My Moral Duty: Step into the Belly of the Enraged Beast

The president presents an urgent and deadly threat to democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties, civil society and honest governance.[1] I've felt that way for over two years, but since his election, a lot of other people have come to about the same conclusion. Some people saw the danger immediately. Masha Gessen, a Russian who witnessed Putin crush democracy and the rule of law in Russia, wrote this a couple of days after the 2016 election in an article, Autocracy: Rules for Survival:

“Thank you, my friends. Thank you. Thank you. We have lost. We have lost, and this is the last day of my political career, so I will say what must be said. We are standing at the edge of the abyss. Our political system, our society, our country itself are in greater danger than at any time in the last century and a half. The president-elect has made his intentions clear, and it would be immoral to pretend otherwise. We must band together right now to defend the laws, the institutions, and the ideals on which our country is based.”

That, or something like that, is what Hillary Clinton should have said [in her concession speech] on Wednesday.

  Given that, I started spending some time every couple of days at big, hard core radical right political sites. The goal is not trolling. The goal is engagement based on facts and sound reasoning as best I can articulate it. I've been at it for just a few days. What it is like at the three sites I'm visiting is pretty ugly. Most of the articles and reader comments are based on lies, misinformation, irrational emotional manipulation and flawed reasoning due to partisan bias (motivated reasoning and logic fallacies). Those sites present a vast cornucopia of unrestrained dark free speech.

Crippling inconvenient voices 

I wanted to start with The Federalist, Breitbart, Town Hall and Daily Caller. Since I last visited, The Federalist has shut down its comments section, so that one is out. Town Hall blocks comments with links in them, which greatly undermines my ability to engage with evidence. This morning, Daily Caller blocked one of my comments with links in it by holding it in moderation. I do  not expect the comment to be OKed. Daily Caller does not allow images to be uploaded, so those are out there.

In response, I will change tactics and provide a phrase of about 5-7 words that people can search to find the material I wanted to link to.

So far, my general impression is that these big radical conservative sites are trying to limit dissident voices as much as possible. That helps to protect the tribe from cognitive dissonance, inconvenient facts and so forth. In turn, that further radicalizes people who stay in echo chambers like that.

I am beginning to believe that Disqus itself could be involved in limiting dissenting voices by allowing downvotes to damage a commenter's reputation. I am also checking to see if my new Germaine II account gets hacked and my upvotes drained away. If that happens, that I will no longer be able to freely comment without an administrator owner acting to allow make me a trusted user. In my experience, that has not happened with my old Germaine account at any conservative site.

The experience so far

The experience is what I expected. Most of it is irrational and disrespectful. So far, one person has been respectful, rational and evidence-based. We parted on good terms. Here is one approximate (not exact) example of the kind of engagement I am experiencing:

Initial comment: Fauci has been incorrect on everything.

Germaine II: No, he has been mostly (~95% ?) correct. And, since COVID-19 is new, there was significant uncertainty in the early months. There still is uncertainty about important aspects of how the virus spreads and its pathology. Fauci's statements have been couched in terms of probabilities, not certainties. That is being honest and professional. (the comments are here: http://disq.us/p/2ax83tg )

Lots of lies and fake conspiracy theories have been spread about him, but that's just radical right politics these days.
Attacker 1 (Gunny something): Hey Liberal (and that's a filthy word where I come from), Quack Fauxi ain't never been RIGHT but then again, you're a Leftist so facts are to YOU as a crucifix is to Drac.

You should write-in The Hildabeast for POTUS! hahahahaahahahahahahahahah

Germaine II: Hey Gunny. I'm not a liberal (or a conservative or centrist). I'm a pragmatic rationalist.

Fauci is as right as he can be in view of the uncertainty surrounding COVID-19, which is caused by a new virus. You are grossly misinformed about Fauci.

Attacker 2: YOUR A PIMPLE ON SOCIETY,S REAR, CHIT4BRAINS !!

Germaine II: When I see ad hominem attacks, I know the insulter is shooting blanks.

Attacker 3: Go gaslight your pals over at Media Matters... or whatever leftard craphole you came from...

Attacker 2: WHAT TRUTH, YOURS IS JUST ANOTHER OPINION FROM THE DARK SDE, CHIT4BRAINS !!


Anyway, you can see what it is like trying to deal respectfully with many of the radical right folks at dark echo chambers. But in view of the danger that Trump represents, I should try to do something, even if it is just a little and even if it doesn't work. Maybe I'll be able to sow a few seeds of doubt in a couple of minds.

My expectation

I expect the sites I'm visiting to ban or shadow ban me. It probably won't be long. This is deeply concerning because it would show an increasing unwillingness to even allow dissenting but respectful voices to be heard at all. That is socially damaging and frightening.


Question: Am I wasting my time, or should a person try to do what they can as best they can?


Footnote:
1. Even if Trump is re-elected, he may not be able to establish some sort of a plutocratic dictatorship based on demagoguery. Nonetheless, it is possible he can get close or even succeed. Since there is time to try to oppose the president, it seems reasonable to at least try.