Mainstream media members and social justice warriors everywhere remain outraged. Everything Donald Trump does, or says, is under constant scrutiny by people with unearned moral superiority. Whether it’s ditching the press pool for a steak, or criticizing a highly overrated broadway play, even the most monotonous tasks are receiving front page coverage. While criticism of Trump is expected, the mainstream media is crying wolf far too often.
Unsurprisingly, we’ve seen a boon of snowflakes that are shocked, appalled and offended by everything that the president elect says. Twitter, which is a breeding ground for social justice warriors due to their censorship of differentiating opinions, is running rampant with overly sensitive SJWs and incredulous mainstream media members.
— Anne T. Donahue (@annetdonahue) November 18, 2016
@maggieNYT Anyone know if impeachment proceedings can commence prior to swearing in? I’m serious https://t.co/X6ZVEUd9Mj
— imnoonespecial (@upserny) November 21, 2016
Hillary Clinton’s defeat has had a powerful impact on women worldwide https://t.co/7zZH1o5pGF via @NewsweekEurope #2016election
— Elvira Medved (@EliMelielie) November 13, 2016
We should avoid meaningless confrontation with people who can’t be swayed, however, the reality of the matter is that at some point, you may be entrenched in a debate with someone on the left. Rather than not preparing, you should arm yourself with the debate techniques required to defeat a leftist in a debate, maintain your image, while destroying their argument as much as is possible. By channeling historical, and contemporary sources, as well as my own experiences, let’s dive into the techniques that we should use to win an argument against a leftist nut.
Remember: the goal isn’t to sway your opposition – it’s to influence the observers. Chances are that your leftist opponent won’t vaciliate no matter how logical and reasonable your premise is. Lefties will shun your facts.
Equal Moral Grounds
When you debate a leftist, they’ll attempt to distract you by assaulting your character with unwarranted, baseless claims. Being labeled a racist, misogynist, bigot, or white nationalist are just a few of the many buzzwords that will be pelted your way. It’s worth mentioning that you should have thick skin – don’t flinch, nor be affected by the insipid, vacuous insults.
The problem inherent with debating a leftist, is that they will pull the “racist” card. Once you’re called a racist, you aren’t left with many options. You can’t retort with facts, because according to the them (the leftist/observers), you have yet to address the racist accusations. While some pragmatic observers may see what game the leftist is playing, most will not. It’s important to note, that before you begin to put forth your argument, you should ensure that the debate takes place equal moral grounds.
You may feel the urge to throw slanderous accusations back at them, but it won’t progress the debate, and you’ll come off just as craven as them. What you want to do, is come off as calm and composed. Don’t retort with “I’m not racist” because you’re essentially proving that you value their point, and feel it a point worthwhile of rejection. You want to inform them that you won’t continue the debate so long as he/she continue to slander you with unfounded claims.
“This debate won’t progress any further if you keep slandering me with false, baseless, erroneous claims. When you stop with the ad hominem rhetoric, we can continue and attempt to advance the discussion”
What this does, is put the leftist into a position where they only have two options.
1. They call you a racist again. In this case, they lost the debate. They prove to you observers that they were never interested in a serious debate, and that it wasn’t worth your time anyways. The snowflake will then retreat back to their safe space.
2. You’re asked to explain your point further. From here, you can have a civil debate – at least for a little while, until something triggers your opposition (as is likely).
The left is slowly beginning to realize that identity politics don’t work anymore.
Reframe
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), is a German philosopher who wrote a book called ‘The Art of Controversy‘, in which he details 38 stratagems for dealing with controversy; arguments, debates, insults, etc. I recommend that any man read the entire book – his stratagems are extremely effective in a debate.
One of the most useful techniques he suggests, is the use of a reframe. Listen to what your opposition says, then reframe and attack his or her premise from a different position.
“Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite difference sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted” Schopenhauer, 3rd stratagem
“Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.” Schopenhauer, 6th stratagem
A modern example of these stratagems in the context of a debate with a leftist would be on gun control. Suppose you’re debating a leftist who parrots typical mainstream media balderdash and asks you why you don’t want to ban assault rifles – another concocted term. Instead of retorting “No, I don’t want to ban assault rifles”, a proper retort would be to attack their argument from a different angle. They’re pressuring you on assault rifles, but where’s the consistency? Ask them why don’t propose a ban on all guns – including handguns, since they are ‘responsible’ for more deaths each year. The key here is to find inconsistencies in their arguments, and with leftists it’s not hard to do.
Whether you like him or not, Ben Shapiro is an excellent and dare I say it – perhaps the best debater currently in the political sphere. He has yet to turn down a debate, and when he does debate someone, he normally eviscerates them. He’s a conservative, who has said that he personally aligns most closely, policy-wise, to Ted Cruz, so while he doesn’t share all of the same views that we in the manosphere do, he holds a lot of the same principles – small government, immigration reform, and a realist regarding Islamism.
During June 2016, entrenched in a Politicon debate on institutional racism against a leftist lesbian named Sally Kohn, Shapiro applied the above principles beautifully. Below is the video, and instead of me quoting the entire piece, check out his article, in which an excerpt plus analysis on this debate is available.
Pressure Them
Once you’ve created an equal moral footing, which I admit, is difficult – leftists are exposed. The entire foundation on which they stand has been toppled, leaving them naked and open to attack. To do this, you need simply question them about specific policies, stats, and further rock their foundation. Leftists absolutely hate answering questions, since their entire arsenal lies in character assassination. Ask numerous questions, which while undoubtedly catch them off-guard, as most leftists only practice moral rhetoric.
Returning to Schopenhauer:
“State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions. By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the opponent’s admissions” Schopenhauer, 7th stratagem
Socrates is another famous philosopher that is known for this method of winning an argument. Socratic questioning involves asking a lot of questions, which creates a situation in which both parties are thinking about their premises rather than expressing their exaggerated opinions. It’s idealistic to think that a leftist will think calmly, and logically, but again, your goal in debating a leftist isn’t to convince them; it’s to convince the audience.
Conclusion
While it’s not ideal to become entrenched in a debate with leftists due to the fact that they will castigate you for no reason whatsoever, with the election of Trump, there’s a high probability that you will be forced to face a leftist foe eventually. Should you be unprepared, your ill-conceived responses would incite further slander. It’s best to think of leftists like a woman. Emotional, irrational, but they can be disarmed – with a combination of techniques such as the ones listed above. It takes practice. You won’t slay leftists overnight. The most important piece of advice I can give, is to do your research, and don’t talk about subjects which you know nothing about.
