posted ago by pharmacyman848
+3204 / -0
Sometimes I’ll just be like ‘you’re not a high school social studies teacher, you don’t need a works cited page. Either believe it or not.’ Other times I’ll point out their pattern of behavior and argument strategy before they even get to the final stage, where they say since it didn’t come from a reputable source it doesn’t count. They don’t seem to grasp all of their beliefs are being influenced by propaganda sources so of course any real news will seem strange to them. They’re interesting creatures.
Sometimes I’ll just be like ‘you’re not a high school social studies teacher, you don’t need a works cited page. Either believe it or not.’ Other times I’ll point out their pattern of behavior and argument strategy before they even get to the final stage, where they say since it didn’t come from a reputable source it doesn’t count. They don’t seem to grasp all of their beliefs are being influenced by propaganda sources so of course any real news will seem strange to them. They’re interesting creatures.
Facts never convince people who came to their positions via emotion.
I also get the ‘well that’s a conspiracy theory’ argument pretty often.
Tell them Russian collusion is a conspiracy theory.
Where is the pee tape??? The urination proclamation? The whizz heard 'round the world? Still waiting for proof, and debunking a germaphobe doesn't prove shit
It's not a theory if it's an actual conspiracy. But yeah, that's just another rationalization for maintaining a belief rooted in emotion. I don't agree with Scott Adams about a variety of issues. But he's spot on about persuasion and facts not being convincing to feels over reals folks.
I hate wading through Adam’s minutia; is there a specific place where he focuses on specifically discussing persuasion and “feels over facts”?
I can't think of one podcast that's a dense distillation. It's sort of an ongoing background topic. A quick and dirty search landed me here:
https://sterlingterrell.net/2018/09/persuasion-tips.html
Hopefully it's helpful. It does touch on many of his ongoing themes.
Thanks!
Im an avid anti masker. No one has said shit to me, but im totally ready to blow them out of the water.
Have you noticed that despite the establishment telling them the mask doesn't protect the wearer people put it on because they think it protects them?
Bunch of poor dumb cowards :/
Because they flat out will acknowledge "The only said that so enough PPE could be bought up for health professionals!!"
To which I always retort "So, essentially, you acknowledge that they will flat out lie to you in order to elicit a specific response from you. i.e. they will tell you what they need to in order to achieve their objective"
Cue the head explosions, ad hom, dismissal, accusations of apathy and even complicity in murder, etc...
EDIT: Upon further rebuttal and mentioning of science, they will, without any sense of what they're saying, screech that science changes and the policy is based on what we (they always say WE as if they have any part in any of the knowledge or decisions. They like to lump their blind acceptance and acquiescence in as part of the actual decisions being made) know NOW. Ignoring the fact that the science behind viral transmission has not in fact changed instantly in the past 5 months in the face of the consensus of the past 50 years on masks and their efficacy.
Yep; I got exactly that response.
I think it comes from the fact that this is just how life is for humans for the first ~22 or so years. Age 0-6, your parents are your educators. They seem to know everything, and they teach you everything you know. K-12 it is similar, now your teachers are the experts and everything they tell you is fact. Then you get to college, and you have experts in every field and everything they tell you is fact and you learn it.
Adulthood comes, and all of a sudden there really arent any experts anymore. Sure, there may be organizations and government officials who can be said to be experts, but can they always be trusted? Certain people trust these officials because they have been programmed for their entire lives to trust the experts.
Yeah I know it's frustrating af
"A liberal would be like "OMG, USA has more cases than CHINA! That's crazy!." Failing to realize China can't even match out testing capabilites, despite their population being 4x the size."
Don't even GO THER with China stats.
I've had that, I laughed in their face for trusting China, asked if they'd like to go bungee jumping if they found out the bungee was made in China.
I just flew back from TX two days ago, its fine over there. Was able to swing by a bar and have a burger and some beers, plus also got to stop for some really good BBQ and eat it inside.
I tell them it can't be a theory unless it's scientifically proven, and ask them if they meant conjecture or deduction.
Sounds like my very unhealthy mother.
My MIL is like this too. The most successful conversation I ever had with her (it didn't redpillher, but it made her begin to think, and it shut her up):
We start coming to blows over some "fake news" story. She says "It's like you just don't know who you can trust" (she's talking about who's media is accurate, hers or mine)
I start laughing and say "Yes you can."
She says, "Well how, I don't see how, everyone is lying to you these days."
I am still chuckling, I say, "Just go to the source material. That's how you know who's telling the truth about something..."
I gave her a little pep talk about how you can determine what news sources are reliable by checking them against source material. I ask her if she read Pedosta dumps. Answer = no. So I say "well, if you didn't read it for yourself, then how do you know if media is lying or telling the truth about it?"
