[Day 201 of Daily Posts] Why It's Impossible to Debate a Certain Type of Ishimaru Supporter: The Contradiction of 'Not Talking Yet Unable to Stay Silent'

Introduction: Something that has been bothering me while watching Ishimaru supporters

Recently, while observing the exchanges on X surrounding Shinji Ishimaru, I have been harboring a persistent sense of discomfort.

It is not about Shinji Ishimaru's policies or his ideology. It is a snag I feel at a more fundamental level,
a stage prior to the establishment of conversation or debate.

In particular, watching the posts of a certain type of Ishimaru supporter has made me think this over and over again.

“This isn't even about having different opinions; there is simply no way to counter this.”

It is not that I feel angry, nor have I been defeated by logic. It is just that
I don't know where to enter the conversation from. This time, I would like to verbalize the true nature of that feeling as concretely as possible.

I do not intend to speak for all Ishimaru supporters. This is strictly about the words and actions directed at 'Ishimaru antis' by a 'certain type of Ishimaru supporter' that I have repeatedly seen on X.

Setting the Premise: There is a clear 'pattern' in these groups of posts

First, I want to clarify that there is a consistent, stereotypical pattern in this person's posts regarding antis. This is not about their personality. It is about the
“pattern” of their writing and behavior.

As far as I have observed, the flow is generally as follows.

1. Pointing out the existence of antis (though anonymous/collective)

“The antis,” “they,” “from the perspective of anti-Ishimaru.” The target is always blurred. It is never specified who said what in which post.

2. 'Summarizing' the words and actions of antis (without quoting the original text)

“They are misinterpreting,” “their thinking is too scary,” “only biased information.”

Evaluative words are lined up, but the actual content of the statements never appears. In other words, they do not 'quote' specific opinions.

3. Passing judgment from above

“Absurd,” “arrogant,” “I wonder when they will finally realize.”

Evaluation comes before explanation.

4. Finally landing in the 'position of the enlightened'

“It’s laughable,” “I’m learning a lot,” “I sympathize,” “Education is important.”

At this point, a sense of 'we get it' is shared among supporters, and the post is concluded.

This is less of a debate and more like a piece of writing meant to align emotions within the camp.

Why don't they engage in concrete debate?

What bothered me the most was that this person consistently thoroughly avoids concrete debate.

I don't think this is a matter of ability.
Rather, it seems like a very conscious choice.

There are several possible reasons.

First, if things are made concrete, they become verifiable.
If actual posts were cited, then:

・Confirmation of context
・Fact-checking
・Counter-arguments to counter-arguments

would inevitably occur.
One would have to descend into a space where there are winners and losers.

Next, it is highly likely that debate itself is not the goal.
What this person truly wants is not to refute the 'antis,' but empathy and approval from supporters.

Therefore,

・The 'antis' are abstracted
・The supporters are clearly envisioned

resulting in an asymmetrical structure.

And finally, the judgment that winning brings no benefit.
Concrete exchanges are exhausting and carry risks.
It seems they believe there is no point in paying that cost.

As a result, this discourse consistently concludes within an unverifiable abstract space.

Yet, the definitive contradiction of 'being unable to stay silent'

This is the most interesting point for me.

This person clearly adopts these attitudes:

・Refusing to stand on the same ground
・Ignoring the other party
・Deeming them unworthy of debate

Nevertheless, they turn the existence of 'antis' into content one by one and cannot help but react.

In short,

They have no intention of talking.
However, they are also unable to stay silent.

These two things exist simultaneously.

I believe that those unique closing phrases are born to handle this contradiction.

"I sympathize with you."
"I'm learning a lot."
"Let's try a little harder."

They don't make an argument.
They don't get into specifics.
However, they do pass judgment.

They don't debate, butthey maintain a position of superiority.
As a result, the foothold for saying, "No, that's wrong," disappears.

Why is it that we become unable to refute them?

When reading this kind of post, this is probably what many people feel.

"I think something is off. But there's no way to refute it."

That is not because we lost the logic.
It is because no point of contention was presented in the first place.

All that remains are evaluations and impressions.
If you try to object to that evaluation, you are the one who ends up being labeled as "not reading the room."

This is not a defeat.
It is simply that no debate was taking place.

When you organize it that way, you feel a little more at ease.

Then, on the other hand, what about the anti-fans?

I want to step back and look at this for a moment.
"Well, aren't the anti-fans doing the same thing?"
There must be people who think that.

At least, as far as I see on X, there is a clear difference between the two.

Anti-fans basicallywant to engage in debate.

• They quote specific posts
• They clarify which opinion they are refuting
• They try to provide concrete evidence

Of course, some people get emotional, and their language can get rough.
But in exchange,

・Verify when counterarguments are presented
・Correct when errors are pointed out
・Further build up the evidence

These kinds of actions are often seen.

The important thing is not that the critics are 'right'.
The point is that the critics have at least 'stepped down into the arena of debate'.

On the other hand, certain Ishimaru supporters:

・Talk about people (groups) rather than arguments
・Do not participate in the debate, but instead take the position of an evaluator
・Do not step into a space where there is a winner or loser

There is a decisive difference here.

Critics say,
'This argument is strange.'

Certain supporters say,
'These are people who say strange things.'

Is the target an opinion or a person?
This difference is significant.

This is not a matter of ideology, but a problem of 'communication design'.

What I have written so far is not about good or evil.
It is also not about whether supporting Ishimaru is correct or whether the critics are wrong.

The issue at hand is a matter of design regarding what kind of discourse structure is suitable for which space.

Words that end with impressions or evaluations are incompatible with X, a space premised on counterarguments and exchanges.

To put it bluntly, it is the kind of thing that has always been told to 'write it on the back of a flyer'.
However, to put it more politely, it is this:

'These kinds of discourses are better suited for independent media like note rather than X.'

That is all there is to it.

Conclusion

The discomfort I was feeling was not about a difference in ideology.

They do not talk, yet they cannot stay silent.
They do not engage concretely, yet they pass judgment.

I believe the pattern of words born from this contradiction created the feeling that 'a debate is impossible'.

Even just being able to organize it that way gave this sense of discomfort sufficient meaning.