Djigit wrote:I'm not that sure. I actually think that's unfair, since people perceive the anchor as the protagonist vs. the senile anti-Semite (the antagonist). She's also given some kind of "monopoly of truth". As a matter of fact, what she's doing is counterproductive. This guy's supporters will sympathize even more with his ideas.
true. is doest matter if the guy is clearlly wrong, making a "debate" of 2 people screaming on top of each other is just counterproductive, any person that agrees with this guys view will NOT even listen to her arguments, she has zero chance of influencing things to the better.
@deleted_user4 chill, dude
we all agree that this guy is wrong, is just the way she is confronting it that we dont agree.
imo, a more reasonable approach like for exemple "give him 1min to talk, then mute his fucking mic, 1 min to the anchor to respond, then back to him [...]" would be way more productive, and people would actually be able to hear wtf they have to say. (if people hear arguments against him, they might decide for themselves that hes wrong, if you just show his face and someone screaming YOU ARE WRONG! at him, you arent going to chance anyones mind.)
