Post

Not one racist debater can point to the person that they successfully debated into abandoning their racist ways. None. Which is why, to Brooke's point, the only reason they want these debates is for recruiting.

This post is unavailable.

84 reposts363 likes

We have to avoid the twin problems of false consensus and pluralistic ignorance. If racists and bigots are loud and visible and those who disagree stay silent, it starts to seem as though racism is the dominant viewpoint. We don't necessarily have to debate them, but we do have to show up.

there is also a whole ecosystem of "progressive" debaters that make their living from those empty debates, and they are quite happy those racists exist to keep their engagement numbers up.

I don’t debate to change their minds. Never have, never will. But i debate them the same reason I debate transphobes and homophobes - for the people watching.

You’re right that I’ve never debated a racist into changing their Ming. But I’ve changed a bunch of minds by debating racists & transphobes & homophobes - and those minds were the people who weren’t directly in the debate. I’ve probably received 50+ messages about this exact thing.

Whether it’s from white people who didn’t realize how racist they still were and me calling it out helped them see it in themselves and change it Or it’s queer and trans kids coming to me and saying thank you for visibly fighting for them and arguing with bigots because they feel so alone

A debate is for the sake of the audience, not the opponent; the hope is that you inoculate uncommitted audience members. I don't know whether debate is very *successful* at that, though I think that it *could* be with the right debater. But we'd need the right measure of success.