I will state the obvious here, but I'm going to say it once again: I realized most of leftist rhetoric consist in "throw everything you got at a wall and try to see what sticks", so much that the news or information they deploy don't even make any sense.
But it doesn't need to make any sense. After all, not many people factcheck the information they receive, they are either too busy and/or too lazy to do that; so leftists try to dissuade people from doing so, by trying to shut down people (as they tried to do a lot with pretty much every vocal enough anti-globalist or rightist) or abusing from epithets (name-calling someone "racist", "fascist" or whatever), so people get afraid from factchecking.
>"I don't wanna be one of them"
>"These white racist sure are crazy"
Common sense tells us that information that don't make sense must be fought with refutation and debate; but what do you do if they are adamant in deny the undeniable? Which persuasion strategy should rightists take in that case?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 527F7910CEAC56E822151BD587AA8469-27326.jpg (26.7 KB, 626x626, speaker_318-37556.png.jpeg)
File (): C0D5994748D81BB42FDFEBD026C4C218-3873.gif (3.8 KB, 650x220, mystery.gif)
>>51909
Reverse psycology, man. Thats how you get to them
Take healthcare for example
"Do you really want Thrackerzodhb in control of YOUR health instead of you and your doctor?"
Reverse psycology, man. Thats how you get to them
Take healthcare for example
"Do you really want Thrackerzodhb in control of YOUR health instead of you and your doctor?"
File (): 0251B0EC23030403809B85150AAB20F0-249255.png (243.4 KB, 470x588, pepe hairy guy.png)
>>51914
>Thrackerzodhb
i hear that word being thrown around for a while. i only know its some leftycuck slang word, but i dont really know what it means or what it stands for. sounds like something from Power Rangers
>Thrackerzodhb
i hear that word being thrown around for a while. i only know its some leftycuck slang word, but i dont really know what it means or what it stands for. sounds like something from Power Rangers
>>51909
>but what do you do if they are adamant in deny the undeniable?
First you need to get them to the debate floor. The common trend these days is to refuse to debate because "such outlandish positions shouldn't even be dignified with a response" or "we can't let that view appear to be credible. "
Critical thinkers recognize such aversion to debate as a sign that you're full of shit and have no argument, but too many people are too fat and happy to think.
>>51915
>Thrackerzodhb
I think that it's some amusing autist from MLP fandom. All I know is that it's set up as a word filter for "D r u m p f"
Thrackerzod
>but what do you do if they are adamant in deny the undeniable?
First you need to get them to the debate floor. The common trend these days is to refuse to debate because "such outlandish positions shouldn't even be dignified with a response" or "we can't let that view appear to be credible. "
Critical thinkers recognize such aversion to debate as a sign that you're full of shit and have no argument, but too many people are too fat and happy to think.
>>51915
>Thrackerzodhb
I think that it's some amusing autist from MLP fandom. All I know is that it's set up as a word filter for "D r u m p f"
Thrackerzod
>>51915
The site filters "d r u m p f" to Thrackerzod
Most users don't know, because there aren't any shills/trolls here.
The site filters "d r u m p f" to Thrackerzod
Most users don't know, because there aren't any shills/trolls here.
File (): D74FD8B69E6FF0C7617E3F0CCD21114D-249598.jpg (243.7 KB, 2200x2744, image.jpeg)
File (): E58C64A287EACF066DF3599940AC76C5-256384.png (250.4 KB, 720x879, Thrackerzod_by_ArkyPony.png)
>>51909
The answer is to continue pushing the Overton window to the right and shrink it on the left. Die Hard radicals will always exist for any ideology. The point is to make them seem insane and irrelevant.
The answer is to continue pushing the Overton window to the right and shrink it on the left. Die Hard radicals will always exist for any ideology. The point is to make them seem insane and irrelevant.
File (): 6F274330B282FD88C142F3D7E99A31C7-40638.jpg (39.7 KB, 599x384, 1491155873287.jpg)
>Common sense tells us that information that don't make sense must be fought with refutation and debate; but what do you do if they are adamant in deny the undeniable?
