Sorry but @braketimez is right I kinda think that you guys underestimate the challenge. Those won't be nice conversations with undereducated people. And if you fail it will have consequences for the website and us. And it also depends on followers' number. The more the harder.
What kind of consequences are you talking about? They're going to try to take down the website regardless. It's not like deleting that account is gonna solve those relentless attacks. Sorry but I've been around for 2.5 years and they've been attacking us non-stop. It started back in 2019 with a Buzzfeed article and it never really stopped. They will keep trying to push political legislation until they actually succeed. Do I think they will succeed? No. But they will try to pull
all tricks in the book to make the website as inaccessible as possible. Why shouldn't there be a counter-narrative?
You are confident we have the moral high ground. But if society has a different and more conservative moral ground, won't we be seen as the "irrational enemy" on a social media platform and only feed the narratives other people have?
Polls on the right to die show that people generally agree with us. I already told you the exact same thing a few days ago with sources.
Yes, we cannot control the narrative or fight back on bad faith accusations if we're defensive. Having a twitter account just to react to opposition and express our controversial viewpoints comes off as defensiveness to people of differing beliefs, doesn't it?
No. Let me try to explain my angle. If we don't have that Twitter account, they'll attack us, smear us, invent lies - just like they did the last few months. There will be no counter-narrative and nobody is gonna learn about our position and stance on this issue. But if we have a Twitter account, we can actually create visibility for our position. We can put our arguments out there and reach people. We will give them a chance to read and learn about the opposite views and this could make a difference. People that oppose the right to die are simply uneducated in my opinion. If you think through this process and if you listen to arguments of both sides, I'm confident that we can change some minds. I mean, take Nietzsche as an example. He is doing great work for the right to die movement. He is standing up for us and people agree with him. Go to any video about Nietzsche on Youtube and you'll realize that this is the case. You think Youtube is anecdotal - well then go take a look at polls and surveys about the right to die. The public opinion, as I said earlier, is on our side. There might be disagreements on nuances but people generally agree and understand the idea that people can make consenting and informed decisions about their own life and death. You are extremely pessimistic and trust me, I totally understand why you would take the black pill when it comes to the right to die and political discourse around it. But as I said in another topic, social reforms take time. The LGBT community didn't score wins overnight and participating in intercourses over the internet certainly contributed to the success. You can reach millions of individuals around the world on Twitter, why do you minimize the impact it has on real life issues?
Every successful civil rights movement in the history of mankind involved banding together in a physical public setting to directly confront legislative harm being done to said community. Can we agree that expressing viewpoints on Twitter accomplishes neither of those? We are not banding together in person, and we are not directly trying to get the attention of legislators as other civil rights movements have done.
I disagree because Twitter is a huge social media platform that has a large audience. Many activists actually use this platform to share and express their ideas, why shouldn't we utilize these tools as well?
How can you specify exactly what people are thinking and feeling when they vote "no"?
As I said, it was an assumption and giving them ground makes it look like they're in the right. If you have nothing to hide and if you think your intentions are pure, why wouldn't you fight back?
I voted "no" because I accept the narrative that we need to reserve this safe space and keep members, especially the ones who are too lethargic to even contribute to these conversations, safe. Civil rights movements in the past didn't involve going around promoting where all their private safe spaces were, and essentially "doxing" the homes of their community gatherings. That wasn't the point of the movements.
I respect that and I understand your point. It's valid and I definitely take that seriously. But not all of the people wrote down an explanation in regards to their vote, that's why I made an assumption about some of the voters.
Can you please tell me how the hell you you can assume exactly what people are thinking when they vote?
As I said, it was an assumption based on my experience with people from this community. There are many people that think the right to die movement doesn't have legitimacy due to the social stigma around suicide and I disagree. And we should stop running away and constantly let people run over us with bad faith accusations and outright lies.
1) On twitter, people are not in an emotional state to have their minds changed. They are there to express their viewpoints in a few characters, which is not nearly sufficient enough to truly establish an argument. Sure, you can post articles, etc...but that's not where the hype on twitter comes from. People rarely take the time to read long articles. Just look at attention span studies nowadays. Controversy on twitter only stirs up dissension and reinforces everyone's beliefs. There's no evidence it actually is a productive way to advance a viewpoint and influence people to believe in something new. There are TONS of stories of ridiculous arguments and debates that take place on Twitter and lead to no positive outcome. Nothing but a stalemate. However, there are rarely any stories about the opposite taking place.
Can you please point me to a body of evidence that supports the productive value of having a twitter account? There's already a ton of evidence people just have pointless and emotionally charged arguments that lead nowhere. So please show evidence of the opposite
The evidence are countless of activists and politicians that actually use Twitter as a platform to push their narrative. For example, Trump constantly tweeting about how he won the election actually made 40% of republicans think that he indeed did win the election, despite like a 8 million vote margin and the loss of the electoral college. This is one specific example - but I don't want to turn this exchange into a political discussion and I'll let the other part of your argument stand - it seems like we simply disagree on the fundamental questions of activism.