Read more: Why The Overton Window Is The Key To Defeating Leftists
First one should avoid debating leftists: they got nothing to offer in 99% of the case and they are close to dialogue, so not being able to learn from them anything or sway them there is no reason to debate them.
The danger that one might face from professional, master trolls in real-life are, for the time being, too big to risk it. If one wants to learn something from the modern left about it he should better read the open society and it’s enemies by Karl Popper, the book is horrid but it gives the needed insight. In short there is no reason debating these people, as they either monologue in duckspeak or try to get at you.
If one is forced however he needs to know what is written here and further search for what he must do if and when SJWs and leftists attack.
this is a really good point. I don’t know why people are out there debating shit? Are they professional politicians? No? Are the professional academics? No? Ok, fine, then read, think, write essays and when you are out and about in the world and run into people just talk about the fucking weather.
on the net it is called shitposting, but in general we people of European descent we have an innate need to test and showcase each other’s intelligence. This is the reason we have developed philosophy and even science, while Asians on the other hand valued more tact, precision and repentance, through a strong memory, we preferred novelty etc.
From the 1000 things one may do it is a way to pass time. Needless to say today culture is quite against all these in the West and I can point out that the average conversation in cafe’s here is…
… What one did the other day they were in a cafe. You start to take the idea why all these were developed in the first place. I should also add that during the schism people used to converse on the filioque in Byzantine barbershops, today on the rack of the hot blonde they won’t bong…
this is fair enough, but I would think that writing carefully thought out articles and posting them for either peer review amongst people you know and respect or blind review on the internet would be more …. I don’t know….useful than what essentially just turns into a “yes it is!” “no it isn’t!” argument.
You debate because stupid shit becomes mainstream. Someone has to say something. For me, I feel like people have been living under a liberal fog under obama. The man called Trump a member of the KKK with no evidence, He goes off to an all black event/conferences and tells his tribe that he would be racially offended if they didn’t vote for him. This is our leader of our nation doing this rotten racist stuff. Its disgusting.
Which tells you all you need to know. They have nothing left in the tank but vapid insults and empty threats? You’ve won.
Laugh in the face and mock their weakness.
If you heard one leftist state his case, you’ve heard them all. At least it has been my experience these last 25 years. The dogma doesn’t allow them to deviate from the narrative much.
When neither party has access to the facts of a
given subject, debate is impossible. And
guess what – in matters of politics and world affairs, the facts are very
rarely available.
So what do people do? They parrot sound bytes and talking points supplied to them by “their team”. Might as well be reciting margarine commercials to each other…
I’d rather see more people expressing a genuine interest and intellectual curiosity in each other, their IDEAS, activities and interests.
…and you can trace 90% of it back to one of the following:
NPR
RawStory
Huffington Post.
I don’t know about you, but I like my bullshit FRESH, not second-hand.
The internet is impersonal. This means that one is not forced to answer or say anything lengthy for debating, in general most things are simply I agree or not, hence the need for the upvote/downvote functions. Books and articles are again impersonal but can see from a peer a review, in general though thoughts are shaped by:
a)dialogue: two people exchange ideas and influence one another, if not then we are talking about two monologues.
b)Real-life experience: x happens which contradicts y so x replaces y, if one fails to do so he suffers from delusion
c)Books: to be fair besides information that may or may not be correct good works also teach you how to think. The needed attention span though makes them unnattainable for most people.
d)Public Orations: when one is intelligent and the orator charismatic he can learn a lot but for the most part this remains highly passive so that most people may take a note or two.
Needless to say the first is the most important because if learned one does not need to fail or make false thoughts that need to be refuted by experience that may or may not happen. Plus dialogue has a very high dynamic, so many people might watch dialogues for entertainment alone. Consider Tomas Aquinas style of writing, characteristic of the time, he starts by the a contrary position and proves it, then disproves it and then points the rebuttal which is his position and explains it. Plato used to something similar in some of his dialogues.
That mentioned dynamic of dialogue is what it has one gets challenged and has to defend his thesis so it is more interesting. Also one needs to be witty and think fast and correctly, this proves him to be able to hold his composure when bad things happen as with dialogue one is time constraint.
Books are tools and they demand good use from their owner and also are limited to the ability of the author and his conception of the world and his writing capability.
Public oration (here in a wide sense) is too passive and people might lose interest and remember it only by the fragments they heard when still awake.
Whew… my thump feels funny now after this typing.
Actually the facts aren’t necessary they need to appear real and trust no one fact checks because it is too time demanding. Politics are about two things, normally, strategy and wit. You don’t lose your composure and you make the best possible decisions for your country, note that I did not refer to modern democratic type politics (I ‘m a monarchist), the reason is that these politics are more entertainment for the masses with little substance… even if the situation demands it. Today politicians mostly virtue signal and also remember most people might have ideas and opinions but lack ideals, so their thoughts correspond to simple things like: work, food, money etc. Socialism is like: no work for money so food. Or Capitalism: work so money so products etc. With this context it is obvious that modern politics are only a bargaining between voting blocks and politicians who only want, for the most part, to retain their posts for money.
I’ll do you one better. Those websites? The bulk of their cutting edge material is regurgitated from the SPLC. By the time it gets to you, it’s changed hands so many times and had so much “analysis” attached…
wot’s SPLC?
https://www.splcenter.org/
Only one of the leading epicenters of progressive thought. These guys can find racism in breakfast cereal.
Forgive me but I forgot to point why facts aren’t necessary: For most of history they couldn’t be found easily or they were untrustworthy, reasoning them is more important than presenting them as they might also be there for deceiving. Today we also face the problem of trustworthiness and the problem of finding is also in existence: you may find trifles easily and effortlessly but important things… this is a whole different story. Also, sometimes even reasoning them and going to imprecise conclusions sometimes might be better for designing one’s strategy as he might be correct on judging another’s plan better etc. For example people who were hysterical against Clinton for no reason and believing her unelectable due to her being a woman still would have guessed correctly even by luck rather than admitting that this was her main trait.
Debating online isn’t necessary – in fact I caution against it. In saying that, the fight against free speech will not wane, if the average person sits idly by. It’s about having your voice heard, defending your positions, and awakening others.
Secondly, facts are not necessary, no. But it is important, as a furtherance of yourself, that if you are interested in xyz, you have facts to back up your views, claims etc.