A certain excerpt from Mein Kampf addresses just that:
>The great masses could be saved, if only with the gravest sacrifice in time and patience.
>But a Jew could never be parted from his opinions.
>At that time I was still childish enough to try to make the madness of their doctrine clear to them; in my little circle I talked my tongue sore and my throat hoarse, thinking I would inevitably succeed in convincing them how ruinous their Marxist madness was; but what I accomplished was often the opposite. It seemed as though their increased understanding of the destructive effects of Social Democratic theories and their results only reinforced their determination.
>The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
>Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.
>I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.
This is exactly why I don't bother arguing with far leftists anymore; their entire argumentative style revolves around insults, appeals to emotion, and outright denying anything that contradicts them. If you don't admit to losing, you win.
A certain excerpt from Mein Kampf addresses just that:
>The great masses could be saved, if only with the gravest sacrifice in time and patience.
>But a Jew could never be parted from his opinions.
>At that time I was still childish enough to try to make the madness of their doctrine clear to them; in my little circle I talked my tongue sore and my throat hoarse, thinking I would inevitably succeed in convincing them how ruinous their Marxist madness was; but what I accomplished was often the opposite. It seemed as though their increased understanding of the destructive effects of Social Democratic theories and their results only reinforced their determination.
>The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
>Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.
>I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.
This is exactly why I don't bother arguing with far leftists anymore; their entire argumentative style revolves around insults, appeals to emotion, and outright denying anything that contradicts them. If you don't admit to losing, you win.
File (): 986587F2AE76DCC95F89CB6A947AF483-777130.pdf (758.9 KB, , Rules_for_Radicals.pdf)
For one, we can start offering the alternative. The right as of now has been opposing and opposing, always telling what's wrong, but never telling what is right. We have the radical thought, we have the radical solutions, but we're docile in our approach. Sloppy at that too. What we must do is simply don't just learn the rhetoric, but use it against the opponent. Make their strengths their weaknesses, expose the double thought, and swoop in to take the stragglers. We need a refined, integral method. One with principles I must remind. For example, when we started /mlpol/, there was a core message with principles. What's to be done is a movement of principles and radicalism. There's a method to this, a book called "Rules For Radicals." It's finest reading alone, perfected in implementation.
A method to the madness is what's needed. A myth per say, a believe to follow.
A method to the madness is what's needed. A myth per say, a believe to follow.
Before explaining to you which strategy you should use, I want to make an aside to marx' theory of history, which used to be a bona-fide falsifiable scientific theory. It made a testable prediction about character of the then-coming revolution, but when they were proven wrong they didn't change the theory. Marx reinterpreted the events and the theory both in order to be not-wrong, losing all scientific value as he did so. The reinterpreted theory had no predictive power and was not falsifyable.
Marx' fault wasn't being a filthy commie (well, specifically in this instance) but his rejection of scientific principles in order to not be wrong. The topic could no longer be debated because the proponents had to use ad-hoc excuses for why that one didn't apply.
In my strategy, the premise is establishing the scientific method:
>The scientific method dictates us to first form hypotheses, and then try to refute them through experimentation, observation, or other evidence.
Followed up by a refutation:
>Your hypothesis of equity/equality is falsified by the differing IQ scores in races/women, please make a revised falsifyable theory to be consistent with that datum.
If they reinterpret the data, such as saying that IQ tests are racist or that there is systematic opression, then they're not capable of holding a logical/scientific discussion. Denounce this behaviour publicly. If you want a final word, you could ask them what evidence would be acceptable instead of IQ tests, but I wouldn't waste my breath in most cases.
An important point is that no matter how much "verifying" ""evidence"" is brought to the table, it only takes a single refutation to prove a theory wrong. That's how science works, and the discussion is over unless you want to convince them to join your camp instead.
