Arguing With Dumb People

After the recent flood of ideological zealots here, I looked into ways of combating them and their methods. When dealing with the unintelligent, arguments based on reason, fact and logic are not their strong suit. Arguing with these people is best done by exposing their inconsistencies or their emotional dependency.

In a world full of many different ideologies, big egos, and hurt feelings, a man can come across many different opinions. Sometimes there can be thoughtful, rational and logical arguments. This occurs in certain places. These places tend to be few and far between. The consumerist herd mentality of modern society has diffused into politics, education and the workplace. This has created environment that are almost entirely ideologically driven and dominated by one belief through non-intellectual methods.


In most political spheres and in public, peoples’ opinions become their identity. Losing an argument is not an option because that would invalidate their existence. Engaging these people in certain discussions is a tricky venture. They are more like salesmen than defenders of a premise. They seek to sell you something. Whether you need it or not, they will find a way to convince you that you need it and should conform.


I found that typically the biggest advocate of an idea is not necessarily the most informed person of that group. This person’s advocacy usually is an attempt to belong to something. Countering their argument is rather simple, just avoid playing by their rules. There are four main techniques in engaging these ideological salesmen.

The first technique is nonchalance.

This is where you listen to what they say and are indifferent to it.

Typical global warming advocate: We should save the environment utilizing “x” method.

Response: that’s nice

if you’re feeling more antagonistic you can use this:

Response: cool story bro

The second technique is asking questions.

This is a variation on the Socratic method. You just ask questions that could lead to sales men disagreeing with his own premise.

Typical feminist: We should enforce equality utilizing “x” method.

Response: What is your selective service number?

Response: Are men and women different?

Response: Has this method been tried before?

The third technique is war gaming.

This is where you play out their idea as if it’s actually been implemented.

Typical collectivist: We should have some sort of “x” economy to solve “z” problem.

Response: What would be the punishment for people that don’t comply with the system?

Response: What would your position be in this system?

Response: Would the system be sustainable in the face of the inherent selfish nature of people?

The fourth technique is being indifferent emotionally.

Some people trying to sway your opinion with emotional appeals. This is an attempt to circumvent logic and rational thought. By appealing to your empathy and/or aversion to hurting people, they seek to manipulate you. If you are indifferent emotionally, they cannot influence you.

Typical “victim”: I was the victim of “x” crime therefore you should acquiesce and agree with me.

Response: If you feel a crime has been committed, call the police.

Response: I don’t really care.

Response: Sucks to be you.


As you can see, these responses would throw a monkey wrench into these ideological sales pitches. The vacuous zombie that is spewing buzzwords will be confused by these methods. They would not have a reply to these response because they have not seen them before nor have been trained how to answer. To the rational outside observer, these responses will work to discredit whatever ideology is being pushed. In conclusion, it is best to do your own research to make any decisions. This is especially true with what ideology you follow and believe in. If you do choose to engage these “salespeople of salvation”, these methods will surely get them off their pitch and might actually cause them to question their own beliefs.

Read More: People Don’t Know Shit

279 thoughts on “Arguing With Dumb People”

        1. to make you all angry and to get a god laugh lol. also to confirm my other beliefs: a lot of men are genuinely stupid.

        2. not all men. just a lot of men, and all the man here who agree with this site. i’m smarter because i’m clearly more socially aware than all of you.

        3. What makes you think that you are smarter than the men on here? What makes you think you are socially aware than the men on here( who are doing something right if they get laid so much) ?

      1. sucks to be a man who looks to this website for guidance b/c all ladies irl hate him and is denial about this god awful thing and believe he’s gonna get his dick sucked. ya’ll need more than jesus.

        1. I had an ex named Diana and she refused to swallow. So what did I do? I began cumming on her face and making sure it got in here eyes/ears/hair so that cleanup would take forever (a couple times I did it right before she had to leave for work). Eventually she tried swallowing again, low and behold she began to prefer it as life was much easier to just “swallow the load”.
          So Diana, I will give you the same advice: when a guy does or says something you don’t like, just “swallow the load”. You’ll be happier in the end, cause right now you’ve got about 10 different loads on your face.

        2. that’s a classic story… i must try that… you should write an article…. anyway semen is good for a girl… all that testosterone and vitamins…. and the hard work that goes into milking it…… it shouldn’t be left to go to waste….

        3. i had an ex who had a small dick so when he took a photo of it and sent it to me in a text i sent it to all my friends and we all had a good chuckle. good times, first year of uni was the best.

    1. Substitute “butthurt” with “dumb” and you’re completely right. I guess after spending a sufficient amount of time polishing you ego inside the ROK bubble, it must be tough to learn that people on the outside don’t think you’re all that great, so I guess I understand these poor fellas 🙂
      what’s even more funny is that many of the negative comments on the “eating disorder” article came from MEN telling ROK the exact same thing as the women tried to: “you are a fucking Waste of Space”
      as for you ROK Guys, ask yourselves: if hundreds of people tell you the EXACT same thing, could it be that there’s actually some truth to if?

      1. Hundreds of thousands of people voted for “Derrick” Obama – twice. So I wouldn’t worry about the intelligence of the collective.

      2. Hundreds of thousands of people voted for “Derrick” Obama – twice. So I wouldn’t worry about the intelligence of the collective.

  1. Even if I appreciate good and enriching conversations I changed my viewpoint in terms of arguing with dumb people in the last few years. A few years back in time I always tried to convince a potential idiot and tried to tutor him or at least to make him realize that his opinions aren’t the most intelligent in the world.
    After a while I realized that more often than not it is senseless to try this. Many people will just react aggressive and refuse to open themselves up for any other opinions. That’s why I more and more appreciate the technique of nonchalance and emotional difference. I realized that my lifetime is too precious to waste it with idiots and dumb people.

    1. Also, trying to change people in that manner just gives them power over you as you become invested in that cause.

    2. ‘I realized that my lifetime is too precious to waste it with idiots and dumb people’.
      If only Aristotle had come to the same realisation; he could have saved himself the inconvenience of writing his treatise ‘Rhetoric’.

      1. Correct, but with a twist: educating people is the business of their parents and their teachers, the latter actually being paid to do it, not of the society at large.
        Society will generally throw one in jail and the other inmates will ‘educate’ him in there, should he misbehave. Aristotle was a king’s teacher, Alexander the Great’s, a university president (meaning an academic) and a school founder.
        If the dumb are not unfortunately retarded and, also, not educated enough maybe this should be pinned on their family and their teachers first.
        However, maybe the higher concern here is not whether one should bother arguing with the dumb or not – but the increase in dumbness in the general population.
        Studies claim that the average human individual of the modern Western civilization is dumber, less alert, weaker mentally and physically compared to the average individual of the ancient Greece. This means that, if correct, in aggregate, as a herd, our odds of long term survival (think many centuries) degrade over time. Even though life expectancy grows over short spans (think decades) this is irrelevant as weaker in aggregate means exactly this: weaker; lesser general survival rate.
        Nature weeds out the weak. Sometimes the whole species if 99% of its members are weak. Or too dumb. Even if one cool guy controls his temper, is emotionally detached, and does not bother talking to the other 99% dumb animals. He will still be ‘washed out’ by the fate of his herd.
        On a bright note, what it takes is at least 20 cool individuals, okay? Both sexes, unfortunately. To save the species. Genetics claims that the whole humankind originates from 20 non-weak very very very smart individuals who left Africa 65000 yrs ago.
        The article has solid merit. If at least a small number of individuals maintain their emotional control it helps. We keep doing business. My $0.02 add is that these individuals have to also be: outstanding. In every shape and form. Otherwise it’s revert to the faith of the average. And the other delicate option becomes to improve the average. To ‘de-dumbify’ the dumb.

      2. Rhetoric cannot change people? Tell it to the writers of the Torah, the Gospels, the Communist Manifesto, the Social Contract, the Second Treatise on Government, Wealth of Nations, et al.

    3. So what if i told you, sebastian. I view you as a imbecile and the author of this piece of shit article, as well. It reminds me of a time in my youth, when i was sitting in class listening to my classmates discuss how they discovered santa claus wasn’t real. My only thought was how could they believe such a stupid story to begin with. So I say, Enjoy your sad delusional life. I hope your stupiding treats you well.

  2. “People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don’t realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.”
    -Bill Watterson

  3. I like the second and third techniques a lot. Ironically, I use them a bit as a mediator during private meetings with disputants and their lawyers.

  4. I like the examples used for technique two. If a feminist says something like that, asking them to define “equality” is another good one.

    1. Equality is easily defined.
      The biggest problem with engaging a feminist on the natural differences between the genders is she will see you as an evil person whenever you rationally deny the myth that men and women are naturally equal. Most feminists religiously believe in myth that the gender differences in sexuality and psychology are caused by cultural.
      So I have found this question useful: “so you’re saying that we can tweak culture such that 20 year old men will come to be sexually attracted to overweight 80 year old women?”

