Logical fallacies have been documented since the Greeks and the Romans studied rhetoric. Bad reasoning isn’t specific to any one ideology. Still, leftists must use it quite frequently, since they’ve had hardly any good ideas in decades. These are easily absorbed by their fuzzy heads, lacking proper Red Pilled bullshit detectors.
With practice, you’ll notice their word games repeated like guitar riffs.
1. Straw man
Suppose you’re in a forum and dare question the wisdom of shouting from the rooftops about “anything goes” bedroom arrangements. The triggering begins. Some SJW accuses you of being a prude who only approves of the missionary position. You argue your point, but the dogpiling worsens. Some stranger emails you, diagnosing you as feeling guilty about sex. Those two post a nauseating duet about “tolerance”. You never actually argued against immorality; merely for keeping private things private. Disgusted, you unsubscribe; they can have their damn echo chamber to themselves.
That’s exactly what happened to me once. By overstating an opponent’s position—putting words into someone’s mouth—they “win” the debate.
This is what extremists look like.
Example: The “right-wing extremism” narrative
Ridiculing and stereotyping illiberal viewpoints goes far back. Archie Bunker is a prime example, though there are much earlier ones. So is the tactic of associating anything they don’t like with some figure they’ve put much effort into discrediting. For example, concern about Communist subversion is “McCarthyism“. If you argue against multiculturalism, you might get compared to a former German chancellor with bad press.
Timothy McVeigh lashed out savagely following the Branch Davidian bungle. Quite cynically, the media spun his gruesome retaliation into a propaganda victory. This was used to discredit the militia movement, even though McVeigh was never part of it. Bill Clinton blamed talk radio rhetoric, although Rush Limbaugh never told anyone to blow up buildings. Those concerned about government overreach became objects of suspicion. Even if they only espoused peaceful change, they all got tarred by the same brush.
Countermeasures: It’s tempting to react in kind. (Leftists have plenty of dirty laundry themselves.) However, it’s better to be on guard for this tactic and call out anyone for overstating your position. If someone resorts to name-calling, or comparing you to a meanie from history, that’s evidence your opponent can’t argue against your ideas on their merits.
2. Begging the question
This means beginning an argument with the conclusion as a premise. Basically it involves treating the matter of debate as a settled fact, rather than arguing why it’s true. Presuppositions like “Where are we going out to supper?” are fairly innocent. Other unstated assumptions are preposterous, like “The Patriarchy“.
In a formal debate, both parties must agree on basic premises. Otherwise it’s a sermon, not a discussion.
Holy Pennsylvania Avenue, Batman! It’s the Virtue Signal!
Example: Gay marriage
Asserting that something is a right, even when it’s not recognized by law or even tradition, is a common tactic. Many examples could be cited, but the gay marriage debate became the noisiest one in decades. Honest proponents argued that Adam and Steve should be granted the right to get married. Lazy debaters claimed that Adam and Steve already had this right, and its infringement is the worst atrocity since Tamerlane massacred Central Asia.
Interestingly, liberalism denies the existence of natural rights. However, they’ll fudge on this principle when it suits their purpose. Ultimately, it was settled by the Supreme Court, once again legislating from the bench. Gay marriage is hidden somewhere in the 14th Amendment, but legal scholars somehow missed that part for over a century. Who knew?
Countermeasures: Watch for unstated assumptions. (Note that if you challenge fundamental leftist principles, the usual result is screaming.) If someone groundlessly asserts a right to something, ask “Why do you believe this is your right?” If someone says “The Patriarchy is doing X“, ask who The Patriarchy’s Chairman is and where its Board of Directors meets. They need to do the work to prove their point.
3. Appeal to pity
Western civilization has strong traditions of charitability, hospitality to wayfarers, fairness, etc. Lately these virtues have been weaponized against us, leading to pathological altruism and other absurdities.
Manipulating the public to feel sorry for some group (often following a well-publicized example) is used to stifle opposition.
