How do you balance skepticism with not wanting to come off as callous and dismissive?

Well, if it doesn’t actually affect you maybe it’s best to stay silent.

@Dutchess_III Yeah, that doesn’t work on me. I like to discuss anything and everything. But I’m speaking generally here. Of course there are times when it’s not appropriate to be skeptical. If someone told me they were raped, my first reaction would be to believe them and help them, not to doubt them and grill them. But in the most general sense, there are certain issues where there’s an “emotional” factor that can sometimes hinder the ability to discuss it effectively and to me, that’s a problem.

This is an odd question – at least how it’s been presented.

@Demosthenes: “In my last question, I made reference to the fact that the appeal to the tragedy of 9/11 helped lead to certain foreign and domestic policy blunders (like the invasion of Iraq) that we now look back on negatively.”

These were not blunders. They were war crimes that accomplished their goals.

@Demosthenes: “hat we now look back on negatively.”

We looked on those crimes negatively at the time. Tens of thousands of us were in the streets in Boston, and millions erupted into the streets globally. We all watched this horror happen in real time, and it was the largest demonstrations in history that were an attempt to stop an invasion of a country.

@Demosthenes: “I remember when it was the case that anyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq “hated America”.”

Yes, I was told many times that I “hated America” and “should leave”, etc. But there were plenty of us who opposed the US invading Iraq, and were were made invisible by the media and government.

What makes this as your leading example so puzzling is that you are describing the actions of the US government in collaboration with the largest corporations in the world through massive propaganda campaigns. There was a power discrepancy between those enacting the crimes, and those of us opposing them.

@Demosthenes: “But to even suggest that is to risk being seen as a defender of rapists or a misogynist.”

Are you suggesting that #MeToo has this same power dynamic? Is it possible that the power dynamics are so different in your first two examples as to make them absurd to compare? I couldn’t even begin to understand where to go if those two examples are illustrative of the point (or question) you’re attempting to make.

@Demosthenes: “Yet again with child trafficking and pedophilia. Child trafficking is a real problem. But I have encountered many issues with inflated statistics and misguided safeguards (like Apple’s new policy of scanning personal photos). But if you question any of it, you might be labeled a pedophile or a pedophile sympathizer.“_

FOSTA-SESTA and many attempts at supposedly attacking human trafficking have been fought for years by left-wing activists (sex workers, human rights advocates, privacy advocates, etc). These laws ended up making life demonstrably more dangerous for vulnerable populations, while doing nothing to combat the supposed problem. It’s reasonable to question if the efforts and laws were even intended to accomplish their stated goals. Again, this is something that has the power of governments and media in an attempt to minimize (or make invisible) the opposition, which are mostly vulnerable people.

So, what is it that you’re asking? Will you be labeled a left-wing communist maniac if you oppose US imperialist wars and government power grabs at the expense of the people you’re supposedly trying to help? Maybe, but who cares? Will you be labeled a misogynist if you run around pretending that #MeToo is an institutional of power that must be fought against? Maybe, and probably justifiably.

Maybe you should evaluate issues in a way that views them in the context of power dynamics and their implications. Sometimes, it helps to differentiate between literally paying for the murder of people for corporate profits and attempts for women to change the discussion so that they are believed.

@product Look, my point wasn’t too suggest that the jingoistic post-9/11 climate and the #metoo movement are identical. You’ve pointed out key ways in which they are different. The reason I brought them both up as examples is because they both use emotional appeals to stifle any skepticism or criticism. It was not to suggest that the #metoo movement is the same kind of power/propaganda play as the invasion of Iraq.

What I’m asking is how best to voice the skepticism or criticism you do have so that it is not immediately silenced? How do you make it clear that you’re not discrediting the entire movement or denying the validity of people’s emotions?

(Actually what inspired this question was a discussion on another site in which someone was pointing out the negative consequences of 9/11 and its associated propaganda and people were saying it was an insult to the victims to have that discussion).

@Demosthenes: “The reason I brought them both up as examples is because they both use emotional appeals to stifle any skepticism or criticism.”

We used to destroy the “emotion vs reason” schtick in college – and for good reason.