And I would strongly advise against that. The first reason is because the more arguments you bring to the table the more likely you are to slip up, upon which the opposing camp promptly forgets about their own errs and will think themselves victorious. The second reason is that even if you are well-prepared your debate partner probably won't be able to keep up and just get frustrated. They need to evaluate your points and argue newly-formed hypotheses as you refute and push them further and further into unfamilliar territory. You might have called the process of conversion "redpilling" and know that it is a slow/gradual process, that more or less happend automatically after the initial push.
Keep your argument simple, one refutation is enough. Don't force-feed. If they can't hold a scientific argument, denounce them for it, because literally the only other option is physical removal.
Marx' fault wasn't being a filthy commie (well, specifically in this instance) but his rejection of scientific principles in order to not be wrong. The topic could no longer be debated because the proponents had to use ad-hoc excuses for why that one didn't apply.
In my strategy, the premise is establishing the scientific method:
>The scientific method dictates us to first form hypotheses, and then try to refute them through experimentation, observation, or other evidence.
Followed up by a refutation:
>Your hypothesis of equity/equality is falsified by the differing IQ scores in races/women, please make a revised falsifyable theory to be consistent with that datum.
If they reinterpret the data, such as saying that IQ tests are racist or that there is systematic opression, then they're not capable of holding a logical/scientific discussion. Denounce this behaviour publicly. If you want a final word, you could ask them what evidence would be acceptable instead of IQ tests, but I wouldn't waste my breath in most cases.
An important point is that no matter how much "verifying" ""evidence"" is brought to the table, it only takes a single refutation to prove a theory wrong. That's how science works, and the discussion is over unless you want to convince them to join your camp instead.
And I would strongly advise against that. The first reason is because the more arguments you bring to the table the more likely you are to slip up, upon which the opposing camp promptly forgets about their own errs and will think themselves victorious. The second reason is that even if you are well-prepared your debate partner probably won't be able to keep up and just get frustrated. They need to evaluate your points and argue newly-formed hypotheses as you refute and push them further and further into unfamilliar territory. You might have called the process of conversion "redpilling" and know that it is a slow/gradual process, that more or less happend automatically after the initial push.
Keep your argument simple, one refutation is enough. Don't force-feed. If they can't hold a scientific argument, denounce them for it, because literally the only other option is physical removal.
File (): CE115BCFCBEEABA90BCBD84DA68C9C3E-2084804.gif (2.0 MB, 370x319, fetching is a science.gif)
>>52001
few leftists can keep up a discussion without accusing what you say or provided as evidence as racism or attempting to appeal to subjective feelings. Feelings are not facts, they are overrated opinions. And the facts more often than not are in favour of rightists.
Karl Marx himself was the quintessential safespace hugboxer. He never applied scientific theory and proper peer review to his writings. When people adviced him on his errors or called him out for being wrong he promptly took it as personal attacks and removed them from his social circle. This is why Marxism is based on fallacies. Its founded on irrational isolanist views that fall apart when confronted with an unindoctrinated outsiders perspective. Nothing of this was ever based on science or philosophy, but hardly anything but poorly researched novel writing of a man with unwarranted selfimportance.
few leftists can keep up a discussion without accusing what you say or provided as evidence as racism or attempting to appeal to subjective feelings. Feelings are not facts, they are overrated opinions. And the facts more often than not are in favour of rightists.
Karl Marx himself was the quintessential safespace hugboxer. He never applied scientific theory and proper peer review to his writings. When people adviced him on his errors or called him out for being wrong he promptly took it as personal attacks and removed them from his social circle. This is why Marxism is based on fallacies. Its founded on irrational isolanist views that fall apart when confronted with an unindoctrinated outsiders perspective. Nothing of this was ever based on science or philosophy, but hardly anything but poorly researched novel writing of a man with unwarranted selfimportance.
File (): 1DF62603A1BE9C58900388B6278BF6FD-11748.jpg (11.5 KB, 200x217, My-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-brony-like-a-boss.jpg)
>>51941
This section so beautifully summarizes both the Jew and the leftist. It also describes the 'contemporary socialized perception'.
