Qutzupalotl
Qutzupalotl's JournalIt is a tricky question.
The ACLU’s position is that the answer to objectionable speech is more speech. If someone is wrong, he or she should be corrected but not silenced, at least not by the government. That preserves everybody’s rights and advances debate.
In practice, the ACLU’s position allows bubbles of lies to form and remain unchallenged (see FOX News). They nevertheless say that the freedom to speak is more precious than somehow arbitrating all speech and permitting only true things to be said. The government cannot do that under the Constitution, for good reason.
Workaround: Don't say it's from Snopes.
They have been brainwashed to shut down whenever they hear that name, and refuse to hear any more. They cling to a debunked study saying Snopes is fake.
So, plagiarize. 
Read the Snopes article and pick out two or three facts that prove something is fake, and make those points in your own words. You can cite the same sources they do. That's usually enough to change minds, as long as they don't know where it came from.
Get angry.
If you address these problems like a kindly old schoolmarm, Sen. Schumer, you won’t win over any voters.
When we talk calmly and rationally about horrific outrages, people sense the disconnect and perceive our side as not being genuine, as though we don’t believe what we are saying. That makes people less inclined to agree with us.
So...think of all the suffering this decision causes, feel it in your gut, get really pissed off, THEN speak. Righteous anger at these daily moral outrages is contagious.
I realize this plan of raising your voice will lead to accusations of us being unhinged, but have you heard RW talk radio lately?
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 14,302