You match the other person. If they’re being logical and rational then you should debate in a logical and rational manner. If they’re being all in your face SJW, then you get in theirs with aggression.
+ daily dot
marxist thought police who draw up lists of haters
Damn white grains! We need more colored grains in our cereals!
And equal opportunity for breads! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/be171de9d7bfad2fdd712aae2441e0a9ffdccffae884b01808cd851b086267e2.jpg
F-ing Nazi bread!
Well, that explains why it looks burnt.
They do help (only on the personal level, though), but they should appear probable, there are cases in debates in which the non-factual wins for sounding more plausible. Most people also care for emotions and inclusion they disregard facts, hence the fact that still people cannot acknowledge the situation we are in, even if it starts to be horrid.
For online debate no one could phrase it better, hence why it is called shitposting!
And in fruitbats and large chu.
Absolutely. I think the left won the culture war by default because conservatives were usually too busy working, staying out of trouble, etc. There’s a reason why freedom of speech is in the first amendment: It’s that important and the reason why tyrants first seek to seize the newspapers and radio stations and put out state propaganda. After they control the discussions that are accepted, the minds of the people follow.
I’m an old timer and I remember when the term “political correctness” first came out against the left. They hated it because it was an invective that could be used against them and it was all the things they liked about names they called the right: It was clever, it couldn’t be easily fought against (the more they railed that political correctness didn’t exist, the more it sounded like denial of political correctness was politically correct)
In Sweden, it’s even forbidden to use the term “political correctness” so they instead say “opinion corridor” which is basically a narrow road of thought that they are allowed to engage in. And of course, that term is now strictly verboten. Discussing the thought police is against the law! 🙂 First rule of fight club… 😉
Until about Y2K, the left was in control of nearly all avenues of mainstream thought with conservatives in the back of the bus at home quietly conspiring over BBQ’s or perhaps listening to talk radio. They are freaked out that there’s a place, the internet, where people can freely express ideas! What “fascism!” they’ll proclaim: That people dare to disagree with them!
So now, they’re becoming like snowflakes filling out coloring books and touching comfort animals in the hopes of not breaking down over Trump’s election. Oh, the mighty beatniks of the 50’s have fallen oh so far… for the days when Hippies could take a head cracking and keep it up!
For me, simply getting under someone’s skin and identifying their motives (they get to feel smart, for example) and illustrate that their agenda is not going to work (even if they want to deny it) is sufficient even if they don’t concede openly.
Note that the average leftist doesn’t care about actually creating affordable healthcare for the poor, for example, but rather being “cool” and smart and claiming to build a utopian republic and having their candidates win, at all costs. They love the party and being a member of the party. This is why the Trump victory was so disheartening for them.
headlights on cars are always white… we need more black and brown headlights…
After 5 yrs I resigned from my office work and I never felt this good… I started doing a job on-line, for a company I stumbled upon on-line, several hours /a day, and my income now is much bigger then it was on my last job… Pay-check i got for last month was for Nine thousand bucks… The best thing about this work is that now i have more free time with my kids…
http://chilp.it/728813e
We’ve ‘won’? The left basically owns academia and all our cultural institutions, and we’ve ‘won’? What planet are you on?
Replace ‘progressive’ with ‘radical leftist’ and you’ve got it right.
Facts are necessary when they can be used in a way to defeat your opponent.
Look at the state of those institutions. They are exposed and hollowed and everyone knows it.
you would prefer they were sheep?
I prefer to stay apathetic to the notions of ideas of lesser mortals
can they not become greater mortals? If they have the capacity to debate, why should that not improve them?
Don’t ask me why. Most people seem pretty fucking dumb to me. Unless I get a pretty hefty pay check to do so, don’t look st me to try and change that
sure, not you’re responsibility, but surely people questioning things is going to produce fewer fucking dumb people that people who don’t interrogate the world they live in. You are effectively working to (re-)produce the world that irritates you so much
You would think that it would but I find the opposite is true. People asking questions seems to be producing even dumber people because all they have to do is go on line and find other idiots who have answers that make them feel happy and special and then take those answers to be from the mouth of god himself.
I don’t mind the world so very much but it doesn’t take a Ben Matlock or Alfred Einstein to realize that people are just better off left to their delusions
most people if not all, can be educated to think more critically, ask better questions, and interrogate the world more thoroughly. I sometimes think yours is less a cynical point of view than a despairing one. There can still be boundaries
I would almost agree but I don’t feel despair. I don’t even feel cynical. Just realistic. I don’t feel everyone can or even should be educated
to me that’s like saying not everyone can or should eat or drink. Doesn’t mean the same diet suits everyone, or comparable results are possible, but that there is benefit both for the individual and society if we make the effort. Failure to do that will make of us so many morlocks and eloi. Or if we already are that, then make us more of the former than the latter
Yep. Dummies dont get brains by arguing with other dummies. Smart people are smart. Smart people dont argue with dummies.
….
Who is alfred?
You’re such a fraud it’s not surprising that only the teenagers on this site fall for your shiit. And it’s funny that you said you were this tough guy when it’s blatantly obvious you are not. Fell free to scope me out and you’ll find out what I’m about. now kick rocks.
ok there tough guy. I will go over here and kick some rocks. Man, the interwebs brings out all kinds of fucking imbeciles. Want to see how bad they are…find yourself a mirror.
Yawn. You’re a fraud. It’s not me or the others who are constantly bragging or playing the role. Let alone always trying to deflect the conversation away from meaningful subjects. Go on fraud tell us more about how living in NYC makes you so hard..
Does talking like a big man on the internet help you tough guy? Shit. Another pussy acting hard. Why don’t you put that mouth to good use and go suck you fathers dick…if you can find it
uhuh.. sure guy..
You have any arguments, or do you just call people ‘frauds’ and bam, that’s your argument?
Imbecile.
Or how about I talk about whatever the f__k it is I want to talk about, and if you don’t like it, tough s__t?
You are free to do that sir, of course. That is the beauty of this country. Any uninformed moron can run his mouth without having any kind of knowledge and sound like a total fucking idiot any time he wants. I encourage people to try to educate themselves and not be such fucking troglodyte dipshit losers but I would never tell anyone not to talk about whatever the fuck they wanted to talk about — I am a fan of freedom even when it means that people with very low IQs and absolutely nothing to contribute to others flap their lips and create noise pollution with the fetid feces that comes pouring out of their mouths.
Cheers!