SOURCE MATERIAL. Don't go to the media, go to the source. Then check what you saw/read against your media, and you will know who is lying to you.
Use the source, Luke. Use the source.
o shit, that is memeworthy... kek!
Because she's too lazy. She wants predigested opinions because it's easier.
My girlfriend and I was just at her moms house last weekend so I could put a bed together for her for some extra cash. We both already know she's a diehard lefty. $100+k in student loan debt, switched from an English degree to library degree, full on in academia. So I already know the bubble she lives in. My gf asked me long ago not to argue with her when she brings up politics to get along. But there we are helping her out and she starts bringing up something about someone calling AOC a bitch and how wrong and messed up that is. I myself wasn't aware of that particular story b.c when it came up here on TD I skipped over it b.c, well I do think she is a bitch. So I said to her I haven't heard about that story, tell me about it. She rambles on about how someone was caught on camera calling her a bitch and was supposed to apologies but didn't. A real nothing-burger. I then asked her why did he call her a bitch? All she could say was I just told you the story. I said yes you did but you never said why he did it in the first place. So she's getting heated and saying how we (gf and I) were misogynist and that we instantly think b.c she is a woman she had to do something wrong to be called a bitch. I replied with no, I just don't go around calling someone a bitch without being provoked first. On the way back home I told my gf, notice how she couldn't give us a reason as to why someone would say such a thing to someone. It's b.c the tv didn't give her a reason. Notice how outraged she got when the narrative was questioned? B.c tv teaches her to be outraged when it's questioned. I been on the Trump train sense the 2016 primaries. Girlfriend is voting Trump with me this year. Her mom.... well she is useful in red pilling my gf
Exactly. People are using media as the source. How is media a source? Media may report a story, but that story had to come from somewhere. Verify if what they are saying is true by looking into it yourself. Reporters are no better at coming to a conclusion than you or me, sure they may have gotten a degree in journalism but that does not necessarily means they are always correct with the conclusions that they come to. Opinion pieces are some of the most disgusting pieces of content they put out, why would I give a fuck about some journalists opinion? I may give a fuck about a close friends opinion, or my families opinion, but a random journalist?
It gets even worse than this because not only do people not even look into the source they dont even read the fucking articles. So many times I see comments on Reddit asking questions or making speculations on things that were clearly addressed in the article. These people are reading headlines and forming opinions based on headlines. It is insanity.
You are exactly right, however, I tried dragging my mom through the whole spirit cooking Podesta emails and she refused to believe they were real. Her words : “Emails are private and secure, how could you get ahold of his emails, they have to be fake”. She also calls me monthly to fix her computer, or walk her through turning it off and back on
“You can’t reason a man out of a position he didn’t reason himself into.”
I used to love wikipedia... but now that their cofounder has come out and said that it is edited toward leftist agendas... I think we need better than wikipedia.
It's been unreliable for a long time. Some topics are far worse than others.
https://youtu.be/Wqw527ivrQE
Yesterday I was looking at Casey Anthony (that hot mom who killed her baby in Orlando) and I was surprised that Casey Anthony doesn't have a wikipedia page. The killing of her daughter has a page, the trial has a page, but not the mother. It's gotta be explained by some legal reasons, but its still really making me curious how it can be the case. I'm serious, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Casey_Anthony&redirect=no and you'll find nothing on the mother/killer.
Interesting. I wonder who else and what else is omitted?
I do find it interesting how Kapernick's wikipedia page is twice as long as the page for Donald Trump's family. Leftist pages have information about every trivial and minute detail about someone's life.
Because lefties worship them. I think 99% of the Trump fans here, myself included can entertain we admire him as POTUS, but might not love how he handled marriages, and think he can be over the top. Big deal, I don't want a brain surgeon who I want to have over to dinner, I'll take an asshole who cures me. Lefties I know have left doctors who didn't have the best bedside manner.
Lefties on the other hand cannot entertain George Floyd isn't a role model or saint, he was a pretty bad guy, BUT he shouldn't have had someone kneel on his neck. They actually praised Michelle Obama and Hillary for beauty and style. Seriously. While Melania is a super model, they only criticize her looks, clothing style, because they cannot admit she is attired flawlessly and is stunning, even if they don't like her, because they operate from a place of emotion, not rational thought. Laura Bush is a trim, pretty woman and looked very nice and appropriate when she was first lady, objectively more so than Michelle or Hilary. No Republican salivated over her fashion choices, hairstyles or beauty.
That could be a double edged sword. More information can provide more dots to connect. But the self satisfied can't help showing off.