  5. There are flaws with capitalism, as there are with well, everything. Yes, it sucks that companies can be swallowed up by larger ones. Yes, it sucks that a mom and pop store will probably close when a Wal-Mart or whatever moves in and can afford to sell what the mom and pop sells at lesser prices. But compared to the alternative-where that mom and pop store wouldn’t even exist in the first place because mom and pop would be told exactly what they were allowed to do with their life-capitalism is the best method for now.

    1. That’s the major myth libtards believe.
      All fortune 500 companies started as Mom & Pop stores. If companies don’t stay competitive then they will perish like Kodak and Blackberry.
      Capitalism works because everyone can pursue their definition of happiness, freedom and interest. It all ends up benefiting the end consumer since they have the power to choose where and whom to buy from.
      You can’t have freedom without economic freedom and private property.
      Wal-Mart and McDonald’s were quintessential mom & pop stores. The only flaw in capitalism is when government or socialism tries to intervene.

      1. Yes, and it’s actually the government that helps create the monopolies by creating huge bureaucracy and tax laws and so forth that only well established companies can effectively deal with… take the laws regarding online sales tax… amazon is able and even encouraging the govt. to put the laws in place… whereas small timers on ebay and places will be unable to deal with filing returns to 50+ states for a few sales they make there….

        1. But capitalism and consumer driven culture surely shapes people in important and not necessarily good ways. Just read an excellent article on this site about how porn affects sex-drive and the reward system. It’s hard to see the flaws when you’re already (as we all), subsumed

        2. we’re not in a real free market capitalist system.. we have a quasi capitalist system with a huge big brother socialist government imprinted over the top….. a good example that was closer to the real free market economy was America pre 1913 federal reserve…. and surprise surprise… post civil war 1865 to late 1920s when the disaster of federal government reared its ugly head for the first time America was truly the land of the free and full of opportunity and possibilities….it became the wealthiest and mightiest nation on earth and a place that everyone looked to… now America exists only in spirit in the hearts and minds of men…. The United States is just another broken socialist liberal nightmare collapse waiting to happen….give it a couple of decades and Americans are going to find that their world looks more like Latin America with all its decay and corruption….

      2. But capitalism and consumer driven culture surely shapes people in important and not necessarily good ways. Just read an excellent article on this site about how porn affects sex-drive and the reward system. It’s hard to see the flaws when you’re already (as we all), subsumed

        1. So you’re calling the average consumer or in this case an American a total moron that has no self control or decision making ability?
          Libtards have no concept of personal responsibility and moderation. You reap what you sow.
          “Hypocrite is someone who complains that there is porn on his computer”

        2. No, not at all (or British in my case): I think people have much agency and a responsibility to take things upon themselves and carve their own path, but I think it’s undeniable that society sets certain ultimate limits in terms of subjectivity. You would be highly unlikely to find a player in one of the many matriarchal tribal societies that existed in ancient history, for example. I agree that complaining about consumerism and then indulging in it is hypocritical, but I’m not complaining, I just think it’s good to constantly take a critical approach and acknowledge issues when they are found.

      3. Try this libertarian rejoinder about “voluntary” socialism. Tell the socialist, leftist hippie that “wow socialism sounds awesome why don’t you try to start a company that mirrors your belief system. Sounds like a real need…” . Socialism is fine as long as it’s voluntary. Coops, employee owned businesses etc. knock yourself out. Libs /lefties/marxist never want to put their $$$monies where there mouths are…

        1. I’m a liberal business owner. If you don’t know the difference between Liberalism, liberalism, and Marxism you have no business discussing politics.

        2. “Liberal business owner” is that even possible? It’s an oxymoron like “jumbo shrimp” . Most of the occutard fools did not have “real ” jobs. Oh they may go to work but their jobs are all govt tit jobs e.g thinktanks, advocacy groups, govt employees etc. Ironically a lot of these jobs are funded by former robber barons e.g Ford Foundation. So as a liberal business owner you pay everyone what, 80 bucks /hr with one month of paid vacation because some liberal academic theoretician mandates you do so??

        3. It’s typical of uneducated, working dolts like you to lack the capacity to understand why one is liberal and successful. In fact, if you would do some research, you’d soon discover that the more educated one becomes the more liberal one becomes — and the most successful, educated, wealthy groups in the US (Jews and Asians) are the most liberal.
          It’s always cute when a working bloke like you espouses the economic philosophy of a Mitt Romney.

        4. One final time — if you don’t know the difference between old Lockean Liberalism (very similar to libertarianism) and FDR liberalism (small L), you have no business discussing politics.

      4. Unregulated, unfettered capitalism emphatically does not work and history shows it. Laissez faire is a complete disaster.
        The belief that laissez faire capitalism works is just that — a belief — like the belief in magic, in shamans, or the belief that magic God men wearing special uniforms can bestow blessings with a waive of their hand.

        1. Utter crap. Go read ‘Wealth of Nations’ and Milton Friedman.
          Singapore, Hong Kong and China is kicking ass because of capitalism. More regulation leads to East Germany and France.
          That’s the beauty of true capitalism, the consumers will regulate the behavior of companies by shopping around and voting with their wallet. It’s only with government help aka socialism where state sanctioned monopolies exist.
          It’s called the invisible hand and people will barter and trade irregardless of what some technocrat thinks.
          Another libtard who believes the zero sum game myth.

        2. I’ve read Friedman and Smith. Libertarianism is like Communism — it looks great on paper, it seems sound in theory, it reads well in a book, but in the real world it doesn’t work.
          China? China has a centrally managed economy. It mixes Communism, socialism, strong central authority, and capitalism — and the most successful and happy nations mix capitalism and socialism,
          Singapore? Singapore is a tyranny where you get prison time for smoking weed.
          “That’s the beauty of true capitalism, the consumers will regulate the behavior of companies by shopping around and voting with their wallet.”
          That doesn’t work. We tried that and it failed miserably. There was a day when we didn’t have federal regulation of our markets and federal oversight over the work place, when there was no FDA, OSHA, DEA, etc. It failed miserably. Even Allen Greenspan (follower of Ayn Rand) admitted self regulation doesn’t work and that he was wrong.

          As for the “libtard” remark . . . I’m sorry for you that you’ve demonstrated your emotional irrationality by name calling. Debate the facts with evidence and reason like a man.

        3. Well go reread it again, because you clearly didn’t comprehend it to think Friedman as a Libertarian. He is a conservative free market capitalist like Thatcher.
          China has a “centrally managed economy” on paper. They are the most entrepreneur and business friendly country along with Hong Kong and Singapore. You must have never done business there or know that they are killing it in Africa and will dominate the next 100 years.
          Again stop confusing economic policy with governmental policy. Singapore is competitive economically because of free market capitalism. What’s wrong with having minimal drug trafficking and users btw? Singapore is one of the best places to live and raise a family.
          Capitalism always work better than command economy dictated by Socialist Marxist Libtards. Just ask any former soviet countries how much better their living standards are to what it was under Soviet rule.
          Drug war is a failure, We have massive obesity. Union funded pensions bankrupting the country. What success are you talking about?
          Allen Greenspan like most academics live in their ivory tower and have no real life experience. Only a moron would listen to any of these idiots.

    2. That’s not capitalism, that’s the corruption in Washington that creates bigbox favors, subsidiaries, regulations that slaughter the little guy, deals with China. Capitalism and free markets work just fine even with the corrupt obstacles we have to deal with, only the liberals make it harder every year as they hate small business since it has no lobby dollars to spend.

  6. The whole Occupy thing showed a lack of intelligence and rational thinking from the beginning. When you get a bunch of 20- and 30-something guys together who announce to the world their loser status, that just invited men with better run lives to mock and humiliate them, not to “empathize” with them. They might as well have put signs on their bodies saying “Adult Virgin.”
    The commodities traders in Chicago had a good response to the losers in the Occupy camp in front of their building:

    1. Be careful where you go with this. Misfortune can happen to anyone: job losses, illness, divorce, bankruptcy, etc. It’s always a joke when it happens to someone else.
      Let’s see how funsy-wunsy it is when you yourself get beaten up by life, tough guy. Which you will. And then maybe you’ll reflect on how you treated others less fortunate than you.

      1. Doesn’t change the fact that the Occupy movement were a bunch of useless dumbasses.
        If they have time to stand around holding a sign, they bloody well have time to get a job and work. I’ve never met anyone who truly wanted a job and couldn’t find one. Jobs are everywhere.
        Occupy was a loser movement and it wouldn’t be a loss if they were all gunned down.

        1. I agree with that. The Occupy movement was a bunch of useless morons. They shout about how evil the 1% is, then play on their iPad/iPhone/macbook/whatever. That being said, the message was not totally wrong. There is a very unequal distribution of wealth in this country. We are rapidly becoming a country of rich and poor.
          If you want work, you can find work. It may not be what you want or what you’re qualified for, but you can find it.