Scientists, doctors, and engineers coming to revitalize Europe’s culture and make it vibrant
Example: The European refugee crisis
Alan Kurdi, drowned on the beach, became emblematic of Syrian refugees. The Lügenpresse spun the photo into a powerful propaganda piece. Per the narrative, anyone disagreeing with open borders is a monster who wants children to die.
There are some inconvenient facts. Kurdi’s family had settled in Turkey, where he was safe with them. (In fact, Turkey remains one of the region’s better-off nations following their national revival.) Later, they wanted to go to Greece and eventually arrive in Canada’s greener pastures. However, the rubber dinghy was overcrowded to twice its rated capacity, and Alan wasn’t in a lifejacket. The human traffickers they hired were responsible, not immigration policies.
Further, the recent migrants are overwhelmingly men who could defend their towns, not women, children, or the elderly. Actually, most aren’t even Syrians or war refugees. These economic migrants want a free ride, know exactly where to apply for welfare, and meddlesome globalist types assist them. Despite European governments catering to them ludicrously, they don’t want to assimilate or even work, and are an endless source of trouble. Portraying them as kids desperately fleeing for their lives is disingenuous. But let’s not allow facts to get in the way, shall we?
Countermeasures: Recognize attempts to instill guilt trips or generate pity. Further, the propagandists usually only tell half-truths, or distort the facts. A little research fixes that.
4. Misdirection
Several sloppy debating tactics avoid addressing the topic’s substance:
- Presenting an irrelevant conclusion;
- Skipping steps in logic;
- Talking in circles;
- Repeating oneself endlessly to wear down the opposition (this is how small children debate);
- Distracting the discussion down endless tangents;
- Focusing on a very narrow facet of an issue, addressing only strong points;
…And so forth.
We demand you pay the bill too!
Example: “My body, my choice”
This type of bumper sticker logic is actually pretty catchy. That’s an example of micro-focusing. The slogan actually makes sense, so long as one vital fact is completely overlooked.
Namely, the abortion debate is about whether it’s okay to kill babies, not about abstract “choices”. It’s not even about “controlling our bodies”, unless one stubbornly refuses to acknowledge how mammalian biology works. (For one matter, there’s another body involved too.) This also got spun by feminists into misleading “rights” rhetoric, and the Supreme Court exceeded its authority as usual. Anyone who disagrees is a monster who doesn’t want children to die.
The object is getting the audience to disregard the real topic, like a stage magician creating a momentary distraction. Abortion fans aren’t too concerned about the babies not having a choice in their own survival. Neither do they care that a small body is destroyed that only needed a few more months and then could’ve been adopted. Quite ironically, the very same liberals champion the sanctity of life when murderers face the death penalty.
Countermeasures: Be on guard for opponents skipping steps in an argument, trying to bog down the discussion, or boxing you in with framing tactics.
Read More: 7 More Misleading Leftist Concepts That Pretend To Be Positive But Are Not
Haha “winning”
Haha “debates”
Arguing with leftists is about the biggest waste of time conceivable. Since the election more and more want to argue and “debate” because they are miserable and want you to be as well. I even have had a few try at the gym. Best method is to ignore like the parasites they are. If absolutely necessary, say your piece and if they cry so be it. Then leave.
Libertarians are worse. “Muh Statist”…”you just hate freedom”…”how dare you attack muh individualism”…”muh free market”. Cult-like people typically take things really personally, have no actual logic to back their arguments up with, or they use highly exaggerated and or outright lies to promote their ideas. Scary thing is most of them actually believe in their own bullshit. Ayn Rand pretty much said the same thing about libertarians too, even though they still worship her in many respects.
You can at least debate a libertarian with some semblance of logic and civility. They can just get really stubbornly absorbed in their way of thinking.
@Fred…no, if you get a liberal by themselves and away from their cult then you can easily get them to accept certain positions. Any libertarian, anywhere, will always screech “you’re a statist”…”muh evil government”…”muh privatize everything”…”muh government spending”. Libertarians are by far worse than most SJWs. Most libertarianism isn’t even that far off from SJW positions…pro-drug, anti-cop, etc etc. I honestly think most of the insanity in the left comes from their hatred and frustration with trying to work with dumbass, Reagan obsessed idiots, who don’t know what they are doing, never what to get anything done other than lowering taxes and drilling oil, etc etc.