You should try to define what you mean here by “emotional appeals”. I think you might find that there is no such thing – or at least that what you consider to be an “emotional appeal” is to be found in nothing or everything.

@Demosthenes: “What I’m asking is how you voice the skepticism or criticism you do have? How do you make it clear that you’re not discrediting the entire movement or denying the validity of people’s emotions?”

Isn’t the job of dissenting one that comes with it some negatives? Of course you’re going to be accused of “hating America” or not “supporting the troops”. What if you embrace these instead of pushing back on them? I do not claim to like “America” or support the troops. So these accusations are not unfounded. In fact, it was/is the very framing of “America” and “the troops” that was at the root of much of the evil that was being done in my name (and with my tax dollars). I need to own all of that, and not pretend that my opposition to US imperialism has to do with some mythical love of “America” or “the troops”.

What I’m suggesting is that you might get called all kinds of things. Some of them may seem unfair to you and may trigger some emotions in you. But if you try to keep the status quo’s framing while being a voice of dissidence, you’ll likely find some friction (personally and logically).

So, yes – if you find that you’re constantly pushing back against a reframing of the conversation (by #MeToo or whatever) and efforts to believe women, maybe you shouldn’t worry so much about how it feels to be called a misogynist. Maybe you could look at whether there is some validity to it.

Believe me, I’ve heard this line of thinking before, (“if you keep getting called a racist, you must be one!”) and I agree that there is some validity to it. I’ve been accused of having a homosexual agenda and I used to deny it because it sounded bad and I didn’t like the negative connotations of it but now I realize that I do indeed have a homosexual agenda (the normalization of homosexuality is something I support and actively try and make happen). So I no longer deny it and own it.

At the same time, it is possible for those making those accusations or using those labels to be mistaken. For my own sake though, I don’t like to constantly be on the defensive and I try and reframe what I’m saying if it’s being met with hostility.

In the case of the 9/11 example, it was true that the person who started the discussion was being aggressive and hostile to the point where they could’ve been interpreted as trying to undermine any grief expressed for the victims. So in that case my advice to them would’ve been to change the tone of the criticism if they wanted to be heard and understood more effectively.

@Demosthenes: “So in that case my advice to them would’ve been to change the tone of the criticism if they wanted to be heard and understood more effectively.”

But what if people have been inoculated from understanding your position through dedicated propaganda campaigns? They may be celebrating the very institutions, ideas, and people that brought about their loved one’s death. What are you supposed to do to reach them in a way that keeps you in a good light? I don’t think it’s possible in many cases. If you feel that 9/11 was a logical conclusion of US imperial foreign policy that you oppose, and you find that a 9/11 victim’s family finds comfort in embracing nationalism and hatred towards the victims of US foreign policy, then what strategy can you use to convince them of your position?

There are risks to dissent, and it isn’t meant to be comfortable. That’s what the whole right-wing “anti-pc” crusade is about, for the most part. They want to express dissent without the risks.

I use tact, something that civilized people do. However, not all people are civilized! And how unfortunate that is!!!

I research properly to become more informed. This is how I am able to have a solid informed discussion and not feel negatively about my questions of challenges.
I also keep an open mind on what the other side says. I then fact-check it.

Don’t Trust, Verify

I’ve noticed that people like you, who love to dissect any and every subject, are few and far between. Even online. So kudos on having that courage.

Personally I keep an open mind and listen more than talk. At the end, if I remain unconvinced or facts do not support the argument, we agree to disagree. I will never cop out and agree just to get along though, regardless of how that’s received.
Frankly emotional arguments are the most tedious for me so I try not to engage in them often.

Apparently I don’t balance it at all. Every time I show skepticism concerning something that is popular tripe, I am branded as some sort of kook, dismissive, too black and white, and any number of other negative brands.
But there are two things there that speak volumes to me. First is that I really don’t care what others think of me. I USED to care, but then realized that the only person I could come close to pleasing all the time was me. And at the same time I realized that those that spoke out against me were being dismissive and callous as well. In other words, they are no more accepting nor intelligent nor polite as myself.