(((Karl Popper)))
Thanks! I sometimes forget to add the echo symbol.
What, you don’t think repeating “Racist! Sexist! Homophobe!” ad nauseam like a parrot on meth is a useful debate skill?
Don’t forget bigot…
“Lives in Mommy’s basement…” Yeah, because any of us know ANYBODY who does that or has done that! That one’s rich!
So much so when they say that I smile and say ‘And? You say those like they’re supposed to shame me’.
I’m reminded of a Bible quote actually: don’t throw pearls before swine. (OK, it’s a Bible paraphrase!! :-D)
Which is probably the best advice in this situation. They are swine, hence don’t waste your time and knowledge on them. They can’t comprehend it anyway. They certainly don’t deserve it. 😉
The point is not to convince THEM, it’s to convince anyone who may be listening.
I have a lot of leftist friends. I had hoped that after this election and the obvious deceit of the MSN, some of them would begin to question their beliefs, hence I’ll debate them sometimes. I seem to have actually made some progress with some of the guys. The women on the other hand are all doubling down on witchhunts for racists and misogynists, and generally behaving like self-appointed Soviet commissars.
Women are actually easier to deprogram than the men. Reason, of course, won’t work (it’s like trying to argue with my cat versus shining the laser pointer.)
I simply explain to the woman that her worldview isn’t going to work, period. It’s not a matter of morality (after all, most leftist women will admit they’d happily marry a Trump man if he bought them a blood diamond ring and gave them the life they crave.) The feminist movement drew in women with a crazy economic proposal that they could earn as much as a man (or more to make up for previous discrimination, of course) while also marrying a rich guy because that’s her “choice” and OTHER women can marry down.
I explain to them that with fewer alpha men available due to feminist policies, and the social welfare state costs that go to mostly foreign women, they get more Xenophobic than the worst of us alt-righters. Women, including leftist women if you can get them in an honest moment, are more “racist” than any man here. They HATE the idea of women getting money out of THEIR paycheck. Shafting over working class men? “Tee hee! I like that! Who cares if it’s unfair! Tee hee!” But point out that foreign women and men will party on Wayne and Garth with HER paycheck, and they go into freakout mode.
So don’t argue morality with them but rather illustrate via simple economics they can comprehend why it won’t work and they quickly abandon feminism. The pretty ones don’t want the ugly girls to get one up on them and the plain girls will become enraged when it’s revealed that the pretty girls will have more children due to feminist welfare state policies.
Feminists often say they worry that men can turn them against each other because feminism is an agenda of greed and greedy people are naturally distrusting.
You don’t debate leftists anymore than you would debate a cat that has shit on your carpet. You simply grab them by the back of the neck and rub their faces in what they have done. You can also do the same thing with cats.
Cats dont learn from that. That just puts shit on the cats nose it will rub off somewhere else.
The same can be said about leftards…
First, even if you pick your fights, you may HAVE to answer a leftift argument. So you have to be able to defend yourself and to debate
Secondly, you can’t convince a harcore leftist/feminist… but you can show the public how insane he is, how weak their arhuments are.
Then you win. Because much of the public, who just want to be on the right side, will want to have nothing in comon with him/her.
That’s how youy slowly destroy leftist influence. You take back the moral AND reasonable background from them.
And you make them look weak and ridiculous BY THEIR OWN FAULT.
Actually the public only recently started to care about leftists, for the 30 years they did not and the reason they started caring for them had to do with how their own lives have changed in the course of those said years. The public even once supported leftism because it’s message was more appealing to them, today it became less appealing from the right’s.
For everything else I agree but one should be only defensive against them, except if he has fast debating reflexes.
Honnestly, Being able to debate is a pratical skill.
Most of the debates I’ve seen recently have been from people out witnessing the mouth foaming tantrum throwing weirdos who are protesting the election. I’ve seen some really interesting take downs on youtube. Most of these protesters don’t know anything beyond the epitaphs of sexist, racist, homophobe. They only know what someone else told them. You have to be careful though, in many cases the leftists will have their final argument be violence and assault.
It might be best just to point and laugh at them. Also, they really really seem to dislike being recorded.
Honestly, just letting the cameras roll and letting them talk is doing them more harm than anything else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blg9XVBUEZg
While most leftists are complete dipshits who will ignore your points, some (an exceedingly rare group) would listen. It would be more so for the benefit of the audience of the leftist rather than the leftist to debate the leftist. Also, patience is a virtue when attempting to convert people. While I was mostly immunie to leftist bullshit growing up and questiioned some of their stupid beliefs, i did still believe some of them. It took me months of doubt place in me to get me to change my views. It was Ben Shapiro who changed my mind on abortion, because one day I decided to hear what the other side thinks and that the killing of a child always bugged me about abortion. Sometimes, a little push in the right direction may help in the long run.
Bollocks. Cultural Marxism is destroying western culture, and you just want us to stand around and let it happen? Not a chance.
Debating (or shit-posting) stops it? Other things can… do them!
The Berkley riot did more than 2000 debates alone.
Three parts to logical reasoning:
1. Premise (a fact)
2. [Unspoken Assumption]
3. Conclusion
There’s no point in arguing conclusions (step 3) until both sides agree upon the same facts (step 1) and the same unspoken assumptions (step 2). In the U.S., we increasingly do not share these things.
For example, I used to assume that the manosphere was committed to the continuation of the U.S. as a multicultural society. After reading this site and some other related ones, I realize that many of you don’t share that assumption.
We can’t get our house in order until we arrive at some kind of consensus.
Liberals don’t have any logic, reason or sanity. It is why the mainstream press and some -like M kelly of Fox is out to lunch and don’t have much to offer a viewer. They don’t report news; they omit and biasly blurt some liberal kakka slanted toward liberalism. When Trump was elected; all you could do is go by what the guy accomplished in life and see how it turned out – not his positions. They were so distorted by the left; no one had a clue where he stood. They called him Hitler, a member of the kkk (coming from a prez of this country) and Mussolini. For a few weeks, a person listening to these thoughts; would believe Satan as a better option than him. These retorts based on zero facts. Not even a smidgen of truth. This is vile on all levels.
I have given up trying to listen to it. The left is out to lunch on another planet. The only way now is to just open up a can of in your face – fu.
Until fairly recently, I would have dismissed this as idle rhetoric.
But it is 100% true. Almost no one on the left thinks. When they do, it is all wiped out by their susceptibility to simple rhetoric.