I like how Kaitlyn Bennett challenges liberals to defend their accusations, and even with their iphones, the liberals can't say anything to support their claims that Trump is racist.
lie by omission is the lefts favorite trick.
Wikipedia IS totally biased leftwards. However, it is still useful if you are smart enough to understand how they perform biasing and you cross-corroborate with other sources.
To be fair I had a big Wikipedia success that's still up. They kept denying my edit for petty reasons until I provided 3 trusted lefty NewsGuard certified sources (all ranked 100/100 by them) that agreed with me. I still check from time to time wondering when someone will take it down but they haven't since.
Wikipedia have been slowly fakenewsed over the past 10y. Some articles are now straight up propaganda. Sad.
WOW! This is WAY better than Wikipedia. I looked up Melania Trump and the difference was noticeable. The wording is the key. Thanks for the link!
Chrome and Brave are both freaking out telling me that site is dangerous?
yeah, lots of people get smeared for political reasons and history is reshaped into a leftist viewpoint on wikipedia.
I got people to admit Breitbart articles are well sourced with facts. You can't expect someone to "change" and some won't. But some will slowly realize they're fed a fantasy.
Keep your chin up.
I've had my best success with a modified Socratic method: asking questions and follow ups asking them to explain their ideas to me. It can be challenging to stay neutral and positive in those exchanges but I think it's helpful. Most people don't enjoy getting told. They like to figure things out themselves. Even if they get some cognitive dissonance they also get a nice dopamine hit from those light bulb aha! moments.
Every time some leftist tells me that Breitbart is fake news - I ask them to sit down with me and go over the stories on Breitbart and show me what is fake by proving it.
Nobody ever has. Not even one story.
The problem is they cite headlines they have read as sources.
Then ask for more details, go beyond headlines. Engage in deeper conversation with as much polite interest as you can muster. Otherwise it's merely a gimp fight between sloganeers. Which can be fun over a few beers but accomplishes nothing except bad feelings between people.
Yeah, ive never had any luck getting a liberal to read anything. They concoct fantasies and once they have that locked into the memory banks, they wont digest anything that contradicts it. Its part of the liberal disese.
I didn't say make them read. I said ask them questions about their beliefs. Make them work to try to convince you. That said it's also important to choose your battles wisely and not waste your time and energy when it could be better spent elsewhere.
Lol I dig that. Never heard sloganeers before.
You can literally show them how a district in India with roughly the population of the USA had a total of 68 CoVID-19 deaths since March, and that they have been using HCQ+Z-pak+zinc protocols since day 1. And they will respond with the latest study from some outfit like the AMA or whatever, as if a study of any sort will compete with empirical data.
A true failure and corruption of our education system from early ages all the way through college which just reinforced that style of thinking. Now they can’t even step back and see the logic in many arguments including the one you just made.
I only trust studies approved by reputable sources like CNN.
I've got a friend who tries to posture himself as neither right nor left. That he's above partisanship and that both sides are brainwashed. We have a semi ongoing argument about hcq's efficacy in regards to wuflu and the general impact of wuflu in general. I say semi ongoing because it's more like he'll post a meme he thinks it's snarky and I'll comment with a similar meme and then some studies and articles.
Despite his posturing he's quite clearly bought everything the media has said hook, line, and sinker. On the rare occasion he engages he'll post something from a mainstream site or a clearly biased lesser site. Never directly addresses the issues or even puts forth an argument much less a cohesive one and has a habit of strawmanning constantly. The most recent incident was my response to an article he posted courtesy of the daily beast I believe in which it tried to de-legitimize Stella Immanuel because she said something nutty about demon sperm or whatever. The entire article was a poorly written strawman itself.
In response I led off with a meme posted here not too long ago about Fauci knowing about hcq's effectiveness on sars, effectively calling him a mass murderer, following it with a snippet of an article talking about his knowledge and him basically calling chloroquine and hcq basically a treatment and a vaccine. I then followed that up with a few more articles which I never comment on to see if he bothers to read them. The best thing he could come up with was that Sars and covid aren't the same thing and that it's only because covid has mutated since its original discovery. More articles and studies from my end highlighting the successes of hcq just resulted in another comment that Sars and covid weren't the same thing. It should also be no surprise that he's got at least stage 4 TDS.
Some advice from someone who used to do the exact same thing and get nowhere, just stop.
This person is not engaging with you in an honest way, they do not want an honest discussion or debate, they are not interested in finding middle ground or the facts, they want to WIN and that's it.
Debate is healthy and something I'd encourage, but what you might have failed to learn from your friend is that some fights are better left alone. The best way to deal with someone like this guy is to have the argument publicly and change other people's minds when they see how delusional he is, consider him a lost cause.
