A common phrase I hear is "Don't waste your time debating a liberal/leftist."
The reason why I think it is completely worth talking is because I was a Democrat voter. I changed.
If someone would have talked with me in more depth EARLIER, I would have changed even EARLIER than I did.
What would have changed me sooner? Asking me what I thought. Taking an interest in me. Answering my questions in a straight forward and fact based way.
I grew up only hearing the Democrat's perspective. How could I even consider voting Republican if no one had ever even explained another perspective and how it relates to me and my life?
The truth is on our side and I think we do a disservice to the cause when we are not willing to engage. I know there are crazy people that you should walk away from but the vast majority are not crazy and are interested in listening -- I certainly was.
Talking openly also gives courage to people who agree with you but simply don't know how to put their positions in to words. Remaining silent gives the entire public domain court (where culture is formed) to the enemy with zero resistance.
Thank you.
You're not wrong, but you're definitely not talking any sense into someone with a BLM fist tattoo or a trans flag. Those people are going to weaponize empathy and call you a bad person for not agreeing with them 150% of the time.
Nobody changed me or talked me down from the ledge. I simply had to be honest with myself and admit that my beliefs were wrong. Most people aren’t willing to do that no matter how much you talk to them. It must come from within.
What led you to see the truth?
My stance is to not waste time with arguements online. Dispersing information is useful, and discussions with similarly minded people like on this site are good, but that's it for me. People hardly listen in real life unless they really know you (or feel like they do), so how much less in when they are online?
I have destroyed plenty of leftists online, some I knew personally, some strangers. I never would use ad hominem even as they resort to personal attacks, straw men, and red herrings, I would just civilly stomp out their awful points, usually with some ethos and pathos thrown in.
Maybe it had an effect, I'd get Facebook message from strangers thanking me for making good, level headed arguements, but I just got tired of it, and still would see the people I was trying to reach live their crazy lives detached from morals and reality. In person I was able to have rational conversations, but online, all their fringe friends pile on and go full group think.
Can you give me advice. How do you argue:
Capitalism vs. Socialism
What do you say when personally attacked.
When someone asks why you voted Trump, what do you say? Thank you.
I ignore personal attacks, but bring the conversation back from red herrings, and don't let them redefine my point with a straw man. (Edit) I will call out logical fallacies, either directly if they would know the word "strawman," or indirectly with "that isn't what I said" / "that isn't what I believe" / etc.
For some points, like marxism vs capitalism, the problem is a disagreement at a foundational level. I only argued that a few times with a transgender communist that I know from university days, and I think he is genuine, so I gave him honest answers.
The core problem is a misunderstanding of human nature; if marxist philosophy is correct, then socialism and communism works. Of course, marxist philosophy is false, as it is based on the idea that people are innately pure and good, and thus in a good society people will work hard for the good of others with no concern for themselves.
Reality, as every person who lives in the real world has seen, is that people are naturally selfish. While some might selflessly help others in situations, they aren't going to work long hours on a difficult job if the reward is the same as working an easy job. Not everyone equally values hard work, so when they start mixing in a socialist society, one group becomes a drag, and eventually every other group drops to the bottom level of production. If this wasn't obvious from simple life experience, we now have many examples over 100 years of how productivity drops in truly marxist societies.
Still, all the points against socialism fail to make an impact if the person refuses to accept absolute truth, and the natural human proclivity towards selfishness. Socialism vs capitalism is a higher level arguement that makes little progress if a person disagrees with axiomatic truths. These people typically think supply and demand is a capitalist construct, when it clearly is an immutable law of human nature, even existing in marxist societies via the black market.
So on socialism verses capitalism*, I point out that it is a pointless discussion to have unless they can agree on issues pertaining to absolute truth and human nature, as that is actually what the disagreement is about.
Thank you!
I can easily debate Communism vs. Capitalism. But, Socialism is much harder.
Do you argue that Socialism is Communism (and always leads to it).
The socialists say they just want the rich to pay 1% more so everyone can have free healthcare. They also say social security works just fine, Medicare works just fine, etc.
The same philosophical faults underpin all forms of marxism. They deny absolute truth, and deny humans are selfish by nature. Statistics are being hidden, but the same productivity drop is hitting Europe now.