        2. The thing is, we shouldn’t be in this situation. We really do have previous generations to blame, in some aspects.
          I live in Southern US, and down here every generation does better. Parents always leave land and houses to the kids. My friends in their 40s and 50s all have property and homes paid off or nearly paid off, which will go to their children. This gives the next generation a huge head start.
          Elsewhere in the country, or seems common for parents to blow all their money and sell their possessions in retirement so they can travel and live it up, leaving the kids to build from scratch.
          That’s where people are fucking up. That’s why this generation is destitute.
          My Father owned 12 acres of property and 2 very nice homes. I already bought one estate from him, and will get the other when he passes. That’s how things should be done. Too many people are fucking their kids over so they can enjoy their twilight years.
          Just my opinion.

        3. I agree with the Swiss 12/1 plan. No employee at a company should make more in a month than another employee makes in a year. Though I’d be fine with a 24/1 plan personally. When you see CEO’s pulling in 100 times what a rank and file employee is pulling in, that’s ludicrous to me.

        4. It wasn’t. I’ve read several articles when the Occupy movement happened.The average person involved in the rallies here in NYC paid around $2500 per month in rent. Even for NY that’s bloody high. We live in a better system than most of the world – that’s true, but you can’t deny that its rotten at its core and that is why the rest of the (western) world is also suffering…they are all hooked to the US dollar. Enjoy whatever is left while it all lasts.

        5. In the’s closer to 200-300x the average worker’s salary… I was part of the Occupy movement. Not a loser, live in Hoboken, NJ, work a white collar job, supported myself since college. But that is besides the point. For me the movement was about bringing attention to the rampant corruption in our gov’t, particularly the incestuous relationship between the financial markets/the regulators (e.g. the SEC), and the government. Where the regulated become the regulators devising loophole after loophole which benefits those with access to them to the detriment of everyone else. It’s about everyone playing by the same rules. If I defraud someone I go to jail, if JPM defrauds someone they pay some fine that’s a pittance compared to what they looted and C-Suite execs who are canned for show get a 7 or 8 figure job at another firm with 7 and 8 figure bonuses… and somehow this is a partisan issue? Left/middle/right should not play a part in this.

        6. Are you really springing the old man, “get a job!!,” argument under an article extolling the virtues of facts, logic, evidence, and reason? lol

        7. The average person involved in the rallies here in NYC paid around $2500 per month in rent. Even for NY that’s bloody high.
          did someone force them at gunpoint to live in a neighborhood where rent was $2500 a month? there are plenty of decent neighborhoods in nyc where rent is half that or even less.

        8. sounds like communism to me….
          the CEO needs an incentive to build a corporation and success is measured by profits.. money being a description of pure energy….
          how can the guy that unloads trucks in the loading dock and never has to worry about anything more than some boxes and banking his pay check…. be worth a fixed ratio to the guy at the top pulling 100 hour weeks, eating sleeping and pissing his job, hardly ever seeing his family and constantly engaging and driving to build the company larger…. soon he can have 1000 guys unloading boxes from trucks can’t he now ?

        9. so go work for JPM, instead of sitting in a cubicle…. its a free world… and it’s probably not as corrupt as your liberal armchair socialist weener buddies think it is….

        10. If you thought about that sentence that you had me quoted on then you wouldn’t have responded at all. Obviously you did and proved my point. The point being that the average occupier was not a “loser” at all since they had a hefty rent to pay and a job/business to pay it with.

      2. I didn’t take you for an armchair socialist QC…. there is certainly the law that who lives by the sword dies by the sword, but perhaps you never heard of the Rockefeller plaza or Carnegie Hall etc… wealthy people are often very active at putting back into their community, whereas losers just take out and demand more… the whole equal rights feminist thing, is a spin off from the equality of socialism and communism… it’s all part of the same lie….. You get on with life, you take the rough with the smooth and you build your own contingencies for bad times….. life doesn’t beat you up, it throws you lessons and you either learn from them, or whine like a bitch.
        The ex CEO of Kelloggs who became GW’s attorney general started out selling cornflakes on a hand cart in Mexico City… if he can do it anyone can.

    2. i trade commodities…. commodities traders that take counter party risk are THE most important component in a fluid, liquid and efficient market. If no one is trading the market other than producers and consumers, then you have lower volume, lower liquidity and therefore large spreads on transactions (buy and sell price has a big gap… used cars for example)… you can also find massive price spikes and crashes as there is no one to take counter party risk in bad times or gluts…..
      What is bad about the market is a few huge sharks gobbling up the market and operating in cahoots with each other to manipulate the price. This does happen especially in commodities…
      But like they say… the market is only manipulated if you are on the losing side of the trade….

  7. Asking questions and staying calm and composed while your opponent gets more and more worked up and ends up raging has proven itself an excellent tactic.
    If you’re unaffected while they scream and bitch, you won.

  8. I don’t care what the proles say, do or think. I’m completely indifferent and barely even notice them. Most of you are young and are sort of pretending to be indifferent but when you’re older you really don’t care and are not pretending anymore. If I hear something stupid I’ve already forgot it 5 seconds later. I don’t in the least care what females say or think, it’s just the same crap they all think anyway. I used to think that a lot of old guys were hard of hearing but in reality they’re just ignoring you. There was study to test old guys hearing and apparently these guys had normal hearing, they were just ignoring their wives childish chatter and became immune to it. (it was the wives who thought they couldn’t hear well lol) Well anyway that’s how you’ll be when you’re older-indifferent. You won’t care about even the hottest girl because like a train another one will come along. The things that you think are major now in the future you will barely even notice.

      1. You can get down on your knees kid and kiss a boomers foot because everything you have today they gave you. If you think you’re an omega boy today you’d be a complete nonentity before the boomers gave you life and that nice pc you have where you can at least bs with other omegas. And any problems you may have were caused by your lower class whore mothers, not the boomers. Blame MLK and those other con artists who got you freedom that you didn’t have the brains or discipline to handle. Only intelligent people can handle freedom without turning into complete animals and losers.

        1. Wrong generation sir…I will kiss the foot of the generation before you i.e. “the greatest generation” who we are all living in the shadow of

        2. The “greatest generation” is a myth. Who do you think raised the baby boomers, genius?
          The vast majority of the “greatest generation” were not in the freaking trenches at Iwo Jima, they were back here swallowing FDR’s’s swill and voting for him like lemmings jumping off a cliff. Even the soldiers were pretty much politically retarded, they had just been taught to follow orders. Brave? Perhaps. Intelligent, especially in political matters? Hardly. They came back here and basically followed the philosophies they had learned during the war.
          Do your own research and stop swallowing the swill that the culture feeds you. Which generation do you think it was that began to institute the “Dr. Spock” method of childrearing?
          Go look all of this stuff up before you talk about the subject again. Be informed.

        3. Like all little boys you’re only able to see people your own age and then a group of the “old” people which is like everyone over 25.You couldn’t tell the difference between a 40yo and a 60yo because to your tiny immature brain they’re all just old.
          Now, you want to see some pics of fat fugly Gen Y tattooed sluts?The only kind you’re ever likely to shag. At least the old guy in the pic had a slim girl when he was your age.
          And just to make you feel better, did you know that the projected life expectancy of Gen Y geeks like yourself is going to be less than the Boomers. Yeah, with all of the advances made in medicine you’re life will be shorter which means that old age for you may begin in your 30’s. Your females look older at a young age than any girls who have gone before.
          Have a nice day :o)

        4. The Boomers were not only a very large group but it also covered a wide range in years. They don’t care what Gen X and Y kiddies think because they have all the money and you can forget that SS and Medicare money because they’re going to spend it all for health related items, like cruises for their health, spas, longevity treatment and drugs, plastic surgery and sex therapists lol

        5. You know your problem little boy? Like all children you hate your parents and think your grandparents are great because they spoil you while your parents have the hard job of trying to civilise you. And that so called greatest generation were just beaten men who were kids in the 30’s depression and the only thing that saved them from being complete nonentities was WWII. They all ran to enlist just to get 3 hots and a cot and to get away and have some excitement even if it was only peeling potatoes in the army.

        6. Yeah, these Gen Y kids are morons. And let me just add that communism was really big in the 30’s in the US. Most of what you see in the 60’s was the work of the so called “greatest generation” and not the Boomers. The Boomers would have been too young to do anything anyway and in 1967 would have ranged in age from 3 to 18.

        7. Aw bless, the old faggot only has ad-hominems and personal attacks.
          Is name-calling like an insipid child all you have? Because that entire response was just you shouting a bunch of insults and then claiming victory.
          For someone who doesn’t care, you sure seem dedicated to replying and trying to get the last word.

        8. Sez the guy with the handle “BoomersGreatestGen”….
          If you have to say you are the greatest generation well…
          Sorta like the former Idaho senator Larry “toe tapper/widestance” Craig proclaiming “I am not gay”…

  9. In the end the unintelligent don’t even care which argument is superior, and it becomes a full out battle of wit. Even if you disprove them entirely, they don’t care. The only solution is non-chalance and butting heads until you break theough their weak mind frames.

