And it was fucking dreadfull. People would insult you, or be disinterested. Some were genienly charitable and open to what the movement I am a part of are trying to do, yet most used mockery instead of reason and compassion.
How can you not hate humans? They are fallacy riddled arrogant pieces of shit. Constantly using whattaboutism, ad homs, and appeal to nature fallacies,among others.
I try and be cordial yet I am met with insults. All I am attempting to do is making the world a somewhat better place yet people just get triggered.
How do you maintain a positive mental state when being an activist?
English is not my first language. Apologies for any spelling errors.
Nicholas Bell
Don't be confrontational. If someone is antagonistic towards you then recognize it and move on. The point isn't to turn people from one side to the other but to spread information to people who are on the fence or simply don't know about the issue. People are always trying to get a rise out of someone and get it on video to share on youtube.
Austin Morgan
That's what I was trying to do, but I probably still could have improved. We were showing footage about the charity and I would only speak to people who were looking at the footage as I assumed that they must have some form of interest. I'd end up having a discussion,and then the person would as home me, have a snug face, and walk off before I could respond. Many were just going for "gotcha"moments and it became very disheartening.
Either way, maybe this is just the nature of activism. However, I wonder if maybe my emotional intelligence just leads to these kinds of issues. I speak often in a monotone voice and come off as somewhat detached. People maybe feel less obligated to be nice to me. I've noticed the other more extroverted activists who are more "bubbly" don't really run into the issue as much as me.
I've also only attended 3 activism events so I may just be a noob at this kind of thing.
William Hernandez
Ad hom not as hom*
Kevin Cook
You are being too generic in order to get any form of constructive criticism for this situation. Also stop saying ad hom. Just say what they say about you. It makes you sound snobby since ad hom is the easiest fallacy to use common words to describe. We get it you took an english class and now you want to say specifically what each fallacy each person is using. It's very easy to determine if someone is having a skeptical conversation with you or if they are just arguing with you.
Jason Sanders
the taboo of naming fallacies IS logical in many social settings sure. But this is Jow Forums, literally everyone knows the meanings of fallacies here. It's just a more concise way of speaking. Nobody finds it condescending if used in the right context.
Also, yeah sure, you can tell me to name the topic however that leaves me in a damned if you do damned if you dont situation. I've made a similar thread and I was told I was just virtue signalling. I am specifically not talking about what the issue is so people don't accuse me of doing that.
Basically I was arguing that X is wrong but then someone would respond with, " well being an ugly hippy is even worse" etc. You get the idea. Many people were like this, though, this was probably the worst case.
Wyatt Peterson
Well to be fair x is good/bad isn't a logical argument. It's an emotional argument. You can't get mad at people for logical fallacy with you are discussing emotional appeal.
Mason Parker
Well there was more to it in than that.i am being vague on purpose so as to keep the topic of discussion confidential. I argued that they think X is bad in one context therefore they should think X is bad in the other context two, unless they can find a distinction which makes X lose its value while being in one place as opposed to another.
Wyatt Campbell
You don't. You just need to accept the fact that humans are predominately stupid and are only really interested in political issues that effect them directly. That's how left wing policies usually get an edge, by appearing moral and having good intentions regardless of the outcomes of their policies, they use this moral stranglehold they have upon the common man and convince him they understand his needs better than he does and thus rob them of their freedom.
What I'm trying to say is, condense what your advocating to appear beneficial to those your advocating to, another piece of advice is never be antagonistic, angry or confrontational. Regardless of what points your trying to make, keeping your cool when others are yelling and insulting your will always make you appear to have the moral high ground. Contributing to negative political discussion will always make outsiders view both sides as degenerates. Also, remember that in politics people are biased, they will often only see what they want to see, present the facts in a way they can't deny, even if they scoff at your points they may leave with a new outlook.