You'll feel much better afterwards, I remember the feeling of frustration after having an argument with these kind of people and I suspect that's why you wrote your long post!
I don't mind having them with him, I need to sharpen my discussion/debate skills and I don't think he's too far gone yet. But these discussions were held in a small discord server of friends in a channel where everyone could see, another person engaged as well but it was more due to their mistrust of big pharma and a fear of things they read about Africa's experience with hcq which transitioned into another interesting discussion about individualism and collectivism. I think I can at least convince him (the original friend) that things aren't as bad as they seem and it isn't the end of the world and that Trump isn't as bad as he thinks, but it'll take some time.
People who say they aren’t the same thing have no clue what they are talking about. They don’t know the pathway to entering the body and the mechanism for replication. It’s like saying that spike strips work on a ford escort but not a mustang GT. Of course, they work on both because they both still have tires that can be punctured. Doesn’t matter how big the fuckin engine is.
Nice analogy.
Ask him if he knows that COVID-19 is the name of the disease, not the name of the virus. And then ask him if he knows the Coronavirus is named SARS-CoV-2.
I got similar friends. It's sad because many of them are pretty smart. Just brainwashed.
Ah he must be one of those people that thinks “reality has a left wing bias”. He watches left biased news and reads left boded newspapers but he doesn’t think of himself as left wing.
Pretty much. He's blissfully unaware of it, too. Not to mention he's one of those that thinks black people can't be racist because racism requires a power dynamic and black people don't have that.
Oh so he’s one of those racists that think black people should be held to a lower standard than other races because blacks are inherently without power? Got it haha
Nailed it.
Got a link for this? I wanna check it out.
"I'm not your secretary, look it up yourself." Has shut down many a lefty's argument.
I’m black. Stop trying to make me a slave to do work for you. Reeeee
Really? Your profile pic looks like a white, 19 year old incel.
I have a profile pic
Try this: https://tmp.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/what_made_asias_largest_slum_a_success_model_for_treating_covid19.html
https://reader.magzter.com/preview/8s7pn8t7sl3gqaa7wjuoe4324610/432461#page/4
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Kerala
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/pharmaceuticals/four-drug-mix-for-covid-19-can-work-wonders-say-kerala-doctors/articleshow/75100976.cms?from=mdr
I still get the "didn't you listen to Dr Fauci?" line as if it holds any bearing.
But he's God, TV said so!
Or when you encourage people to do their own research and they start their next sentence as "Google says..."
But they don’t think they’re the sheep, they think they’re academically superior and enlightened. Then they’ll cite a book written by their liberal professor as ‘evidence.’
Or their Google search
A book they haven't read usually. Sometimes I go through the pain if reading them and it rarely have any substance. It's crazy to me. Doesn't anyone read them?
Had a leftists literally cite The Daily Show as a source to legitimize something stupid he said
This used to happen all the time when Joh Stewert was still hosting. Its why we make fun if them for getting their news from comedians.
They still do, but since we made fun of them so much they don't talk about it as much anymore.
All of their gods are so-called comedians. Think about all the late-night pedo/racists who just trash talk our country and people and president. All former comedians.
The entire leftists ideology is one big joke and these morons are too stupid to even be in on it. Oh, but you're SOO much smarter, with your education degree that you use to teach yoga, than those Drumph-tards who can disassemble and reassemble an automobile and can farm and hunt for their own food.
What's green and smells like Amy Schumer?
I don't think I want to know? 🤮
Unrelated... I LOVE your moniker, Mr. Bester.
Maybe you should listen to John Oliver, you might learn something!
...or muh Snopes. They love their semantics.
100% FALSE: Hillary did not use a corrosive chemical to purge her email server, she used an app called BleachBit
MIXTURE: Hillary did not personally use a hammer to break her mobile device, one of her aides used a hammer to break her mobile device.
Wow at least you have friends that google stuff. Mine say “Netflix says...” lmfao
What's better is when they go straight to google and you see them scrolling a little bit and even clicking 'Page 2'... You know you've won at that point.
Yep, this is a common tactic of theirs.
My favorite one is when they say use “not all!” or some variation of that. Like, when I speak against abortion, they always jump to “but but but what about rape?!!!!!”
Another one is “now you don’t know for sure that’s happening” as they make a bunch of statements that they don’t know is for sure.
How can they all use the exact same tactics? It’s almost eerie that so many people from all over the vast country are so programmed to be the same.
Well, they’re mostly arriving at their conclusions by the same means. When you think of Wokeism as a religion, it kind of makes sense. Most of the people who believe the leftist talking points don’t really understand the first principles that generate them, like casual church-goers who may know the faith but don’t fully understand it. We end up in situations where we are essentially trying to convince the secular equivalent of Evangelical Baby Christians to renounce their faith that they only really understand in a secondhand way.