The evasions and tactics describe are the exact same methods that average, ordinary citizens use when avoiding redpills of any kind.
If you have ever participated in a discussion on 911 (as just one example) with an 'intellectual', you will see the same sequence of behaviors.
These behaviors can be observed among social interactions, as individuals vie for a position of greater social importance (hierarchy).
The fact is, humans have been conditioned by the (((structure))) they have grown/developed in to engage in duplicity and obfuscation at all times, most especially toward themselves.
THIS is the overall cause for the mental gymnastics they will shamelessly display in sequence in response to challenge/contest.
TL;DR Most people would rather lie TO themselves than think FOR themselves
This section so beautifully summarizes both the Jew and the leftist. It also describes the 'contemporary socialized perception'.
The evasions and tactics describe are the exact same methods that average, ordinary citizens use when avoiding redpills of any kind.
If you have ever participated in a discussion on 911 (as just one example) with an 'intellectual', you will see the same sequence of behaviors.
These behaviors can be observed among social interactions, as individuals vie for a position of greater social importance (hierarchy).
The fact is, humans have been conditioned by the (((structure))) they have grown/developed in to engage in duplicity and obfuscation at all times, most especially toward themselves.
THIS is the overall cause for the mental gymnastics they will shamelessly display in sequence in response to challenge/contest.
TL;DR Most people would rather lie TO themselves than think FOR themselves
>>52065
>attempting to appeal to subjective feelings
That ain't a problem. If you want to save face you could argue along the lines of "Well of course everyone should be treated fairly, but we'll never get there if we're trying to change the wrong thing. By discarding this refutation, actual racists will think they are right and there's never going to be any progress. We have to make sure our theories are scientifically accurate."
But as you say:
>few leftists can keep up a discussion
so you're best off saving your breath in most cases. Don't plead to the leftist's reason, plead to the reason of the onlookers. Make clear that if no evidence proving them wrong is permitted, the conclusions will lead to a counterproductive extremism.
>He never applied scientific theory and proper peer review to his writings.
I use Poppler's demarcation, so I don't agree with you that he needed to explicity apply peer review to be scientific. Especially in the less exact sciences, including politics and philosophy, peer review is just circlejerking. All I ask is for the theories to be falsifyable and for refutations to be honoured. Even where Marx' work was falsifyable he did as you said and that's where he loses his value for me.
>>51941
>>52068
Those people won't change their mind, but the problem with this attitude is that the normies who just don't want to be called racist and have to hear the rhetoric all day long need to be shown that it's not settled science. They'll be repeating the same sort of arguments they hear from the far-left, so you might not be able to distinguish them without attempting to reason with them.
>attempting to appeal to subjective feelings
That ain't a problem. If you want to save face you could argue along the lines of "Well of course everyone should be treated fairly, but we'll never get there if we're trying to change the wrong thing. By discarding this refutation, actual racists will think they are right and there's never going to be any progress. We have to make sure our theories are scientifically accurate."
But as you say:
>few leftists can keep up a discussion
so you're best off saving your breath in most cases. Don't plead to the leftist's reason, plead to the reason of the onlookers. Make clear that if no evidence proving them wrong is permitted, the conclusions will lead to a counterproductive extremism.
>He never applied scientific theory and proper peer review to his writings.
I use Poppler's demarcation, so I don't agree with you that he needed to explicity apply peer review to be scientific. Especially in the less exact sciences, including politics and philosophy, peer review is just circlejerking. All I ask is for the theories to be falsifyable and for refutations to be honoured. Even where Marx' work was falsifyable he did as you said and that's where he loses his value for me.
>>51941
>>52068
Those people won't change their mind, but the problem with this attitude is that the normies who just don't want to be called racist and have to hear the rhetoric all day long need to be shown that it's not settled science. They'll be repeating the same sort of arguments they hear from the far-left, so you might not be able to distinguish them without attempting to reason with them.
15 replies | 10 files | 12 UUIDs | Archived