They are horrible philosophers, so they breed horrible philosophies.
“Liberals don’t have any logic, reason or sanity.”
It’s statements like that which divide us further. Both the right and the left have very LOGICAL, REASONABLE, and SANE views of the world. They are competing philosophies with very different policies.
BTW: Trump changes his own policies, not the media. He changes his beliefs as often as the rest of us change underwear. Approximately 70% of registered voters refused to pull the lever for him, because many of us don’t like the way he attacks everyone in sight. Ever occur to you that unbridled anger makes a bad leader? Ever occur to you that he might be mentally unbalanced?
Ive worn the same underwear for 17 years
..
“Both the right and the left have very LOGICAL, REASONABLE, and SANE views of the world.”
———————-
Umm… like the premise that equality is achievable in the face of biology and genetics?
“Ever occur to you that unbridled anger makes a bad leader?”
————————
Heh, only liberals say he’s like that.
Congrats. You’ve just been outed.
Be careful about engaging in dialectic with leftists. They speak exclusively, and are heavily swayed by, rhetoric.
“Don’t retort with “I’m not racist” because you’re essentially proving that you value their point, and feel it a point worthwhile of rejection.”
Every rule has it’s exceptions, of course.
https://s21.postimg.org/bvuju76qf/jeremy.png
Twunt? That sounds like it could be useful to insult Pwesident Twump supporters.
I tought I taw a putty tat!
You did! You did saw a putty tat!
😀
That is a combination of twat and cunt. Therefore twunt. It’s really stupid because both have the same meaning.
Good job bringing up Ben in this piece, and calling him like he is: the very best destroyer of leftists currently available on the market (at least, of those under 40).
Yes it’s my OPINION, not a fact; and yes, he has said and done things I didn’t totally agree with over the last 16 months. None of that can take away from his masterful debating and the seemingly endless quiver full of facts, data and history lessons that he can draw from at any given moment. The fact is that if there’s one guy I had to pick to explain the cultural war to a young person–or better yet, to a “questioning” leftist, I’m picking Ben 95% of the time.
I haven’t heard of this guy. I’m going to have to check him out. Christopher Hitchens used to be the best public debater in the Anglosphere. He was so good that nobody wanted to appear against him on television.
You’ll find plenty of clips on YouTube (the Ben Shapiro Thug Life vids are good for a cheap giggle), and since quitting Breitbart he now works for The Daily Wire–so you could check him out there, if you’re so inclined. It’s bedtime for me, else I’d paste in a meaty link or two for you to check out.
I don’t want to get off on a rant…but if you hang around the manosphere a while, you’ll see & hear plenty of Shapiro-bashing. TBH it’s one of the very, very rare things that sometimes make me wonder about the honesty, and the long-term viability, of our movement. But that’s another story for another day.
..
This subject is one of the rare subjects that really gets me riled up. Occasionally, I’ll get feminists, and/or male SJWs, who take exception to something that I say, that they might have overheard me saying, while we are in the same public place. But usually, just by being an older white male, say, in a bar, just sitting there, minding my own business, I get shit from both camps on occasion – even if I don’t say a word. They will size me up as being some idiotic, older, white guy, probably retired (I wear casual clothes always, when socializing: shorts, T-shirt, tennis shoes – which is deliberate, because that way, nobody ever sees me coming – wink).
They will often sneer in their superiority, while continuing to cut me down, due to putting me into a mental slot of their own choosing. I blow it off unless somebody gets really aggressive. In that case, I engage them in a back-and-forth Q&A session about what they do, and what they have done, in their lives. (In other words I turn the tables on them – Rule 101: Don’t ever answer their questions when they attack, turn the tables, ratchet your voice down to a pleasant, calm tone, and ask them what they do for a living…)
Usually what they’ve done, and what they do, is boringly routinary. At that point, they will typically then ask me what I do, and do so with a contemptible sneer on their faces. At which point I get out my phone, pull up my LinkedIn page, and my International Movie Database page, and after they take a long, hard look at those two puppies, while I hold up my passport, so they can see that the person on those two pages is indeed me, and after they give me the typical, meek, “Wow”, followed by the usual uncomfortable silence, I tell them that they surely must be bright enough to realize that they are sorely outmanned here, as well as completely wrong about who it is they are dealing with, and they would be much better off leaving me alone, because it’s a far better idea for them to verbally attack somebody on their own level. Like a cockroach, or a rat. Because any debate they might engage in with me, will only result in the implosion of their entire fantasy world – a world that forcibly shaped them to the point where they not only unwittingly work like a programmed robot to destroy freedom of speech, they actually randomly attack and make snap judgments about people they don’t even know, who can sometimes do things they can’t pronounce, let alone fathom.
Amazingly, this always works.
Work on yourselves and achieve, gentlemen. Nothing else matters. Eventually you won’t give a flying fuck if somebody wants to police your thoughts, or your speech, or your behavior – even if you take exception to it. And if you are forced to defend yourselves against their aggression, just ask them what they’ve done, and then show them what you’ve done, and then tell them to get the fuck out of your face while they can still walk away. They will then realize how wrong, and insignificant they really are, and that will result in a bout of personal satisfaction on your end, that is truly worth all the bullshit you went through with them to get there. (Smiley face here.)
Are you saying your name really isn’t Bob Smith? 😀
Funny story. I live in the DC metro region and often go to Spa World which is a neat Koren spa paradise where you can relax after trying out several different saunas. I often hear leftists talking to each other and their diatribe is hilarious. I get to hear them in their native environment and since they blab out in public, I am unashamed to eavesdrop.
In one such case, I heard one leftist woman chatting with another about how Hillary was going to trash Trump and how whites and working class men were irrelevant and their “privilege” was waning and, haha, they were going down. It sounded so cruel to me.
I’m sure they were shocked on 11/8 when it turned out their expectations of the world were turned upside down.
My friend who works as a barmaid told me that the leftists in the neighborhood crawled into a hole and didn’t go out drinking for a week. They were depressed and hiding from the world like a troll under a bridge. I have noticed them being significantly quiet and meek as of late.
All you wanna do is ride around Sally(ride, Sally ride!)
Once she posted an article about how she was disappointed her daughter liked boys, and she disapproved of this, I pretty much disavowed the whole homosexual narrative. Your kid is normal (for the most part)- why begrudge her her normalcy?
How to defeat leftists in debates:
1) Unbutton your coat and show them your “If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan”, Obama T-shirt.