Interesting concept. I don't understand people who demand perfection and work assiduously for success in their business life but believe whatever the hell they're told about politics. Where is the intellectual curiosity they normally employ?
Thank Hollywood.
Social media. Just learn the script, don't worry about the facts.
They've seen someone else do it, and then do it themselves.
Like... toddlers.
Just made a very similar comment to this lol, I'd love more discussion on this because it's scary how true it is.
My own mother has come at me with these scripted predictable responses that contradict everything she knows about certain topics (islam, Trump, etc.), it can't just be media articles right??
This has been a thing way before social media too, biggest example would be people responding to any criticism of Islam with "Not all muslims are terrorists".
If they bring up rape, tell them that male victims of rape don't have a choice in parenthood.
You can talk to them about how Islam encourages and supports having sex with children and marrying children and they'll come back with "But not all muslims are terrorists!!"
Their responses are always scripted bot answers and I wonder where they all get their scripts from because they're always so predictable.
use the 1-2% pregnancy cases attributed to rape or incest to justify the 98-99% of the other cases.
Its like the reverse of their anti-gun arguments: "if it just saves one life....." but for guns only, not children.
The left will scream, "Whataboutism," when they don't have a way to counter the utter hypocrisy you just pointed out.
That's their weak point - they get angry at highlighting their hypocrisy. That's when you double down, and mock the hell out of 'em. Radical Rule #13. Make Alinsky work for you, Pede!
That is what I call the dismissal verbal tool. "fake news" was supposed to be one used on us. That backfired. But there are many other tools given to them to dismiss us. They do not want to hear you because they have been told you are evil. Well if you are evil you do not have to listen to it. In fact you are free to attack it and they will praise you for it.
Call them out on it. Say something along the lines of "aw damn didnt mean to hurt your feelings maybe you can come back when you are calmed down". You will see the biggest twist up ever.
Yes i have noticed and it's extremely rude. Its tantamount to calling you a liar. I tell them to do their own research later....not while I'm talking. Unfortunately people will just find the one website that supports their ridiculous view like cnn or vox......and then send you six links to something unrelated to what you said. It's like that old proverb....never try to teach a pig to sing.....it wastes your time and annoys the pig....
Hahaha that’s exactly my experience, it’s horrifying how so many people from all over the country all act the exact same way. Programming has been strong with them.
ESPN hidden propaganda
Every fucking time on Reddit.
They literally ignore video evidence. I have people on the Portland subreddit telling me the protests are peaceful and to stop watching Fox News.
Then, when I link a couple of Andy NGO’s videos on the ground clearly showing chaos and anarchy every single night, multiple times a night, they say “lol Andy ngo LoL”
Wtf?
It’s the same sort of idiocy I got when sharing the Frontline Doctors video. “Too bad it’s Breitbart, they have a bad rep.”
First, who says they have a bad rep? CNN? Second, it’s a fucking livestreamed, unedited video. And you’re disputing the source. Bravo.
Same for Trump videos. You better send them C-SPAN instead of Fox News links even though they are the exact same one hour presentation.
Lol why does breitbart have a worse rep than cnn or mcnbc etc anyway? I’d love to see Breitbart go head to head with any mainstream outlet on number of retractions. Tell me who deserves a bad rep then?
I just had this happen with the HCQ smear job. My friend complained about HCQ as a "dangerous drug", and how the president wasn't listening to Fauci. I answered with the CDC sheet on the safety of HCQ, and Dr Fauci's own study, and LINKS to the ORIGINAL SOURCES on gov. websites.
My buddy told me those were obscure references...
I also see a disturbing amount of character assassination of these doctors.
These brainless leftists never even watch their speeches or read any studies, they just go directly to hitjobs on Huffington Post or Vox and get a dose of lefty conspiracy theory instead.
Where do they thing the President got the idea? He listened to his advisor... Who would that be?.... Hmmm, who?....
kek obscure
I was on a college alumni FB group and said that hate crimes are so rare they need to be made up to find them.
I got called out, asking for a source for my statement by an old woman.
"You've never played poker with a Polak have you? We don't bluff" and I hit her with nearly 400 articles from fakehatecrimes.org. Facebook tried to block the link.
She dismissed it, saying it was a right wing website. So I punked her. I told her that despite the fact she was one of the first women to attend an all male military school and got daily harassment for it, despite her army service, despite her long standing in this FB group and being friends and respected by the pages Admin (and mutual friend)... None of that matters with your one statement. You've outed yourself as a hack, insulted 400 researched stories and I won't even give you the satisfaction of having the last word. I don't need to block you, I will never read what you have to say from now on.