    1. Liberals only want to gain favor with observers to their opinion. They seek to in-group themselves. If you argue with them in such a way that it is obvious (to them) that they have been out-grouped by whatever position they have taken, they will buckle every time.

  10. Not that anyone asked…..
    Step 1: Identification
    Look at the person who wish to approach, paying attention to cues such as race, clothing, attitude, gender, age, culture (Demographics) as well as context (the environment), and if you are really good, paying attention to how he sees you.
    Step 2: Rapport
    When you first make contact, you are, by definition, allies, even if in truth, you are not. Find something he cares about, based on Step 1, and begin to express solidarity with his cause. If he is an Occupier, emphasize Student Debt, a Tea Partier, emphasize frustration with Occupy, a liberal democrat, frustration with the democratic party, etc….
    Step 3: Direction
    Choose a specific direction you want to make the debate. Don’t do something vague like, “Taxes are bad, m’kay,” but something more specific like, “I am concerned that they are taxing US when we can afford it least.”
    Step 4: Revelation
    The person will respond in a manner that contradicts you, and if he didn’t, then you failed in step 3, and need to find a new direction. Once he begins to dispute you, you must agree with disputitation at face value, and invent a new narrative that “overwrites” his old narrative, that he can also relate to in the real world.
    Step 5: Achieve
    The final step, is that once you made your point, you need to STFU and immediately change topic to something light. It isn’t your job to figure it out for him, he has to, and if you are indecisive, then the narrative will become lost.
    Occupy: We need to provide a job for everyone, a job is a right!
    You: Exactly! We ought to teach people crafts the right things so that they can assert their right to a job!
    Occupy: *Begins a moment of cognitive dissonance* Right, I worked hard with my degree, I didn’t get anything.
    You: Man, me too. College was a waste, perhaps we should encourage society to code.
    Occupy: *Further Dissonance….* Well I think that other crafts should be encouraged too
    You: Exactly! We should encourage more Wall Street Banking! (Colbert Response) I mean, those guys make a lot of money
    Occupy: *Laughs*
    You: So what’s your name? (Change Topic)
    Jovian Arts are simple once you learn it, and its far easier to change a man’s mind then it is to seduce a woman. However, you have to be REALLY smart to play politics, which is why the masses almost always fail.

  11. I stopped worrying about society’s problems and focusing on my own long ago. It makes the desire to argue disappear almost entirely. If anyone pushes me I just tell them I’m not into politics; it’s just worthless drama that doesn’t affect my life.

    1. That might open up another can of bullshit with them calling you out on how you should be. When I get caught listening to an idiotic political stance, I nod and remain silent as to give them the impression that their ideals are accepted. Let them keep believing in their bluepill fantasy.

  12. I find it highly ironic that in an article entitled “Arguing With Dumb People” you made several elementary grammatical errors. In honor of this, I followed the very advice you dished out:
    Technique 1- Nonchalance
    I am nonchalant about the fact that a “writer” (I am using this term very loosely here) would publish an article with basic errors. Cool punctuation use, bro.
    Technique 2- Asking questions
    Did you fail basic English in the third grade and beyond? Were you being careless? Do you really not know how to use apostrophes and the plural form?
    Technique 3- War gaming
    Maybe we should live in a world where dumb people can write about taking down dumb people without it being judged.
    Technique 3- Being indifferent emotionally
    It must really suck to be you…I mean that wholeheartedly.

    1. hey Bob… ROK needs a proof reader, since you take so much pride in correcting mistakes we’ll be happy to take you on… the pay is $0 per hour….

    2. Dude, if you are going to be pedantic about grammar, you should probably make sure you can at least count to 4.

    3. Yes, The irony of that post is unbelievable. Not only the poor writing, but also the fact that the author labels every person WHO was disgusted by the “eating disorder” article dumb.
      If hunrdres of people, both men and women, thinks your articles sucks, it may be because it does.

    1. wow… this is basically the science of game…. be non threatening, so that a non competitive brained animal will do as it’s told… it’s much like training a horse or dog…. if you are too heavy handed it will just get scared and react…. if you are too soft it will walk all over you….

      1. Right, so which came first, Game or r/K selection theory? 🙂 I would offer that the Game masters have accidentally stumbled onto the basic truth of the rs vs the Ks and their differing amygdala development. The more you read and learn at the Anonymous Conservative the more sense it all makes. And of course the better prepared you are to deal with people they way you want rather than letting them or the situation control you. Really good stuff. Glad you like it, please share it widely!!

        1. yeah… reading more on the website… this is the science behind game…. and certainly a person can develop more K type with practice and enhance their amygdala….
          it’s amazing to see the amount of great science and philosophy hitting the wires and encouraging to see it as an under ground movement… it’s like the cafes of 19th Century Paris all over again….
          as much as society is degenerating, the wise males are fighting back with groundbreaking concepts…..
          are you involved with the website… ? perhaps you can put your articles on ROK ?

        2. Nice compliment and I will pass it onto AC. I am not involved with his site other than being a very enthusiastic follower. My main activity other than taunting feminists for fun (i.e. practicing AC techniques) online is fighting gun control. The gun control guys are actually a lot like Game guys. Manly men, not super interested in working with or compromsing with Liberals especially in regards to giving up their rights for the “greater good” (as defined by the Liberals, of course.) There are a lot of parallels. I have generally found that both camps seem to have a core group who really latch onto ACs message. His desire is to find a way to get his ideas broadcast widely and these two groups seem to me the obvious ones to work on first. As you point out : “society is degenerating”. Who will be the ones to lead us back to prosperity? The men of course! Where else will you find large groups of manly masculine men than Game sites and pro2A sites? I rest my case.

        3. Just a follow up I did pass on your compliments to AC, directed him to the site to review the most recent articles and their commensurate comments (in all their glory) and suggested he reach out to the site admin for a guest posting. I agree with you, it would be great to see some of ACs stuff here as it would be very synergistic to the current content.

  13. Roosh, you should post an article “5 reasons NOT to date a girl with an eating disorder” and see which one pisses them off more.

  14. ‘Arguing With Dumb People’…is basically the people who write these sexist, pathetic dumb articles. Kind of a dramatic irony because they just don’t see it?

      1. not quite…. Unless Anon has an entire website devoted to promoting a controversial ideology via emotional arguments and paper-thin appeals to nature, then posts an article criticizing people who are blinded by ideology to the point where they can’t recognize the flaws in their own reasoning.
        That would be some Alanis Morissette shit.

      1. I am not implying women are dumb, nor males or whatever a person classes themselves as. We should NOT be singling ANYONE out as a class.

        1. So different groups of people never share characteristics? I should not prepare any differently if I walk through a poor rural neighborhood at night, compared to walking through inner city Chicago even at daytime?
          You do realize that it is possible to see people as individuals and give any particular person as much of a chance as they deserve to prove themselves while also recognizing that groups do often meet their stereotypes? Come on. It’s possible to be intelligent.

        2. So different groups of people never share characteristics? I should not prepare any differently if I walk through a poor rural neighborhood at night, compared to walking through inner city Chicago even at daytime?
          You do realize that it is possible to see people as individuals and give any particular person as much of a chance as they deserve to prove themselves while also recognizing that groups do often meet their stereotypes? Come on. It’s possible to be intelligent.

    1. Yet you continue to read the articles. That would be like me repeatedly watching mainstream liberal news channels just so I could shout at the TV in disagreement until I lost my voice. Puzzling…

  15. The particular bunch that draw me into debates are all in a twitter about income inequity. I keep pointing out that what really matters is that standard of living – which is rising rapidly almost everywhere for almost everyone – is what really matters, and the income inequity that they’re so concerned about is produced by the same engine – capitalism and free trade – that’s floating all of the boats. They stare blankly and say “but…but…but…it’s not FAIR!”

    1. Notice that progressives don’t pester wealthy people who donate to Democrat politicians about “inequality.” Or about their lack of “diversity,” either. Demographically speaking, Hollywood and Silicon Valley look radically unlike the rest of California.

      1. Wow. Is there a phrenology section on that site as well?
        What an incredibly terrible mis-use of evolutionary biology.

  16. The word “people” forms an irregular plural possessive, as it’s already a plural itself. So the first sentence of your third paragraph should say people’s, not peoples’.

    1. That’s great.
      There are quite a few articles on RoK, maybe you could go through them all and jot down all the grammatical errors you find in them for us. It is something you clearly enjoy, and by the time you’ve compiled them all into one response someone might give a shit.

  17. “Typical feminist: We should enforce equality utilizing “x” method.
    Response: What is your selective service number?”