2) Whip out your dick and say, “Who gets first licks?”
3) Nod sympathetically and say, “Lower the dosage.”
4) Scream loudly that there is a half-price sale at Starbucks, but only for the next 30 minutes.
It’s untrue that Ben Shapiro has never turned down a debate, which is easily verifiable with a simple search.
Defeat leftists in debates? For God’s sake… noob.
Leftism is the opiate of the landless, the identityless. Leftism serves their interests, there is nothing to discuss with them. They have their interests and we have ours.
100 years ago, debating with leftists was done in this way:
keep “debating”. balls is what we need. Get out of the keyboards. Or they will extermine us.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/WWIposter9.jpg
…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4cd9f511eefad84ea0366e27f4ee54891992dd4d02599fe895a97a55819bc142.jpg
…..
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/23e65ea05ffbbf181ee6a95036fa0014c4414238ad542494341cbc610c00614c.jpg
…
Pinochet did it best when it came to leftist. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e75427888286c6ead0a0f57dfd7574a4848df87db2f7098a61aaa9a828670999.jpg
But this man was a leftist. The ‘socialism’ in National Socialism was quite real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_Pabst
..
……..
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c5494635c8dcaf11bb595a26a148001530f121da15d1ec9252699813ccb09a7b.jpg
..
Don’t debate ’em…wear this.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd5aacd7d55829b9fa884ad5b56f4b305a3d794bf19b533fe15bed6d8c809da3.jpg
The ACA will save the average family 2400$ per year in insurance premiums…….
Yes…yes it will! I believe! Obama! Obama!
Dear Leader!
…
1. Jab to the nose.
2. Right uppercut to the ribs.
3. Right low kick to the other’s front leg.
Then spit in his face and say “fuck you leftist scum”.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”- George Carlin
By God, that’s brilliant.
I have a little Monday Night Football play for you here tonight. Green Bay @ Philadelphia, take the under at 47.5, for three units (in my case, $300). See you at the cashier’s window, or over at the plasma center, where we will gleefully donate blood so we can buy some cheap whiskey at the package joint behind the YMCA, and get a $5 lap dance over at The Lucky Thong. (Another win/win!)
***Update: Well, we hit the under bet tonight – Green Bay 27, Philadelphia 13. Which netted +$300 on the evening. Looks like that lap dance at The Lucky Thong will be put off until I’m facing leaner times. Just another day at the office…nothing more, nothing less.
You can turn their entire force against them, but it requires some subtlety. One was ready to cry after she said Trump was bad over global warming.
My retort was that the chicago heat wave killed people and she wanted to make air conditioners and electricity so expensive with the carbon tax that ten times the number of people would die and asked her why she wanted to kill the poor and elderly.
I wouldn’t let it go (“I don’t want to kill people”; “Yes you do, with the policies you advocate”), implied she was a monster, and she almost started crying.
Since they always project, it is often easy to find what they are worried about and zero in for a fatal RHETORICAL blow.
Racist? “You’re the one that wants to leave blacks unemployed and defenseless in the Ghetto”.
Misogynist? “I think women have full moral agency – you think they are too stupid or insane so need some kind of guardian to protect their ‘safe spaces’ – My mom didn’t need a fainting couch! oh, you hate women who become mothers too”.
It is fairly easy to get them on the defensive, and just to collapse, but it is more fun to go more slowly so you can play with them and beat them at more points.
It takes some practice. Also see Vox Day’s “SJWs Always Lie” for a parallel view.
One caution, I don’t get much practice since I moved to a traditional community, but wouldn’t try it when I was in Seattle as I would have been fired or had something vandalized. So pick the venue.
Here come the comments saying you should ignore and live your life. This is very endemic in the manosphere. Pick up tells you not to hate women for what they are, and the less masculine MGTOW will tell you you really get to them by ignoring them.
These are both crap. The real reason people tell you not to hate is because they fail to legally act on that hatred. Hatred keeps a man alive. It gives him strength. Ignoring the people who hate you, especially leftists and modern women, isn’t ‘winning’, it’s playing right into their hands. For example with women you 1. still pay the taxes they leech off of, 2. go your own way if they don’t want to fuck, 3. let them use you as a dildo if they do. All while convincing yourself you are the one in control.
I love planning out and covering myself right before I out a whore and destroy her life. Watching justice in action is like watching spontaneous poetry unfold. Most people do not change others because they are afraid to break eggs in order to do it. If you want control, and if you want to save ‘western civilization’, you have to be willing to use information to manipulate others and then use fear to keep them in line. You have to learn to be a sociopath. All power depends on it, and your enemies will not hesitate.
I understand many here will disagree.
Leftists are essentially hos. Never apologize to hos.
Note: Shapiro refuses to debate Milo. He claims Milo didn’t get back to him (last year when he didn’t check a particular email account for a week or two).
I would like to see Ben v.s Milo.
agree that would be interesting. Shapiro is anti-trump sure, but allowing for that why have two of the most talented conservative debaters pitted against each other when their are progressive luminaries that need to get their ass kicked to the kerb
He also refuses to debate Vox Day, who would rip little Benji a new asshole if they ever had it out.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a00df44e7eac5088812c32491a820dd3496b6b83bd8ea5385c2b370e190ea4a.jpg
If you bother wasting your time arguing with a child or liberal, I found that the most effective tactic Is to constantly put them on notice for using rhetorical arguments rather than objective facts. Keep doing this while maintaining frame and watch them explode.
Best not to debate them when they’re in mobs, unless you have the frame of a monk, its going to turn into a flame war.
The reason Shapiro is so good at debating Leftist is because he uses their owñ tactics against them. No one on the right has such has internalized Rules for Radicals as he much as he has.
Make fun of them or ignore them. Nothing works other than completely invalidating their existence. Great article.
Yep mock and mute.
Why waste energy debating leftists? If you think you’re going to change their opinions with logic, fact or reason, you have more rocks in your head than them. Let the dogs bark; be a wolf.
While I was reading the second gun debate example my very thought was, “I wonder if Ben Shapiro has read this book?”. Haha
” Leftists absolutely hate answering questions, since their entire arsenal lies in character assassination.”
VERY very true
90th!
How to dominate a Leftist in a debate? Grab the creature by the nose ring, ear stretcher or by the blue hair and swing it over your head to the floor
There is no debating statists, especially left statists because they don’t live in a factual, rational, or logical universe. There is no amount of data that can change their view. If the data does not match their view they will change the data.
