Just strategically speaking, it should be abandoned.

[John Dule]

Literal Communist FDR.

[John Dule]

I still love that Ferguson is the only one to vote yes on this, lol.

Yet he continues to insist that his is the only proper interpretation.