  18. I don’t care in the least about ‘winning’ arguments. I care about my beliefs reflecting the truth. I’m constantly trying to change my beliefs to better reflect the truth. That’s why I became red-pill.
    Winning arguments isn’t important; winning in life is important, and you’re not going to be able to do that by arguing with a bunch of dumbasses why feminism is stupid.

  19. There’s a vast amount of research into this:
    A 30 IQ point difference is where true communication ceases to exist between two parties, though it starts breaking down at only 15 IQ points. Lower IQ hears ranting insanity from the higher, Higher IQ hears mental retardation from the lower.
    A smarter person cannot reason with the dumber one. Facts and logic are useless, because their mind is physically-incapable of understanding the concepts involved in higher thinking that instantly reveal the flaws in dumber thinking.
    Mental retardation therefore exists on a sliding scale dependent on the higher IQ in the exchange. “Educated” university students in liberal arts (100-120 at best) vastly-overestimate their intelligence and arrogantly assume they’re the smarter person in every argument. This results in ‘Worse than hitler!’ and ‘wow… just wow’ being used as valid points in an arguement by people who use consistently-misuse ‘actual’ yet jump on any spelling or grammar error as evidence that all logically-constructed arguements within a post with a misplaced apostrophe can be safely discarded.
    Don’t your waste time. They’re feeble-minded.
    Social media is their natural habitat. It offers nothing of value for the truly intelligent.

    1. As a man with an IQ of 137 and a BA in Film and Media Production I just have to say… You’re absolutely right, I totally fucking regret not doing a proper subject and learning something that would have helped me get a real job.
      Rock on RoK! You’re helping me salvage what is left of my 20’s, after years of very poor choices. Thanks.

      1. university is a waste of time, don’t worry… you can use your education and real life experience to do something….. anything you want…. success is a product of NOT GIVING UP…. a professional is just an amateur that has failed many times before….

      2. Congratulations on picking a vocational degree in a rapidly-demonitized field due to:
        1) tech conglomerates thinking of your ability in terms of providing ’emotional content’, and, as such can be equally-performed by a random person with an I-Phone filming their cat throwing up;
        2) an entitled consumer base with voracious appetite for content who believes the concept of copyright and paying for content is an outdated notion;
        3) the film industry struggling with the public not taking to the Blu-Ray format like it did with DVD, (most likely coupled with increased bandwith allowing easier pirating of the format), thereby cutting into the ongoing-profitability of releases, to the extent that the business is rapidly-shifting towards a tentpole-and-nothing else model, leading to respected directors like Spielberg and Scorsese no longer being able to get funding for smaller movies aimed at adults and voicing their fears for their creative future;
        4) the increased piracy and delayed viewing cutting into the ratings and profitability of television shows, to the extent the head of HBO has to publically beg an entire country not to pirate ‘Game Of Thrones’, baiting the hook by promising ‘more money for dragons’.
        The business is changing, and once the advertising dollars realise they get a better return via the internet, patronising musicial groups, (read up on how Pitchfork Media highlights bands with pre-arranged advertising supporters), and inserting product placement into video games, traditional media will struggle and your degree will be worthless.
        Rock on, Random Snarker! Please check in with me at 40 and let me know how your 30’s went for you.

        1. If you’d bothered to read his comment you’d have seen he already regrets majoring in film and knows how worthless his degree is.

    2. Americans need more education in the liberal arts, as Americans are embarrassingly ignorant. Liberal arts are a solid, necessary foundation for the professions (essentially, job training), to create an educated elite capable of critical thinking. The biggest problem with, say, engineers is engineering education hardly exposes the students to liberal arts — which is why engineers are so often simplistic, shallow thinkers unable to grasp the complexity of politics, economics, and law.
      It’s perhaps why so many engineers adopt the simple, failed libertarian economic outlook.

      1. it’s hard to say that libertarian ideas have failed when they’ve never been tried properly… you mean liberal or libertarian it’s two different things…. liberalism is clearly a failure…

        1. Liberalism as practiced from 1933 to 1980 was the most successful economic and political ideology in history. It succeeded overwhelmingly — and it was certainly grossly more successful than the libertarian economic philosophy it supplanted.
          Yes, pure libertarianism has never been applied in history (which makes rational people wonder why anyone would blindly have faith in it?), but we can examine the US economy when it was more or less libertarian and more or less liberal — and the liberal side clearly wins. It’s not even close.

        2. Liberalism is a political ideology not an economic ideology.
          Also it’s democracy combined with capitalism not liberalism that made America great.
          You just proved that free market capitalism works.
          Market economy > Command economy

        3. Liberalism (not classical Liberalism of Adam Smith and John Locke) includes economic theories (stolen mostly from Keynes), theories as to constitutional interpretation (living document vs originalism or textualism), federalism (favoring like Hamilton a strong centralized government), market regulation, expansive reading of the Constitution (eg, commerce clause), etc.
          The US is not and never has been a democracy. The US is a constitutional federated republic. Democracy is a really bad form of government and works only with small populations covering a very small geographic scope — think the small Greek polis.
          “Market economy > Command economy”
          Emotionally charged bumper sticker slogans never solve economic problems.

        4. So how is Keynes working out for the USA? Government spending has created massive inflation and pressure for QE infinity.
          The government as an entity will never be able to meet the needs and wants of the individual, hence why free market capitalism combined with Austrian economics is ideal.
          US is a techno-plutocratic inverted totalitarian state since the military industrial complex took over in the 40s.
          Agreed democracy is only good on paper. It requires a well informed citizenry that is engaged politically.
          Liberalism & Keynesian is known to never solve macro & micro economic problems.

        5. “So how is Keynes working out for the USA?”
          Not sure. I merely stated as fact that liberals early in the last Century adopted his economic theories.
          “The government as an entity will never be able to meet the needs and wants of the individual,”
          I don’t know anyone (other than a few crazy Communists) who think the government meet the needs and wants of individuals. But I’m not a Communist so you’re arguing with a ghost. The government meets some needs and wants, others must be addressed by the market.
          “US is a techno-plutocratic inverted totalitarian state since the military industrial complex took over in the 40s.”
          I’ll agree somewhat. Although, clearly, the US is no where near as tyrannical as, say, the USSR or Nazi Germany. As for the MIC, I am 100% in agreement and I wonder what our public debt would be were it not for our ridiculous military spending and our milti-trillion dollar unnecessary wars?
          “Liberalism & Keynesian is known to never solve macro & micro economic problems.”
          These were applied during the most prosperous period in US history — 1933 to 1980. If liberalism and Keynesian economics were a disaster, then one would expect the great liberal period of 1933 to 1980 to have been a complete failure marred by economic depravity.

        6. The only safe guard thats keeping the balance of power in check is the second amendment.
          “Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao
          Military spending is part of it, but as you can see the welfare state and inflation or COGs adjusted pensions are going to bankrupt the country along with medicare/medicaid.
          I recommend you watch Milton Friedman’s lecture on myths that conceal reality and the role of government in a free society to understand how wrong Keynesian is and actually hindered recovery.

        7. I’m not for unnecessary wars and the MIC but the driver for our trillion dollar debt and future spending is entitlements….

        8. “drivers”? WTF does that mean.
          There is cause and effect. “Drivers” is a weak word that seeks passive aggressively to bypass cause and effect.
          The military sucks up half of our tax dollars. Any household that uses half of it’s income for alarms and guns I would say is crazy.

        9. “drivers”? WTF does that mean.
          There is cause and effect. “Drivers” is a weak word that seeks passive aggressively to bypass cause and effect.
          The military sucks up half of our tax dollars. Any household that uses half of it’s income for alarms and guns I would say is crazy.

        10. The Second Amendment is the most useless amendment. Guns don’t make us free.
          If guns made us free and safe, America would be the most free and crime free nation in the world. Yet, America has the highest rate of private firearm ownership in the world, but Murrika has little freedom and one of the highest violent crime rates in the world.
          Obviously, guns make us neither free nor safe. Gun clingers are nearly always those middle aged, pot bellied blokes dominated at home by a wife, dominated at work by a boss.
          “Military spending is part of it, but as you can see the welfare state and inflation or COGs adjusted pensions are going to bankrupt the country along with medicare/medicaid.”
          A civilized people takes care of the least among us. Chest thumping mamma’s boys think otherwise. At any rate, the debt is not a problem.
          Milton Friedman? Why would you buy into an economic theory that has failed throughout history? Libertarianism is like Communism — it looks great on paper, but in the real world it’s a disaster.

        11. If it was useless, why did the founding fathers include it?
          Ben Shapiro destroys your gun arguments

          Milton Friedman destroys your economic argument.

          His policy was tested in Lativa and worked. What disaster do you speak of?
          Stop resorting to Ad hominem attacks. Quite pathetic.

        12. “Drivers” was not meant to connote people who drive cars silly. Drivers was meant to mean “cause” or “things that propel”. Anyways the old chestnut about the military being the cause of our debt simply isn’t true. USA spends 650 billion on defense annually. This should be cut drastically and we should avoid all unnecessary wars ( duh). Entitlement are what will bury us. Social security +medicare alone ,if not reformed, could consume the entire federal budget . CBO/GAO estimates that future obligations from Social Security alone are between100 to 200 trillion.