You Nimble Navigator, you!
Always dig for the source root(s). If you read a story, find its basis. Once you reach "the CDC" or "the original video" or "the paper from 1967" (or the like), you stop. Give them THAT. They're not going to read it anyway, so your goal is to make them feel stupid for being dishonest; induce REEEEEEEE. They'll just whatabout, probably.
As a side-effect, you will have fact-checked yourself; and you will know your grounding.
This is the way, folks. Also, the lurkers quietly reading will be like, wtf, this Trump supporter brought receipts and this lefty is a screeching moron.
I posted the article showing Fauci praising HCQ and people were still trying to spin it that it wasnt for this "this covid"
Ok, so it's safe to use for a less deadly version of the disease. Why not for the "super deadly" version?
I love it when they send a Vox or Axios article as proof to their argument.
And of course won't accept an article from Breitbart or even something left like The Hill.
And they are taught to debate unfairly. We need actual debate moderators!
Of course we would have to teach debating to the masses since it's unknown to them that there are LONG ACCEPTED RULES to debates.
And those "articles" are usually an opinion piece from some Harvard graduate.
Debating fairly is based on logic. Which we all know is white supremacy...
The weird thing is even the smartest people I know that are libs have zero common sense when it comes to opposing views. TDS is real
"HCQ is an alt-right conspiracy!"
"You know it's been around for like 60 years, right?"
"Russia."
I had somebody ask me for a source for a meme Which shut down their argument. The meme was just a screen capture from video of a testimony with a quote from the video. A link to the video was at the bottom of the meme. The video was hosted by a “non-acceptable” source.
I replied to them that a link to the video was at the bottom of the meme and they replied that it wasn’t a credible source. It’s a fucking video of the guy saying exactly what was said in the meme. How the fuck is the actual person not a credible source for their own words spoken at that time?
Liberals are borderline retarded. Welcome to the clown-age.
They've been trained to only accept leftist propaganda as truth.
YouTube might not host purely far-left conspiracy theories, so it can't be trusted.
I have ran into this countless times on Bernies YouTube channel. They aren't intrested in the truth.
I usually grab the source for the story. For example if I read a Breitbart article about how hydroxychloroquine does 'x' I'll find the link to the study and use that.
Good idea but you’re brave to even touch on hydroxychloroquine with a liberal anymore. Their mind is so made up it’s poison I don’t even venture down that road anymore.
That's only for people who have logic and reason.
When I talk to a leftist I engage as dishonestly as possible. For example when discussing free healthcare for undocumented immigrants, I talk about how cruel it is to force a Honduran mother with two young children to cross such a vast amount of land to get the healthcare she has a right to. We need to send our best doctors and tax dollars to Honduras to treat these people.
They usually look perplexed.
Good idea -- why can't people in Honduras have a country they love?
Why can't we help them do that?
Leftards literally think HCQ is a right-wing conspiracy, that doctors speaking good of it are in on the conspiracy, etc.
Yeah like for over 50 years the right has been planning this amazing conspiracy...
Projection. Because their 50 plan is falling apart because of Trump
THIS ^ always link to original source. For those who might still be saved, it is the way.
"This is 2020, you need more than one study"
Then I proceed to engage in a completely dishonest way from there are on. I will turn this conversation into full blown clown world quicker than you can delete a tweet about hydroxychloroquine.
Give me an example of an argument you won where they asked for the source.
I see what you did there
Give me the example, and I'll tell you how I would respond.
Tik tok is owned by China and is spying on Americans
So which fact are they disputing ? The fact that China owns TikTok or the fact that they are spying on Americans ?
Both
How tough is it to type "TikTok wikipedia" into a search engine and read the first sentence ?
That goes against their liberal friends bitching about Trump banning it so it’s better to ignore any potential threat. Hatred for Trump is more important than any value to country.
Please provide reputable source(s) for your claims.
Seriously though, it shouldn't be too big ask to proove you aren't either bullshitting or regurgitating bullshit. The problem is that in recent years the "reputable sources" have gone off the rails, lying so often they contradict themselves. Maybe try pointing out the contradictions instead? See some examples here: http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/269821287/can-we-get-some-more-of-these
Then they ask you to disprove a negative on their theory without any proof of their own
My sister asked me last week what proof I have that Trump isn’t racist...since when does burden of proof work that way???
spez : not that there isn’t an abundance of proof he’s not
Stop arguing with liberals. The time for arguing is long past. Lead an exemplary life and train to defeat them when they take up arms against us.