There is no debating emotion, belief, perception, and fantasy. Maybe you can cause some cracks in it, maybe, but even that is difficult. They have all sorts of defense mechanisms to prevent accepting the fact that their grade school teachers, media talking heads, or whomever lied to them or was grossly misinformed themselves.
If they were told the sky was red it’s red no matter how well you prove its blue. They will change the data from measuring the wavelengths of light, change definitions, and discard data until the sky should appear red. The government does that with its data one everything from the climate to the economy. That’s just how it works.
Engage for your own entertainment but it’s not debate. Of seeing how deep into cognitive dissonance you can push them. But they will never ever ever accept so much as one fact you present.
The mind of the leftist works similar to the underpants gnomes. They have as strategy: Number 1: Steal underpants. Number 2: . Number 3: Profit.
The left knows they can achieve number 1: Trash western civilization and men and build a massive welfare state made up of easily bought welfare recipient voters. Step 2: Step 3: a Swedish paradise made up of white people such as themselves in the elite but in perhaps not a cold place.
They think that step 2 will take care of itself (they’ll throw someone else under the bus and that will be that) but I find that when I tell them that step 3 is not going to happen because the left has already trashed Sweden due to step 1, they go into panic mode. They try to bluster, or change the subject, but the fact that they not only have lost what they were sold on in their youth but also now could lose elections as well, is too much for them.
With amused mastery and a shit eating grin.
https://heartiste.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/supremeshitlord.jpg
https://heartiste.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/sotwwinner.jpg
I so wish I could feel this way more often. Instead, mass stupidity makes me bitter and worry about the future if it reaches a tipping point. When “stupid” breeds and replicates too much, society loses.
Learn to have fun with it. Fun = WIN.
To soundly defeat the liberal, you must crush their oppression hierarchy.
Here’s the typical convo:
“Slaves built the White House!”
-Slaves also manufactured your $300 I-Phone.
“Whites got ahead by slavery!”
-1860 US Census: only 1.4% of Whites owned slaves, 28% of freed blacks owned slaves.
“We demand reparations for 400 years of slavery!”
-Spanish and Arabic languages share 10,000 words because African Muslims called the Moors enslaved white Christian Spain for 781 years. I don’t see Spaniards burning down their neighborhoods.
“But… White privilege!”
-Asians, a minority, are the highest income earners in America.
“But… Cultural appropriation!”
-Egyptians and Ethiopians are E1B1B1 Caucasians. This haplogen is 100% absent from E1B1A1 haplogen black people.
“But… Woman rights!”
-In most countries, it is perfectly legal to beat your wife. The highest GDP per capita and legal standing for women are unanimously in western countries.
“But… Gays and Transgender, they have rights!”
-Only in the west. In Muslim countries, they are still burned alive.
“You’re racist!”
-Actually, I enjoy making love to platinum skinned women.
This is where the exchange usually degrades to parody of name calling, and I swiftly make an exit to embark on more fruitful pursuits.
You can’t ‘defeat’ them because they don’t listen and they aren’t prepared to debate. Best ignore them and limit the damage that they can do to you.
There was, perhaps, a time when one could sit down and have an intelligent conversation with a liberal.
But as the liberals rose in power the (truly) liberal began to leave them.
Egregious censorship and witch hunting drives out the sane.
Leaving the remainder less sane than before.
This in turn drives out the slightly insane (too insane for them).
Leaving the remainder even more insane.
Which then drives out even more of their most sane.
And so on.
A positive feedback loop that ends with a collection of thoroughly brainless, hateful ideologues.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyY9KjzXgAEuETL.jpg:large
It is a rare thing to have a civil debate with a leftist over the internet. Never have I been satisfied that I have persuaded them.
However, that is not how minds are changed. You start on common ground. You want a better world? Great, that is where to begin. From there you discuss aspects of how to make it a better place. All of this takes time, it is something you can only do face to face.
In online debates with SJW, liberals or any others of their ilk if one stands their ground they degenerate quickly into swearing at you and name calling. Guaranteed.
Fully — I expand on this with some nice detail in my post (roughly 2 hours after yours).
I have the right to defend myself, and my loved ones.
It’s an extension of Natural Law.
“Progressives” cannot refute this.
“Leftists absolutely hate answering questions, since their entire arsenal lies in character assassination.”
You nailed it. I live in a very liberal city and occasionally take the more vocal, uppity ones to task in intellectual debates. When they are cornered on a point, they tend to try to overwhelm you with yelling, spastic chicken-headed movements and other childlike tantrum behaviors. The whole “it must be true because I said so” act is rampant here.
As the article clearly illustrates, they attack YOU instead of the subject matter.
They believe “winning” is simply getting a rise out of you with insults or false accusations.
If you react emotionally, that’s a “win” for the weak-minded. Then they go into “mic drop” celebration mode without having won anything. They do this quickly so you cannot get a footing or counter their confirmation biases. They award themselves with a shiny manufactured trophy of cognitive dissonance because no one else will validate them logically. Basically, it’s their version of “running away” — from the argument, from adulthood, and from reality.
That’s why I’m evil — I made them run to a safe space. It no longer matters if I’m right or not. Groupthink sinks my battleship.
One of the most negative aspects about debating a deluded left-wing fool is that they inevitably leave some of their stink on you. Even if I made the best and most rational points, I’m still irritated and stressed by their presence.
This is my personal favorite in debating a leftist who throws out the race card:
Toss it back at them like a grenade.
I like to respond that the left hates white people. This is highly effectively because the average SJW white leftist is totally in denial/hamster mode in dealing with the matter. They’re white and prefer the company of other white leftists and even (silenced) white conservatives to serve them coffee or work checkout. They haven’t thought this through so they’re wide open barn-door open vulnerable.
Their default reaction, in most cases I have done this, is to bluster out: “I don’t know what you mean, could you please explain it to me?” This is a delay tactic on their part plus a desire to try to get me (or you) to trip up on some detail. It’s like a criminal asking the police to explain how the evidence was gathered, etc. They hope to wiggle out on some technicality. I respond that I have read several speeches and political commentary by the left that whites are racist and responsible for the world’s problems which is, itself, racist.
They’ll then engage in some more distraction exercises which are easily knocked over: “You saw that on Foxnews! That’s crazy!” I respond that I read such material on washington post and the NYT. They’ll then start arguing that whites are responsible for the world’s problems (rationalization) which can be refuted with the observation that “justification is not the same as denial.”