        13. You’ve fallen to the military budget fraud. You need to examine the military spending that goes outside the DOD budget — eg, service on the debt for past wars, veterans affairs, maintaining nuclear arsenal, homeland security. When it adds up, military spending sucks nearly half of all federal revenue. It’s really disgusting.
          Social security is not an entitlement. People pay into the system.

        14. That’s a naive view of the world. America after 1945 faced a world in ruins. Europe was one big crater. Russia was suffering under madmen. China was undergoing its own civil war and ideological “cleansing”. America came out of WW2 unscathed and open for business.

        15. “At any rate, the debt is not a problem.”
          What? Debt is a big problem when used recklessly. Debt has a role in producing economic bubbles, as it makes it easier to bid up the price of assets. Debt is not just measured in money, but also in time. When you rack up debt you saying that are willing to work in the future for the pleasures of today. This means that, you will be working for free (in the future) if you rack up debt on useless crap or assets that depreciate in value.

        16. I feel like I’m repeating myself. The US federal government has been in debt since 1789. Debt is good for the economy. This was proven long ago.
          And the personal debt to government debt is an invalid analogy — it’s homespun, folksy, and it gets the backwoods dolts riled. But it’s an invalid analogy,

        17. First, Murika was hardly unscathed. In another post you argued debt causes economic ruin — in 1945 the US debt to GDP was near 150% and it wasn’t until the late 1950s that the debt to GDP declined to a point where it is today.
          Second, the world was not in ruins for ever. For your theory to work, the world must have been in ruins until 1980.
          Third, you’re discounting the government spending that built industry (via war spending) and the infrastructure. So at the end of the war, industry simply retooled for domestic business. That was perhaps the best example as to why government spending works.

        18. “I feel like I’m repeating myself.”
          Then state your argument more succinctly.
          “The US federal government has been in debt since 1789. Debt is good for the economy. This was proven long ago.”
          Nobody is denying the first point. The second point is iffy and requires more support.
          “And the personal debt to government debt is an invalid analogy — it’s homespun, folksy, and it gets the backwoods dolts riled. But it’s an invalid analogy.”
          There is nothing invalid about stating a nation has conducted bad book keeping. The nation =/= the government. The government has the privilege to extort taxes from its citizens or have the federal bank buy its treasuries. However, I was referring to a nation (consisting of individuals) using excessive debt to fuel their lifestyles. The government doesn’t have to even come into the picture.

        19. “The second point is iffy and requires more support.”
          It works like this. The government goes into debt spending on an economy — building infrastructure and the foundations of industry. This requires great foresight and businesses aren’t willing to pool their money for such a long term investment — especially where most corporations report profits quarterly. For instance, during WW-II, our government spent ferociously on infrastructure and industry. The unintended consequence was the economic base built through government spending. This was the base that served our economic boom of 1950 to 1980.
          Sorry, but libertarianism, while looking great on paper like Marxism, doesn’t work in the real world.
          “There is nothing invalid about stating a nation has conducted bad book keeping.”
          This may shock you — but government debt is different in these two respects: 1) the government doesn’t really pay it back and 2) the world economy is dependent upon the debt of the US government (T-bonds).
          “The government has the privilege to extort taxes from its citizens”
          Taxes are never extorted. You’re free to leave. That’s like saying a restaurant extorts money from me when I’m free to leave the restaurant without using their services.
          “using excessive debt to fuel their lifestyles.”
          The question is whether, after a drastic economic downturn and two decade-long wars , a debt to GDP of 72% is excessive.
          As I said in my earlier example, this would be like a man making $100,000.00 per year but being $72,000.00 in debt. It’s not ideal, but it’s not bad. If you made $100K per year, would you think it excessive to get a $72K mortgage on a home?

        20. Friedman’s ideas look great on paper, in a book, or in a speech.
          The problem is that his policies fail in the real world. So what do you want? A fairy tale or the truth?

        21. “In another post you argued debt causes economic ruin.”
          Do they teach you to be dishonest in a typical liberal arts program? What I said was: “Debt is a big problem when used recklessly”, which is different from ‘debt is a problem’. Using debt to purchase the means of production is smart. Using debt to purchase cheap Chinese consumer goods isn’t so smart – especially when it results in a trade deficit.
          “So at the end of the war, industry simply retooled for domestic business. That was perhaps the best example as to why government spending works.”
          So why didn’t Europe, Russia, and China just retool and compete with America?

        22. “Do they teach you to be dishonest in a typical liberal arts program? What I said was: “Debt is a big problem when used recklessly””
          No. I was taught that in engineering. At any rate, you would think a debt to GDP of 150% would be reckless, no?
          “Using debt to purchase the means of production is smart. Using debt to purchase cheap Chinese consumer goods isn’t so smart – especially when it results in a trade deficit.”
          I agree.
          “So why didn’t Europe, Russia, and China just retool and compete with America?”
          I’ve already admitted the US had a de facto industrial monopoly for the first few years after WW-II. And we must also remember that during those first years after the war our exporting was limited because the people of those ruined nations couldn’t purchase our products.

        23. “At any rate, you would think a debt to GDP of 150% would be reckless, no?”
          That depends. Does the nation have a strong production base? Are the people willing to cut luxuries to be able to easily pay off their debt? Yes to both, then the debt is manageable. If no, then it’s a problem.

        24. You’re more reasonable and moderate than I initially judged.
          “Does the nation have a strong production base?”
          We have a poor wage base and that is the problem.
          “Are the people willing to cut luxuries to be able to easily pay off their debt?”
          That’s a question of national household savings and I would agree that our poor average household savings is a problem. Government debt is a different matter.

        25. The “libertarian” period, say 1840-1933, saw the greatest flowering of human achievement in the history of the world. EVERYTHING you consider the modern world was invented in this period. Once the “liberal” stranglehold was fully applied in 1933, inventions fell to nothing other than during the war. Anything since the war has been merely refinements of existing inventions.

      2. Liberal arts can be learned on your own in your spare time. Waste of time to go to university and you will be spared the indoctrination…
        Other than STEM I think college is a fraud.

        1. To learn liberal arts properly, one needs a professional.
          And liberal arts are the best foundation for an educated elite. But being an elite isn’t for everyone. A nation needs ditch diggers, road construction workers, sewer workers, and technicians and other engineers.
          Only in the backwoods Murrika are the liberal arts poo pooed. In the civilized nations, being well read is a mark of distinction. In Murrika, it’s considered opprobrious — perhaps why so many Murrikans believe in angels and Noah’s ark.

        2. The world has changed since the 1600’s. We don’t live in a world where the most technical invention is the steam engine. The new liberal arts degree is a major in pure math or physics, because we live in a world governed by brainpower and computers.
          Liberal arts majors are nothing special. I would trust someone who favours efficiency and utility, over someone who argues about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

        3. You have typical Murikan bizz cut, pickup truck, six-pack Joe understanding of it.
          If we live in a world governed by computers, shouldn’t students be studying computers and electrical engineering instead of math and physics?
          Three’s nothing wrong with job training. In fact it’s necessary. We need doctors, lawyers, and PhD’s. But liberal arts as a foundation education produce a comprehensive thinking being. I don’t know anyone who discusses angels on a pin — other than a few wackos who believe in goblins and angels. In fact, there was a poll not long ago in which CEO overwhelmingly preferred their employees to have base liberal arts education.

        4. “If we live in a world governed by computers, shouldn’t students be studying computers and electrical engineering instead of math and physics?”
          Both math and physics majors have to learn some form of computer programming, to be able to do their computations. I don’t know about math; but, I do know that some physicists have to cobble together their own equipment to run their experiments, which requires engineering knowledge.

        5. So you’re saying it’s important to study computers as part of one’s education. I would agree. And neither classes in physics nor math enable one to better understand computers.

  20. As I’ve gotten older, it’s become obvious that life it short to waste time on dumb people. I’d rather use that same time otherwise wasted on the dumb and ignorant on becoming even more informed of the truth and sharpening my own thought prepossess, powers of observation, and abilities to come to correct conclusions regarding the world around me. It helps to solidify my philosophy and always provides me an intellectual challenge. It keeps me young. And, on the rare occasion someone earnestly questions me to seek the truth, I can answer confidently with real hard facts and case studies to back up my positions.
    Ignorance is bliss. Truth is a bitch! Since most people seek the easy way, the simplistic explanation, and the broad road, I’m not going to stand in their way any longer. In my youth and immaturity I tried in vein to persuade the dumb to think and figure shit out and understand facts and reality over feelings and rhetoric. Now I just let the ostriches stick their heads in the sand.