You have nothing to win by engaging these people in discussion. Blow them off and do your own thing(well).
arguing with liberals isn't about changing their views, its about changing the views of the audience.
i go on hikes with some family members (mom, cousin #1, aunt, cousin #2, cousin #3)
cousin #1 and aunt are rapid liberals but if shit comes up (thanks mom...), i do my part.
i dont do it for cousin #1 or aunts benefit, but for cousin #2 and cousin #3s benefit
This. I always see memes of leftists complaining that their "racist" uncle starts talking about politics during holiday dinners, but in my experience it's always leftists who stand up on a pulpit during random times, and are just pissed if someone has a different view. Christmas dinners, hikes, playing board games, working, democrat faces just contort and get red if they're not able to show how woke they are 24/7. It's not even political facts, it's propaganda and "non-debatable" emotional bullshit.
I just wanna chill out and be in the moment, but a leftist always has to bring in politics during inappropriate times. And the longer it goes on the more likely I'm going to have to call them out on their lies, just so they don't brainwash the uninitiated.
This is good advice and an accurate depiction of both them and the likely future
A friend shared an NPR article that quoted a police press release (re: Garrett Foster). Press release states ‘It has now been confirmed by several witnesses that this individual with the assault rifle then began to raise the assault rifle toward Sgt. Perry.’ So I asked how that isn’t self defense? She said the self defense thing was a false narrative being spun...by the NPR article you shared?! I don’t understand. I thought this woman was intelligent. Sorry to go on so long, this has just been really bothering me...
It's an "excuse".
People who refuse to admit they might be wrong start making excuses.
Then they can make up anything and still 'win'.
This is kinda cringe. Sources are always requested and supplied in debates or online arguments. Refusing to give your source or saying “Google it yourself” is an automatic admission of defeat in my book. You can’t/won’t supply the source of what is coming out of your mouth, then we don’t need to talk anymore.
A rational person will not just “either believe it or don’t” without a source. Although, to your point - discrediting a source is a logical fallacy. I suggest you read up on logical fallacies. Armed with that, you can dismantle any lefty’s argument because they’re all fallacy-riddled.
Edit: Here is a quick reference on fallacies. https://drtomcrick.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fallaciesposter.png
It’s not that I refuse or have a problem giving it, it’s just the obvious next step is them saying it doesn’t come from one of their academic or media trusted sources so it doesn’t count. Then it leads down the whole ‘your sources are corrupt, no yours are corrupt’ arguments and I just can’t do that every single time I make a point that addresses a liberals belief.
I can agree with that sentiment. Wins against Lefties in debates usually end with ad homs and appeals to authority. They attack your character, the reputation of any source that contradicts them, and look to celebrities, Wall Street CEO’s, and government officials to pat them on the head and tell them they’re right.
If you encounter any of those, take comfort in the knowledge that you won and they’re cognitive dissonance will be flared-up the rest of the day.
Yeah don’t read the post as I’m anti sources or proofs but the likelihood that any argument with a liberal gets to this same conclusion is just exhausting and less and less worth the trouble as time goes on.
What if you yourself are the source
It’s considered anecdotal
Like Dr. Stella
You need to realize that most people are not at all interested in hearing your opinion, they are more interested in arguing with it. If they cared about your opinion or the facts they would do a little research of their own and come up with their own ideas and arguments.
Online and offline, I once used HUFFINGTON POST to provide the statistics about rape and sexual assault with border crossings, just so that they'd have no chance to question my sources, I asked them if they're okay with Huffington Post, they say yes, I express that I am not a big fan of them because they're massively anti-Trump.
We see the statistics and then the guy says "Dude this is from Huffington Post, even you agree that they're not reliable!"
You can't make it up.
Liberals commonly won't accept anything they've never heard before unless there is a source or a study. Not all minutiae of life has a pertinent double-blind peer-reviewed study. Sometimes you have to look at a situation and arrive at a conclusion yourself. This is something few liberals have the ability to do. They need some "authority," whether it be the NYT or their TV, to tell them what to think.
They cannot comprehend that your sources are common sense and deductive reasoning. They are not acquainted with these sources.
I've written extensively about this tactic for more than a decade. To sum it up, it's not about sources. It's about putting you in a defensive position by calling for sources, which forces you into a position where you have to prove empirical truths, which creates an impression that the truth isn't empirical at all, when it is.
Then they refute those sources no matter what, say it's wrong, try to say it means something else, or sweep it under the rug entirely and make a straw man argument that puts you on the defensive for things you never posited in your side of the argument.
This is where they get some people, because they create a straw man argument they're right about, but that was never posited and has little to nothing to do with the original argument. But they put it up as a point on the scoreboard for themselves nonetheless. It's like if the losing team at a baseball game in the last inning suddenly brought out a basketball hoop and made a 3 pointer, then claimed they're ahead in score.