As for their goals, those are all completely impossible; a 1% tax will not support universal Healthcare. I don't think taxing the top 10% an extra 10% would pay for universal healthcare. Social security and Medicare will soon have no money, so they don't work fine.
These are people who think Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk have tens of billions of dollars in a bank account or something; they honestly think they can just make them pay 20 billion dollars in taxes each and solve healthcare, not understanding their wealth is in stock, and that liquidating large amounts could crash the whole economy.
But again, they live in fairy tale land, so these arguements make no dent in their thick armor of ignorance. The problem is that they deny that the human soul is natural source of selfishness, and that it is good parenting and society that steers a person in the right direction. Many even deny laziness being a problem; Karl Marx himself was known to be a very lazy man, so it is no surprise his follower too are lazy and make external excuses for their self serving unproductiveness.
I realized I didn't really answer the question straight. Essentially, communism and socialism are two applications of the same faulty philosophy.
Arguing the difference between communism and socialism is like arguing killing black people verses enslaving them. There is a difference between the two, but the underlying problem is dehumanizing those with dark skin. Similarly, while socialism is less extreme, the core problem is still that it is based on a false premise.
Though really, I think the main problem is an immoral society. The American system has deteriorated as society has become more perverse. Capitalism holds things together a little longer than socialism, because as people get worse, at least capitalism will leverage greed to create some good for others. But at the end of the day, as families collapse and people become increasingly selfish, rule of law will eventually break down regardless of the system in place.
For voting Trump, I don't think I made a single post on my personal social media backing Trump (or stating how I voted in any way). Those conversations were only in person. I'm deep in Southern California, and it never felt like a battle worth engaging in, as those against Trump had deeper core problems that were blinding them to any arguement for Trump.
Instead, I was on the offense against lies in the media, would expose evil of politicians, and would make posts about truth. It is difficult to reach people who are brainwashed without breaking down some of the brainwashing.
Wheb I had Trump conversations, I only think I had that discussion with church people, and it was typically centered around the fact that those opposing Trump stand against the Bible on basically every single issue, from sanctity of life, to God "created them male and female." Trump isn't Jesus, but he is fighting the devil.
It usually also requires attacking welfare as it is as deeply unbiblical, destroying men and families, but I don't feel like typing up Biblical arguements like that on my phone.
Thank you!!!
What do you think the core issue is separating a Trump voter from a Trump hater?
I see Trump as breaking through all demographics. Most of the Trump voters I know are Democrats.
The core issue is the Trump haters have bought into the lies and propoganda, and are blinded by it.
Some are the sort of people who, above all else, want to be accepted by the cool crowd. If actors and musicians say it, news anchors state it, and coworkers talk about it, then they have to follow and agree. They just go along with what they are told to fit in.
Others religiously follow after the core of the left, like abortions and transgender surgeries. Many of these sorts are likely burdened by deep guilt, and rather than accept they made decisions to do evil, they double down and become fanatical.
I'd imagine the majority of anti-Trumpers do not believe in absolute moral truth, yet have bought into the lie that the US is and always has been a morally awful country. They truly believe the human-sacrificing cultures like the Aztecs are better than traditional American culture. These contradictory ideas are not a problem for them.
Trump supporters in general understand that traditional American culture and values, namely the value of freedom and individual responsibility, are superior to other ways of thinking. I assume another core difference is that most Trump supporters openly believe in absolute moral truth.
But really, most anti Trump people haven't thought about it much. Until the chains to those holding them mentally captive are broken, they won't come around. Thus, I attack their idols, undermine the perverted entertainers, lying newsmen, and hypocritical politicians, although I personally believe it is a spiritual battle, with forces of darkness blinding the eyes of millions.
I will speak to them so long as they are still able to present themselves as human beings.
I am not speaking to their land whales and 50 gendered faggots. That is a no sell. Period.
Most aren't up to the task of debating these people. You have to back them into corners, but not come off as a direct challenge.
Yes! I've learned that they are so slippery (going from individual to system, from general to specific) that I have had great success in just making one point at a time and slowly walking them in to a trap.
I try to get to an underlying issue as well.
What is your advice for cornering them?
Two books which will give you tactics: Never Split The Difference by Chris Voss and Influence by Robert Cialdini...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_iKeiPhisw
AWESOME!