  21. I like the photo of the guy with $25,000 in student loans. What did he study? What is his degree? Probably a Liberal Arts degree that has no bearing on business or industry. Is it any wonder he can’t get a good paying job? Go to college to become a doctor (Md, not PhD) or to a highly technical STEM field college. Well, now that Obamacare is here you can nevermind the Md degree – no money in that anymore.

  22. This website contains 1000 times more actual fact and reason than Jezebel or any other idiot feminists on the internet. I think it’s ridiculous that they are getting so mad about this website. I’ve read quite a few of the articles and I’ve only disagreed with a few things, and I wasn’t offended because I know they apply to most women. The only reason they don’t apply to me is that I’m aware and try to change my behavior when I know it’s unreasonable, which is a thing that many women would never consider because they’re so full of themselves.

    1. Absolutely. Good on you. It is a damn shame how many women in this country there are that are so mentally backwards, and provide nothing of value to the people around them, emotionally or otherwise. Just a living, breathing, walking vortex of negative energy.

    2. You know most women? Wooooow… That’s like, 1.5 billion people!
      You must be popular.
      Also, I don’t remember seeing any facts in this article. *re-read* Nope – no facts. It’s about how to win an argument – NOT how to be correct, use facts properly, be logically sound, have an open mind in a debate or be a decent person.
      If you find any of that on this godforsaken corner or the internet, please let me know.

      1. Lol ever heard of a survey? It’s assuming something based on a segment of the population. Maybe you need to also reread my comment since your comprehension level seems to be low. I never said that this article in particular had any facts, I said this website contains way more facts than Jezebel and I stand by that. Also there are more than 3 billion women on the earth so your garbage reply doesn’t even make sense. I don’t know if you’re a feminist cunt or one of those puppies who follows them around spewing self hatred but either way I’m sorry you have to be you.

        1. ooh you did a survey? can I see? I loove surveys!
          also “most women” would be greater-than or equal-to half of half of the earths population (that’s one quarter, little miss math genius), but I rounded down because 1.75 looks awkward and I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Clearly that was a mistake, because you live in a world of “us and them.” Speaking of dogs, do you see in black + white?
          Also big bad Jezebel actually takes the time to cite sources. So, the fact checking round goes to…?

        2. Oh and rounding down is a great excuse for being wrong, I’ll have to use that, wait, I’m not a feminist so I admit when I get something wrong.

        3. Terribly sorry that I didn’t read my own comment from beginning to end, however you were still wrong about the number and won’t admit it but gave a pussy excuse. Also you know I was talking about the idea of a survey, and your attitude won’t help you win arguments because it just makes you look like an insecure jerk(go ahead judge me for using the word jerk) I’m done talking to you, not worth typing on this little screen cause you’re useless

        4. All that I would need is a good sample of a cross section of females to make a generalisation. But as a female you can’t understand generalisations and always think that the exception proves something lol

      2. Wow I saw you start typing seven minutes ago and I just came back to my iPad to see that you’re still going at it, think hard but don’t strain you brain!

        1. Lol you probably will get laid because many women are idiot feminists who want pussy self hating men like you

        2. Lol I start with lol because you’re laughable, and you are an idiot and ridiculing my writing isn’t going to change that.

        3. Lol I start with lol because you’re laughable, and you are an idiot and ridiculing my writing isn’t going to change that.

    3. Ignore the fools, remember you don’t have to respond to every idiotic comment they make. They want validation and you give them that by responding to them. Ignore them and they shrivel. Plan your moves, have a strategy.

      1. thanks yeah I’m starting to realize that, it’s not like I ever get anything out of the conversations(if you can call them that) except anger. I’ve only recently discovered how dumb most feminists are cause I haven’t had a computer in years. I will follow your advice though, or not engage them period.

        1. The better solution is to engage but disassociate your emotions from the discussion. Sometimes taking a little breather after someone has posted something to you, thinking about what they said, why you find fault with it then calmly delivering that information in an emotion-free, logical way. Just a suggestion.

  23. “Typical feminist: We should enforce equality utilizing “x” method.
    Response: What is your selective service number?”
    It never seems to occur to you that maybe most of these feminists want to promote equality by GETTING RID OF SELECTIVE SERVICE ALTOGETHER? Or at least, that’s what most people I know think should be done. But you all seem to think the only options are that women should want to be part of it themselves, or that they think it should stay male-only…
    Also, even if she does believe Selective Service should apply to women, she wouldn’t have a Selective Service number since it currently doesn’t. So rather than ask if she believes Selective Service should be gender-neutral, you ask “what is your number” knowing that there is only one possible answer (she doesn’t have one) and since this answer will prove her opinion is wrong, it doesn’t even matter what her opinion is. You’ve proven her wrong without even having to hear it.

  24. Thomas Sowell once said that most arguments of the left can be defeated by three questions. “Compared to what?” “At what cost?” “What hard evidence do you have?”

  25. So… Your solution is pretty much to not engage in any kind of debate? Because “cool story bro” is not an argument, it’s just a way of avoiding discussion. And I’m not saying it’s wrong, I don’t feel like debating stuff all the time either, but it’s certainly no way of “winning” a debate.

    1. Not engaging in discussion is winning the debate – Think Fat Tony vs. Socrates in antifragile. Someone with the most exact knowledge can still lose a debate, if the opposing party is unwilling to conform and the crowd sides with them.
      The essence (IMO) of this article is to advise men to argue issues on their own terms.

      1. Engaging in discussion with dumb people and their false premises only serves to validate what they have to say. The very best way to not validate them is to change the game from theirs to yours. “Conservatives will argue within the bounds of honesty and honor, to find logical truth, while Liberals will argue in a less rule governed
        fashion, simply to acquire followers, and create consensus around their views – in essence validating them through public acceptance. This difference in purposes during debate can be exploited, if you understand it.”

        1. “Conservatives will argue within the bounds of honesty and honor, to find logical truth, while Liberals will argue in a less rule governed fashion, simply to acquire followers, and create consensus around their views – in essence validating them through public acceptance.”
          Exceptions: conservapedia, redstate, most pro-life organizations, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, the American Family Association*, the Westboro Baptist Church, Pat Robertson, Antonin Scalia, Noam Chomsky, Richard Dworkin, Bruce Ackerman, Ruth Bader Ginsberg…
          Actually, wait, that quote is absolute bullshit. Show a reputable source that methodically categorizes argumentative techniques before spewing out more of this groupthink “my side is more honorable and pure and intellectual” nonsense.
          *edit – not “American Family Institute”

        2. If I were a liberal, or attempting to gain followers you might have a point. If there were established “rules” that this site operated under, or if you conducted your own arguments “honorably,” then you might have a point. I assume you are honest, in that you honestly believe pseudo-science like that espoused on A/C.
          For the record I did read the A/C article with an open mind, willing to accept that biology and political disposition are correlated (as studies at Stanford suggest), but the conclusions are absurdly near-sighted and make gross assumptions about biology, neuroscience and behavior for no other purpose than to confirm an already held belief.

        3. Perhaps we should stop creating false premises and attempting to amass public support for our position and instead make a quantifiable objection to the application of r/K selection in evolutionary biology to the current two party political system? The topic (minus all your false premise) was: r/K selection theory is crap and applying it to our political system is stupid. Trying to introduce a new topic to an existing debate could be considered an evasion. Which is typical r behavior.

        4. Perhaps we should stop creating false premises and attempting to amass public support for our position and instead make a quantifiable objection to the application of r/K selection in evolutionary biology to the current two party political system? The topic (minus all your false premise) was: r/K selection theory is crap and applying it to our political system is stupid. Trying to introduce a new topic to an existing debate could be considered an evasion. Which is typical r behavior.

        5. A/C’s r/K selection theory is new, and has only really gained traction in the -sphere. Like all new theories, looking to carve new ground, there will be backlash.
          “For the record I did read the A/C article with an open mind.”
          That’s just a cop-out. I could argue that I read A/C’s article with a “more” open mind and was convinced.

        6. That’s a similar argument raised by atheists: that atheists have a 6 point IQ advantage over fundamentalist Christians.
          The Republican Brain, by Chris Mooney, goes into this topic in detail – from a Liberal perspective. (Interesting in the sense that it’s good to have prior knowledge of Liberal talking points.) The most enlightening point of the book is when he talks about a Right-wing man who is extremely intelligent – Mooney tackles the issue as if treading on eggshells. You can almost sense fear radiating out from his writing, because Mooney couldn’t understand how such a smart man could hold such mean beliefs. It was if the very existence of this man refutes his entire thesis and he knows it.

        7. I have read the study.
          An initial explanation: individuals “think” more conservatively when forced to make decisions based on limited cognitive resources, because they are running on their genetic “programming”. Man’s natural conservative nature takes hold and guides individuals to survive the increased work load.
          However, I could flip that study back onto a Liberal antagonist. Liberal beliefs are afforded to those who are not under the pressures of survival. That our genetic heritage is one of tribalism and “conservative” beliefs. That Liberalism is a modern off-shoot that doesn’t reflect man’s past.