By arguing like this, they automatically create a facade of putting themselves at the top of the hill on their high horses, making it an uphill battle. By making you have to prove you're right, they're creating the facade of them being already right and you having to prove them wrong. And at that point, all they have to do is merely indicate you've failed, giving the appearance that they are on the right side of things....when they never had to prove anything about their position at all.
Don't fall for those traps. You won't change their minds. They aren't there to have their minds changed, they're there to waste your time. And even when you start getting leverage, they'll delude things to the point where it doesn't matter who is right or what the original argument was anymore, because they want to make thing contentious and the whole argument look tainted. If they can't win, they don't want it to look like you've won either.
Liberals are highly narcissistic so to them truth matters little and winning at all cost is what they want. They will go through all sorts of mental acrobatics. They will try to get you to react emotionally because it often leads to you saying something they can attack (sincere truth is hardest to attack). They will use ad hominem insults. They will gas light or make inferences putting words in your mouth. They will push you to defend an extreme version of your position. All text book toxic narcissism.
But Snopes says... But Wikipedia says... But Rachel says... But Palmer Report says...
You send them an article link, and before they even open the page they send you a reply that so-and-so "lists that site as unreliable." They won't even look at it.
Yes and it annoys the F out of me. If the source isn’t approved by them, they refuse to accept it and immediately walk away from the argument feeling like they won.
Yup it’s a tactic they use that both makes them feel like they won and also protects and doesn’t question their way of thinking.
The best is when the preach CDC and WHO are the gospel and trump is a dumbass for not listening then they won't accept hard data from the CDC and WHO websites. Like how all deaths are covid now
Yes. Every day in my home with my TDS stage 4 wife. “That’s not true.” “Yes it is.” “Where’d you hear that?” (Cites unauthorized non MSM source.) “Pffft!”
Rinse. Repeat.
yes. My family members, too. It's exhausting. Which I guess is their goal.
With my lefty friends they immediately say "you can't use fox news". So only CNN? CNBC?
Its like they have been conditioned to only view left wing news sources as credible.
It's a Communist/Socialist tactic from way back, think 1917 Soviet Union.
If the information did not come from the State, it could not even be uttered.
That is why they want to end our freedom of speech.
That's just classic Apologetics, the art of arguing from a position you have decided is correct rather than trying to discover the truth.
~I only believe the lunatic leftists I believe would NEVER lie to ME!~
~sarcasm~
More importantly, they're conditioned to try to ferret out that source, so they can go back to their bubbles and strip it from the list of "approved sources", which then goes out in the next NPC update.
This happened to me recently with an otherwise very intelligent doctor friend from New York.
I gave him a bunch of data, he asked me where I got it from and I told him C-SPAN. He somehow managed to turn them into a biased outlet.
It still makes me laugh 3 weeks later.
You always know you one when they pull out the "you're a racist" or "you're a NAZI" rebuttal. I take those as their submission made in anger.
They will discredit any source that does not confirm their belief, even if that source is CNN, MSLSD, etc.
Info wars bitch!
The biggest learning comes from experience. Thanks to these riots and blm/antifa extremists people are getting some reeeeal good learning on where these leftist policies will get them. Common sense dictates people don't want to live in lawless societies so that's why the number of people being red pilled is so high right now.
You gotta love it!
My favorite is regurgitating “everything FOX news says is a lie”, by finding their point on any FOX news site, and remind them that They just told lies.
It’s funny watching brain damaged people froth at the mouth.
One lady I was arguing with said all of the government are run by white guys and are racist. I then pointed her at the LA police department which is 70% blacks and the chief of police at the time was black. I said 'explain that'. I quote "i dont have to explain it my point is still true". Even when presented with facts their emotions will override it. I knew I would not change her mind. I just wanted to do the twist up.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. The cure is 4 more years.
My favorite: "YouTube isn't a source!"
No shit. But it's a content host. That's like saying the internet isn't a reliable source, or that books aren't a reliable source. So dumb.
I remember getting into a discussion with someone on FB and they asked me what has Ben Carson ever done for non-white Americans. I linked them a Breitbart article about how Ben was given the Springarn Medal from the NAACP and all they said was “yeah but that’s Breitbart so that’s problematic”
There was literally a picture of the award in the article lmao how much more factual can you get??
Unless you know them personally, odds almost all these people are paid shills from all manner of non private sector interests worldwide. They are overwhelmingly inconsistent to the point that no literate adult could legitimately claim the "A and ~A" things they do. Only engage them to the extent you might red pill a lurker, utter waste of time otherwise such as in private exchanges.