Make it a game. If they cry, you win.
It’s a very fun game.
Sounds like a plan!
“Have you ever been black before?”
“No, thank god.”
Publicly debating sh¡tlibs triggers them to want to call somebody. Their safety bubble has been violated and they see something (an altright naysayer to them) and they want to “see something say something”. Often their hands tremble when altright power point words begin rolling at them and they fumble at their phone, their tongue too choked to speak their piece when the overpowering urge to shriek and wail overcomes them. We saw the open shrieking at Hillary’s concession announcement.
Engaging a shitl¡b’s mind in public when your kids are with you, the sh¡tlibs look like lizards with beedy eyes oogling your kids. Again they want to call someone like the socialist services to badger your family. It really is a hair trigger war in the streets when you push the slightest bit to roll the sh¡tlib agenda back. The only other option is for decent traditional people to roll over and then the sh¡tlibs try to harpoon you anyways. This is a no win and unacceptable. Go right for their jugular regardless. You have to. Go like a pit bull and bite in and don’t let go until they stop moving their tongue and until they concede their flimsy argument.
Wrong. Arguing with them using logic in front of a crowd is not a futile exercise. It’s not about changing their mind, that won’t happen, it’s about presenting your logic to the crowd.
A seasoned mansplainer or redpillsplainer will make them look like a fool automatically. Even some members of their in crowd are entertained when someone makes chicken salad out of one of their own. It’s the inherent bread and circus trigger that makes slap stick comedy palatable for all. It is an art making your opponent humorously slip in their own drool.
“Mansplainer” ,” Redpillsplainer” they would make great T shirts.
You can’t debate or argue with libs because they’re all basically women. The males amongst them are wired to think like females. But you can try to lead liberals right like the way a male ballroom dancer ‘leads’ his woman. Keep frame and lead. Mentally, all social marxist liberals are women, the whining manginas included. I prefer leading the ones with pussies. To dance with them doesn’t have to be gentle either. You LEAD them on in the ensemble.
There are very, very few female liberals, I would like to dance with in Germany.
It’s a kind of necrophilia.
MCGOO
You should read what you wrote outside of your brain, so you would see how much you sound ridiculous.
You can’t win with words, to fight a war you need guns and bombs.
“We don’t get fooled again”…The Who
http://www.metrolyrics.com/we-dont-get-fooled-again-lyrics-who.html
I’m a liberal and I can reply to your arguments at any time.
I’m sure that the author of this article has received many valid arguments from liberals, but he only reports the most silly and stereotipical arguments so that he can easily win the debate.
For example: the gay marriage gives rights to homosexual couples and doesn’t remove rights to heterosexual couples. Although I’m not at all interested in using gay rights and I don’t feel the need to support them, if I’m asked to decide about it I wouldn’t say NO, because I don’t see any logic for denying unharmful rights to people who know what do to with this kind of rights.
Really? Wage gap is false, women are just worse value workers. Blacks are statistically dumber than most races which is why they pretend racism is real. Most homosexuals are just failed hetros.
Debate away.
Spoiler alert: I already win these arguments. But go on, snowflake.
> Wage gap is false
I don’t know, but if it’s true it could be that women don’t work as hard as men.
> women are just worse value workers
I don’t know. I have no data.
> Blacks are statistically dumber than most races
They have a lower average IQ, but I’m not sure that IQ = intelligence. I see IQ as a part of intelligence. I know people with high IQ who are dumb and irrational. Of course they are good in what the IQ test measures, but this doesn’t mean that they are brillant people.
If you are an idiot, but you have a high IQ, you are still an idiot.
However, to be against racism doesn’t mean to deny differences between races, and neither the existence of races (I see that modern science is changing it’s view about this topic: races exist).
To be against racism means: sopporting the idea that a person should not be discriminated only because he/she is of a race or an other.
Now, if a black is dumb, he won’t become an engineer, but blacks have the right to become engineers and work as engineers if they are qualified.
The same thing can be said about women, gay, and so on…
I define myself as liberal because I support individual rights, welfare state and individual freedom. I am against liberism and authoritarianism. Many leftists are authoritarians, but I’m not one of them and of course I am in favour of speech freedom.
I forgot to reply about homosexuals.
> Most homosexuals are just failed hetros.
I’m not a great expert in studied about homosexuality, but I know that according to one of most accredited theory it is caused by the fact that the brain sexual differentiation fail during pregnancy. According to the theory, for each male son that a mother has, her body can lose the ability to produce as much testosteron which is required for the brain differentiation of the male fetus. With less testosteron, the brain of the male fetus become less masculine.
I know that some studies about differences between genders revaled that females are more multitasking: if they are doing something, and you speak with them, they don’t stop the activity, while men do.
Homosexual men are multitasking and, like females, give directions using visual references, while straight men use metric references.
Once I read a neurologist who said that before studying neurology used to think that homosexuality is caused by nurture factors, but after his studies he know that homosexuality is cased by neurological factors.
Argh, you did it wrong, you’re meant to be irrational. How am I to debate you when you basically agree (or don’t disagree)?
1. You didn’t deny the wage gap, and even offered the truth that women don’t work as hard as men. Yup. They don’t do overtime. Every single boss on earth knows if you absolutely need something done asap you give it to a man, he’ll work as many hours as it takes to deliver.
2. You didn’t disagree about blacks having a lower IQ. Btw, IQ is correlated to earnings, they’re pretty much the same graph (irrespective of race).
3. You didn’t even try to discredit the “homos are failed hetros,” line (which is the easiest one). And yes, studies show that the third or forth or fifth son is statistically more likely to be gay than the first or second, and it’s relating to hormones. But that’s not what I was getting at. I was saying that some guys who can’t attract girls and get laid eventually resort to being gay because gay people will fuck pretty much anything and go to bath houses and all that shit. It’s much like when someone can’t make any friends they join a church where everyone’s included.
Why should I be irrational? Social liberalism is very rational.
Switzerland is based on social liberalism and the quality of life is very high. There are not homeless people, the health system is good and everyone has access to it.
I think that most swiss citzens would never move in an other country, unless they other country is not a social liberal state.
I think that the USA and other countries should follow social liberalism too, because the classical liberalism, although it was a great conquest, has problems and must be updated.
The problem is that in classical liberalism everyone has technically the same rights, but in practice without money you have less rights. Social liberalism is meant to adjust this problem.
SJW are the irrational part of social liberalism and of course they won’t help liberals. More likely, liberals are losing votes cause of SJW.
@Mattia
IQ is a pretty good measure of intelligence as it pertains to being having positive outcomes in life such as education, employment, income, wealth, low crime rate, family stability and other social dysfunction
@Mattia
IQ is a pretty good measure of intelligence as it pertains to life outcomes such as education, employment, income, wealth, crime rate, family stability, health, obesity etc.etc.
OK, you presented an actual argument, so I can respect that one.
My take on the substance is that it would have been reasonable to set up a parallel institution that works the same way, but with a different name. Civil unions would’ve been a perfectly fair compromise. Still, that wasn’t good enough for the activists – a small fraction demanding unprecedented changes in a very long-standing existing institution with tremendous cultural and religious significance. Basically, they told the public “my way or the highway”.
1.”Some SJW accuses you…”
That’s all I needed to hear. If someone wants me to feel guilty of x, I’ll just assume he is my enemy & consider using violence against him.(parents, grandparents, wise priests & other good rolemodels excluded)
2.Everyone has the right to fight for their own rights & they will, the idea is to recognise that another’s good is not necessarily urs. If u live in a society that panders to women, gays & other minorities it doesn’t mean u’ll get the same recognition.
3.Nothing against feeling pity for someone as long as it’s not at the expense of the people I care about.
People who betray their loved ones for the greater good or what they perceive as being the greater good are scum(especially since humans rarely have access to the bigger picture so it’s a bad idea to betray ur own ethnic group for subjective views of Greater good that will end up bitting u later in the ass). Europeans have obligations towards their own ancestors, not the descendents of foreigners.
Here’s how a debate with a leftist generally goes…
1. Leftist strawmans your sound and logical argument/statement
2. You calmly and rationally defend your statement and point out the strawman
3. Offended, the leftist gets overly emotional and starts spewing ad hominem
4. Rinse and repeat
Debating them is indeed an absolutely worthless endeavor.
That Jordan Peterson “so your saying” interview is exactly how it goes.
Don’t get fooled by Peterson – he is a spook.
Doesn’t matter. This wasn’t about Peterson. This was about illustrating a point.
If an enemy says that the sky is blue, it doesn’t help us in any way to deny the fact just because he is the enemy.
Peterson could be a black, gay, Jewish Arab for all I care. He wins the arguments while never losing his cool. He’s helping make the left look dumb. What’s not to like (besides his squeaky voice)?
I’m not a Peterson fanboy in the slightest. I’m just glad the latest red pill darling is actually a mild-mannered non-Jewish straight man instead of some flamboyant tribal homo like Milo.
If Newman isn’t a (((Newman))) she missed a good chance. Just has the beady-eyed look and the views that scream tribe.
I think you should try to discuss with rational people. SJW are not rational, but you can find many liberals among scientists. Do scientists know logic? Yes, of course.
I can reply to your arguments at any moment.
Debates? Are you nuts?!
You just don’t engage in debates with women and SJWs.
As soon as you do, you lose there and then!
Haha poor Carl the Cuck…. he’s never gonna escape that “are you kidding me!?” day for the rest of his life.
I wonder if he’s killed himself yet.
fwiw, i think we should acknowledge first why liberals argue in the first place, before we decide whether/how to argue back. take a look at the accompanying pics in this piece. specifically, take a look at the ‘male’ in the center of the pic at the beginning, and the shaved-headed ‘female’ in the pic at the end. they don’t espouse liberal positions out of principle, as a result of examining and weighing different views or ideas and coming to a solid conclusion. they do it out of hate. that ‘male’ resents masculinity, because of who and what he himself is, and therefore opposes anything he associates with masculinity. he’ll support helmet laws not because he cares about the well-being of bikers, for instance, rather because he would never have the guts to get on a bike, even with a helmet, so he wants to increase inconveniences for those who ride. the ‘female’ hates masculinity too, but femininity even more, and thus opposes anything that’s warm and maternal.
you think steven colbert would be a snarky, thumb-sucking liberal if he’d worked summers on a farm growing up, or wrestled and boxed, instead of doing debate club and drama (i’m going out on a limb here and guessing he did those)??
i know ad hominem is one of the logical fallacies. but sometimes the person is the point in the argument, not the position he/she/it takes. that poor ugly ‘girl”s view on abortion has far more to do with the fact that no men are interested in her, than about the rights, or lack of rights, of an unborn child..
Nailed it. They have unfulfilling lives, they are clearly miserable, self loathing people desperately searching for something outside of themselves to identify with. So much easier to blame others than to take responsibility.
QUESTION
Does “Carl the Cuck” really BELIEVE that a black man would cross the street to piss on him if he was on fire?
He probably dreams about it.
Good one dude !
I don’t even bother with “debate” any longer. If I run into someone who is in absolute denial about politics in general (believes in the manufactured hate machine, denies climate realism, thinks banning guns is going to work, etc. etc.) I just ignore them. Answer is simple “you are wrong, no debating it, not even worth my time, obviously you are an idiot.” Talking to a SJW about public policy is like trying to rationalize with a two year who performed a bad action. It just doesn’t work. Don’t waste your time. Just punch them in the face much like an “anti-fa” would do to you.
Absolutely right!
So far, the left has not been reachable on the levels democracy, logic, arguments.
Then just on the level of reality
Pointless. Better to aim an antenna at outerspace and send an auto message for hungry aliens to come for the all you can eat SJW and Feminist retard buffett. Insist they eat the ones that argue loudest and have piercings or tattoos.
I’m going to do just exactly as the Africans did to their own kind. Hunt the SJW and feminists down and sell them to aliens in shackles. What do I want from the aliens? endless supply of 5 hour energy so when I turn the scum over to them they are all wide the f**k awake for their fate.
Leftist liberals are rich spoiled privileged class of people. In Russia almost all leftist liberals live in big cities. You won’t find any leftist liberal goon from provincial or small city/town areas in Russia. These people are selfish traitors who have no problem taking all the benefit of government welfare programs but at the same time they are the one to criticize every government policies any chance they get. I don’t know the reason why but these people don’t love their homeland. In fact they hate their country, military & culture or tradition more the enemy does.
In every country the liberals live in cities. The war of the future is the age old rural/urban divide.
There are conservative liberals in provincial areas & small cities/towns in Russia but leftist liberals are absolutely non existence except big cities.
That is a general rule everywhere.
Don’t bother debating but this is quite useful, thanks for sharing
I don’t normally debate leftists, I prefer to make fun of them.
Our bodies are not ours, they belong to our countries, societies, families and civilizations.
JJ
Not mine. I left.
Why even talk to them to begin with?
Baby boomers stayed quiet and enjoyed their comforts whilst the ((liberals))) spoke,wrote and made the narrative unchallenged.
Sasquatch
“Baby boomers stayed quiet and enjoyed their comforts whilst the ((liberals))) spoke,wrote and made the narrative unchallenged.”
Sad but true!
He he, as a boomer I think always:
It’s nice to sit on the mountain when the tigers fight in the valley!
Men don’t “debate” liberals, we eliminate them.
How do you do that? Sounds pretty fearsome! Personally, when I sense a liberal, I tear my shirt off, yell Tarzan style, grab his woman, and vault off through the urban jungle.
you are a gay
I disagreed with a leftist on facebook once, next thing i was argued at (i didnt argue back) by five sluts 2 fags and the original leftist. All i pointed out was that turkeys a safe country and Germanys for da gibs. They are all poisoned and i actually think they just want to die from there own pets. Tragic loss of potential but whatever
Why do Turks migrate to Germany?
Because shawn lives there and they find him attractive
Arguing with them is a complete waste of time and energy, they are broken beyond repair. I believe Yuro Brezmenov said something to the tune of “once the ideas of Bolshevik Communism take hold, these people are permanently damaged”
It’s amazing how the “my body, my choice” applies to women who want to murder the baby inside them, whose body ISN’T THEIRS and doesn’t apply to the indentured servitude they put men through. What’s worse is they equate child murder with women’s rights. What that really means is that removing women’s rights from the law is a matter of child safety. Do it for the KIDS!
Communication is possible only between equals. Are liberals equal to you men?
Then why debate them!
Lord Havalot liberals have in average a high education.
Most scientists are liberals. Only 6% of scientists are conservatives.
So no, of course liberal and conservatives are not equals.
How to win a debate:
Don’t debate in the first place
Silence is golden
Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig.
Pigs = authoritarians
we got the facts and logic. but if you apply such things you can go to jail just like tommy robinson.
that’s how inclusive our democracy is
Most scientists are liberals, they have fact and logic. You should start to learn science, instead of reading the bible.
Most scientists are as ignorant as you outside of their narrow field of specialization. Even there they have to often toe the party line to get funding, tenure etc. So in shot scientists are not omniscient supermen.
That is another stupid liberal debating strategy often referred to as “appeal to authority” to support their points instead of actually offering evidence or substantive arguments.
I can provide evidence, but I don’t know about what you want to discuss. What don’t you like about social liberalism?