  26. Gents,
    I don’t argue with “dumb people” any more. I just hand out my free ebooks that link to my back catalog of more than 200 videos. Someone wants to listen to me? Knock themselves out.
    Arguing with western women is a complete waste of time. I know. I tried. They will not listen. They are evil people with evil in their hearts. They do not care about men at all. So you are well advised to stop even trying to talk to them. Just denounce them.
    Now…You men might be interested to know that I actually consider the average western man to be MUCH “dumber” than the average western woman.
    Why? Well men have a 17% larger skull with 9x more grey matter in it on average. That gives the average man about a 10x advantage in grey matter, right? Give or take a bit for the size of a mans head and the amount of grey matter he has.
    So western women not wishing to learn anything new and not wishing to understand the difference between legislation and law is quite forgivable. It is like asking a 386 to render graphics….very hard work…and it will be maxed out and maybe burn out, right? It is much harder work for women to make it to the same level as men intellectually. Can you blame women for using men when it is so much easier to just get a man to do what they want done? I mean how many times has each of us seen a woman use a man to get what she wants? Duh?! Like our whole lives, right? And I am 50.
    But MEN? They have i7s for brains and won’t use them. And in my opinion someone who has something that is of value to them, like grey matter in abundance, who will not use it is “dumber” than someone who does not have similar capacity to use. Feel free to offer a contrary opinion.
    Now. Western men keep telling me how smart they are, how well informed they are, blah, blah, blah. Really? If men are so smart and so well informed why don’t they actually demonstrate that to me? Why to they TELL ME how smart they are and now SHOW ME how smart they are, eh?
    I have been waiting some years to see some demonstrations of intelligence and well informedness by men. Only a very few have done so. Why?
    So..before you men start bashing women and their mangina lackeys for being “dumb”? The first thing you are well advised to do is compare yourselves to guys like me or Robert Hay. And if you compare yourselves with men like me and Robert Hay? You might just notice how well, or otherwise, you stack up on the “dumb” scale. Most of you will not stack up very well. Take the opportunity to learn….or not.
    Sooner or later? Men are going to make the “wonderous discovery” that “legislation is not law” and that you can “rescind your consent to be governed”. Something that I proved 4 years ago in my court meeting of 2009-11-26. The only such video of its kind in the world.
    I am happy to report that my court room video has been getting some downloads these last few days as we come up on the 4th anniversary of what is easily the most significant event ever in the area of “mens rights”.
    Yes. You heard that correctly. This court room video and what it represents is EASILY the most significant event EVER in what you call “mens rights”. And it has been studiously ignored by the vast majority of you “oh so intelligent men” out there.
    If you men are so intelligent? Why is it that there has not been ONE other man IN THE WORLD replicate my achievement on this video? After all? When the 4 minute mile was broken? When Everest was conquered? The SECOND man to achieve the milestone quickly followed. But not my court room video.
    How many times in human history has the FIRST man to achieve something managed to hold that achievement unchallenged for FOUR YEARS by any other man in the world? Not that often, right?
    Gents. This video has been on YT in one form or another for 3 years now. The Australian guvmint has worked very hard to get it taken down and they can’t. They just block it into Australia. If you men actually bothered to learn what is going on in this video? Feminism would be a thing of the past to you. But you won’t bother to learn. So feminism still affects you.
    Who, exactly, is “dumb”? Hhhmm?
    Robert Hays site.

  27. Gents,
    War dead : 98% men
    Workplace dead: 93% men
    Incarcerated: 90% men
    Homeless: 90% men
    Alimony payers: 99% men (does anyone other than britney spears pay alimony to a man?)
    Child support payers: 99% men
    Number of feminist groups campaigning to “end the oppression of the patriarchy for the under representation of women” in these 6 categories. ZERO.
    I have been posting that for FIVE YEARS.
    I have still yet to have a woman explain to me what they mean by “equality” needing to be “enforced by legislation” to “end discrimination” when it comes to these 6 categories.
    As far as I am concerned? Until the HISTORICAL WAR DEAD is 50/50 women can not claim “equality”.
    When I was a teen, 35 years ago, girls would say “we want equality”. Because 35 years ago there were still a lot of WW II vets around I would say
    “If you want equality the first thing you should do is sign up for the armed services and serve as front line troops until the historical war dead is 50/50. When the number of war dead is 50/50 over all of human history? Then you can claim equality, and not before.
    I think the starting number should be about 200 million women war dead. That might be low. But let us say that is a start. So, after we have 200 million women killed in wars, with however many more are injured, I will concede women have earned the right to be called “equal” to men. And not one minute before.”
    Of course, I was called a male chauvenist pig for pointing out that women were not 50% of the historical war dead.
    Now? 35 years later? I have not changed my position one bit. If women want to be called MY EQUAL then they have to be the descendents of 50% of the war dead. And they have to be willing to put their life on the line for others just exactly as I have done. I put my life on the line to go make my court room video. I fully expected to be killed for making it. I made my peace.
    So for a woman to claim to be my equal, or even a man for that matter, she has to have ACTUALLY DONE what I have done…..actions speak louder than words….talk is cheap…etc, etc, etc.

  28. Very interesting topic and article!
    Because so much of my time is spent collecting data on owls and the other birds I study, I often forget what it’s like to encounter people whose identities are formed by the consumerist herd mentality of modern society, as the author wrote.
    I have one criticism, though, which is that it seems to make even more sense to just not respond to any of those typical statements. None of the typical statements are even complete thoughts.
    I understand that this article is predicated on the fact that the people making these statements are uninformed and unintelligent people, but what’s even more important is engaging and responding to thorough arguments (presumably made by intelligent individuals who at least express complete thoughts) where the conclusion is unfounded and potentially harmful.
    As some of you may already know, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has an experimental plan intended to recover the Spotted Owl which will involve shooting 3,603 Barred Owls in four test locations in the Pacific Northwest. The FWS has a 434-page document outlining all of the research that supposedly supports such action. But as many on this site may already suspect, the feds are not always the best at scientifically collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. Some of my colleagues are currently involved in altering the Spotted Owl recovery plan, and it’s not an easy task.

  29. “Typical global warming advocate: We should save the environment utilizing “x” method.
    Response: that’s nice
    if you’re feeling more antagonistic you can use this:
    Response: cool story bro”
    That’s very phony and will come off as phony – as, you care but pretending not to. Be a man and address your friend directly. Pat him on the back and say, “I’d rather not talk politics with ya, bro.” Your first technique is very passive aggressive – ie, very feminine.
    “Typical collectivist: We should have some sort of “x” economy to solve “z” problem.
    Response: What would be the punishment for people that don’t comply with the system?”
    Punishment is what is meted out in a criminal court.
    “Response: What would your position be in this system?”
    “Response: Would the system be sustainable in the face of the inherent selfish nature of people?”
    Evolutionary psychologists and biologists find humans have evolved to be both selfish and altruistic.
    Finally, if you hate collectivism, then you must hate the US military – the most socialist, collectivist Big Government program in history.

  30. The first two paragraphs were difficult to read through the cloud of oblivious irony.
    Anyone else have that problem?

  31. When feminists think that the reason that you stopped responding to them is because they’ve “won” I just smile 🙂

  32. “That is not what I said, and it is not what I mean.”
    This is my standard answer when people misunderstand me on purpose.

  33. Yeah it’s getting old. I’ll likely still check, but I’m not going to reply to any more retards I may get.

  34. danie Damien Johnson
    • 30 minutes ago

    almost every rape perpetrator is male. fucking read a book for once damien retard johnson. you’re probs a rapist.

  35. Indifference is not a technique of rational argument. You should know, considering you purport to be such an expert.
    That said, the Socratic method and the war gaming strategy are wonderful tools. I am an analytic philosophy (read: symbolic logic) student who made in the 99th percentile on the LSAT (2/3 of which tests your analytic/logical reasoning, 1/3 of which tests your reading comprehension). I work in proofs all the time, and my fallacy-dar is very keen. I think asking people questions about their beliefs is the best way to show them where their arguments are weak or wrong.
    I use those methods all the time with people who for some reason still believe in laissez-faire capitalism, despite its entrenched logical flaws and all the empirical evidence against it. They always get angry, resort to ad hominem, and then eventually realize they are defeated. It’s wonderful.

    1. A+. I realize this is a ridiculously late reply, but what the hell; i just came across this article.
      I agree, there are more advanced techniques, but they require more study and effort. I’m ashamed to admit I didn’t get it first time through. I scrolled back up and then… wait a minute… My only consolation is that apparently no one else picked up on it.

  36. lol, I was once approached in the street by a 40-something female communist hippy.
    I was walking down the street with my dad and my brother at the time.
    Hippy: Hello, Would you like to support our campaign for the redistribution of wealth?
    Me: (amused/confused) No
    I gave her the crazy look and walked off. She said nothing

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *