Ok so, a few years ago I remember this discussion around Republicans claiming “illegals” were voting in US elections. And it was very common for people to argue back with facts and data that, no, people were not fraudulently voting in the elections, voter fraud is very rare, etc. Right?
And there was a very good TickTock about how when people like Trump (incorrectly) say “this group of people is voting illegally”, what he/they actually mean is “I don’t think it should be legal for this group of people to vote.”
So, in retrospect, arguing with these people using facts and data seems kind of useless?
Recently , I saw this Reddit topic about holocaust deniers. That like, we can present mountains of evidence that the holocaust really happened. But thats actually not the argument they’re making. When people deny the holocaust, what they’re really saying is “I don’t think it was a bad thing.”
It’s just slightly more acceptable to say “I wonder if the holocaust didn’t actually happen” than it is to say “I support the extermination of Jewish people, Black people, Romani, LGBTQ people, the disabled, etc etc.” Just as it’s more acceptable to say “we have to tackle voter fraud” than it is to say “I don’t think Latino people should have the right to vote.”
And I just see this everywhere now. Like, what are people actually saying when they show “concern” over trans people in sports, or try to say that chattel slavery in the US wasn’t uniquely terrible?
Harmful movements advance indirectly before they advise directly.


