At this point, they realize the jig is up and say that I’m obsessed with the issue. I respond that someone hating white people is probably something worthy of obsessing over.
At this point, they will end the discussion entire and I respect their wish to do so. An opponent leaving the ring is an admission of surrender, even if they refuse to do so, and I let them go gracefully. I made my point and I allow them to crawl away dragging their sorry carcass to the hole they belong in.
Bottom line: No leftist will ever admit: “I’ve been a hypocritical snot my whole life projecting my own flaws onto others and I’m happy that I would accept that rather than continue to puff up a fake ego!” It’s a lot to ask someone to go from being a holy SJW to admitting they’ve wasted much of their life as a fool. It’s like trying to get someone off of booze or out of a cult. Plant the seeds of doubt and step away. They’ll have to go to the next step themselves.
I’m intersted in Schopenhauer’s book but one of my favorite personal debate techniques is to embrace my opponent’s harsh accusations and turn it around on them. It’s the thing they least expect. For example:
“You’re probably a male chauvanist pig who doesn’t think women should be allowed to vote!”
“Ok, you have a point there. I don’t think they should be allowed to vote.”
“So you agree that women should be… whaaaaaat??!?! You can’t be serious!”
They cannot in their lives fathom someone willing to be “bad” as they see it and then when I provide a rationalization for the unthinkable, it’s like their circuits fry similar to the NOMAD killer logical robot in Star Trek. One actually left the room in disgust for me holding such a worldview.
Indeed, it’s amazing how “inconceivable” things turn out to be quite conceivable and even revolutionary. The left actually endorsed progress as such for years such as the concept of cross dressing being normal oneday. Yet, they are amazingly status quo when it comes to challenging their status quo positions.
So whenever I hear someone ready to put words into my mouth to then pull a strawman on me (and then try to get me into denying I beat my wife, as the joke goes), I sometimes do like embracing being the bad guy and then sending them down a road they never imagined taking.
I avoid speaking to leftists at all. It’s like arguing with a child. Not worth the hassle
I don’t view it as a hassle and this is why so many leftists are in freakout mode: They were used to winning the culture war by default and when they get stood up to, and lose, they go into snowflake “safe area” mode and run off.
The only way to enjoy debating with them is to first accept that you’re the “bad guy” and that you can’t argue with them to consider your point of view as a person although it’s a massive personal emotional journey (at least for me) to explain to them my own human concerns and then watch them dismiss them with about as much concern as an exterminator shows a termite colony. They simply don’t care. They are insecure egotists.
So knowing this, taking them down gives me a pleasure similar to what SJW’s pursue: “checking privilege”. They think of themselves as such noble warriors who then belittle “ignorant stupid working class” people as if they’re being heroes when that’s about as brave as the scene in a Clockwork Orange where they beat up the homeless men. They’re thugs in denial they’re thugs, plain and simple. So I point out to them that they’re thugs AND that they’re losing and it’s like taking on a bully and shoving their weapon up their own arse.
It’s most gratifying.
You can only hate it if you play by “nice guy” rules and assume that they’re also out to be fair and honest. They aren’t. At best, they’re naive rubes which you can tell in a few minutes if you explain a basic fact to them (like the wage gap myth is an outright lie) and see if they then reconsider their whole worldview. After all, if someone told you that the good news is that you could, say, buy a home for half price than you thought and you were wrong about it, you’d be EXCITED about the good news. But instead, the average leftist becomes angry that the world may not be overheating or that women aren’t as oppressed as they thought. Why would someone be angry about GOOD news?
Advice for anyone dealing with a sjw co-worker:
you owe them 55 words only: Hello, Goodbye, I Don’t Care.
Should they persist, you have grounds to submit claim of harassment.
And this is not cowardly considering the moral and intellectual depravity of sjws. More self-preservation.
When a Left Winger usually brings up nonsensical points and/or pulls the racism card or use personal attacks I simply end the debate right there, walk away and don’t look back.
This is far more effective than people realize. Remember that your time is worth something and make people pay when they waste it.
My dad is a leftist — and he’s not even a hardcore leftist — and he is actually not a stupid guy, but when we argue about politics, his entire argument is that anything I read on a non-mainstream site is “made up” and therefore not a valid point.
Throughout the whole election cycle, every time I would argue with him, I would bring up some fact, like for example the fact according to ICE, 80% of illegals caught at the border are allowed to stay in the US, and his immediate response is “where did you read that, Breitbart? If you read it on some right-wing site, then it’s obviously a lie.” There is obviously no rebuttal to that, because none of the facts that back up my points are reported on mainstream sites.
Another tactic of his is to appeal to emotion or to personal issues. For example, when I defend the cops against Black Lives Matter accusations, his immediate response is “Rob, you’ve been arrested before. How could you possibly be defending the cops?”
When it comes to illegal immigration, his argument is “Rob, your mother was an immigrant, and she was here illegally for a brief time before becoming a legal resident. Trump would have deported your mother. How can you support him?”
Just say straight up to your dad, ‘Do you have any arguments that don’t rely on emotion?’
The proper response when they call you a racist is, “Yeah, so what?”
Correction in your article: Sally Kohn is not a lesbian. He is a fag.
Why waste time talking with the fools. Just run them the fuck over and let them destroy themselves. I’m not Jesus. Really, what does someone getting clued in this late in the game have to offer me? NOTHING.
OK I understand the point about if they call you a racist, you can reply that you won’t accept ad hominem rhetoric (attacks against you, rather than attacks against the point you are arguing). But what about if they say that your POINT is racist? Do you try to argue how it is not racist? Do you ask them to say why it is racist? How do you proceed from there?
Socratic questioning in a nutshell
http://changingminds.org/techniques/questioning/socratic_questions.htm
In anonymous internet discussions, when they blame you as racist fascist etc, my strategy is I don’t give a crap. I continue to say what I was saying like nothing was said. I don’t say neither I am racist nor that I am not.
We won, they lost. No reason to engage a true believer of the liberal doctrine. They are essentially enemies of the US. They seek to undermine our freedoms and impose their social justice warrior beliefs.
If you think we’ve really ‘won,’ you’re deluded.
You simply cannot “debate” a collectivist. They refuse to argue logically. They’re emotional fools. Why waste the time when you can do other things, such as, read a book.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the line between “reframe” and “strawman” is a VERY thin one. I’ve reframed an argument and been accused of pulling a strawman a number of times. Tread lightly.
This is great.