I’m not religious.
even I was, inteligente doesn mean moral idoneity
@Matia
Classical Liberalism is a product of the supremely successful traditional Western Culture of the past 400 years or so. The reasons for this success are
1. Relatively high Average IQ population and also a relative abundance of geniuses and a cultural inheritance dating back to the Romans and Greeks.
2. A culture that valued and safeguarded individual liberty
3. A culture that valued and encouraged rational thought
4. A culture that more or less was able to separate and balance rational and scientific thought from spiritual and religious thought. It valued and promoted both for their utility
Now, I am a classical liberal to a large extent. Your contemporary “social liberalism” is nothing like the classical one. It is nothing but post-modern leftism. Today’s right is more aligned with classical liberalism. Your “social liberalism” is now just post-modernism and Marxism which has also subsumed the role of religious belief among its followers.
It has corrupted and wants to destroy the foundation (the 4 points above) of Western Culture and its baby Classical Liberalism. So It is stupid, destructive and evil
I don’t want any further discussion
We are done debating them
the scoops are on their way
I sense a hamster rationalization. Not wanting open borders is going to children deaths while migrations happens. Calling traffickers guilty is similar to call drug dealers guilty and not stoping them. That dont make sense.
Just got through hour long debate in FB on one of liberal friends post. 5 other from same gang chimed in. This article is spot on. No amount of logic, facts and basic principle can ame them see the truth. At the end, I pretty much wasted hour of my life. Lol I’ll never get it back.
Next time I’ll go around the poop on the road instead of pointing out it stinks.
exactly the reason i loath american and its values. fuck the united states of america, and i have no problem saying that to anybody. but i can actually do and say it and back it up with examples and facts in courteous unemotional way and libtards and fake conservatives cant stand it. some are triggered to the point of getting near violent, all over a debate. they just cant stand someone who has an opinion different than theirs.
cant tell you how many libtard veterans get bent out of shape when i put facts and truths and my opinion in their face. young cowards signing up to fight for a country with values they have no idea about, dispicable, zero respect. the older im getting though the harder it seems. sometimes i try to avoid the subject but libtards cant help but want to talk about it. what are your guys strategies to just avoiding these subjects altogether?
Debating liberals is more often than not a pointless tactic, and here’s why:
They’re routinely classic examples of the Dunning-Kruegar effect in action. They’ve been indoctrinated (via their partisan media outlets, online echo chambers and friends who think just like they do) that simply by repeating the views they are supposed to hold, they are (by default) more intelligent and better people than anyone who disagrees. They’re not at all concerned with why you might disagree or how you came to disagree. It’s simply the fact that you disagree- because obviously you’re a bigot and a moron and (for the most part) not even worth engaging with.
So, if you hold a differing viewpoint you are automatically uneducated and a ___ist or ___phobe. You could take their argument apart completely but they won’t be able to recognise it, because there is no way you could be right, because you hold a viewpoint that opposes theirs so you (by default) are wrong (and ignorant and uneducated and a horrible person as well). On top of that, no way could you be correct because “facts have have a Left-wing bias”. They know this is a fact because a Leftist told them so, and they wouldn’t be making it up because only stupid right-wing Christians make stuff up. Being enlightened progressives, the Left only deals in facts.
So keep all the above in mind before you try and debate one of these people- especially if it’s you vs. them and their echo-chamber. They have the feminised mindset that consensus= fact and anything that gives them a bad feeling= wrong, so if you’re the only person in a group who disagrees with them, they’ll further assume you’re wrong because nobody else agrees with you and you committed blasphemy against Left Wing Correct Groupthink (TM).
The trick instead is to choose your battles- best of all is in front of a group of people who are non-committed and can be swayed. In which case, go for it and don’t hold back. Toy with them. Let them explain their argument, clarify their argument and then shoot it to pieces. You won’t convince them, but you can win your audience around. That’s where the real winning is done, long-term.
The chief dishonest technique used by the left to manipulate us is to endlessly associate the right with violence. If you research the history of so-called rightwing violence you find that there has been remarkably little of it. 95% of the time it’s simply a libel.