"The right has learned that if you never *look* like you're losing, you can convince a lot of people that you're not." That reminded me of Contrapoints' video "The Aesthetic" - winning a debate in the eyes of the public is not about being factually or logically correct. It's all about pageantry. We're in the circus, not the forum
“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War. It looks like people only listened to half of that and made it work. You may have lost an arguement but you looked strong when the whole time your argument was weak and made the other person look weak when/or if their arguement was strong. Of course it depends but generally thats how it goes
@@SleepyBrady Appearing strong when you are weak is still weakness, it just needs to be capitalized on. There are plenty of ways to engage with these arguments and destroy them. For example: in the above donation example you start by calling them a liar for presenting such easily check argument like the basic difference between stealing money vs asking for donations. Then in their second response you call out that they have lied two times in a row, and counter with a direct statement against their character and the worth of their arguments. It's easy to defeat these individuals with truth, but you have to be willing to be bold for the sake of truth and attack the entirety of the situation. Nothing is more effective than calling out these strategies for what they are while they are in the process of using them. Because the conversation chain is publicly visible it forces them either to delete their comments or leave up evidence of their transgressions, which in turn provides your audience with direct evidence of the unworthiness of their words.
and that's why they're always trying to rile people up i think lol, cause like sometimes it's hard to side with someone if they're delivering their message poorly and are overwhelmed with anger :/
You forgot to mention one other strength of this approach: the application of the so called "theorem of the pile of shιt". It goes like this: - he throws some bullshιt at you, it takes 10 seconds for him to do it. - you dig it up, it takes you 10 minutes! - he do it again, on another subject, for him it's still 10 seconds. - you dig it up again, it takes you even more than 10 minutes. etc etc Creating shιt is faster than digging it up, you can't win. It works the best for the conspiration theorist. Take the chemtrails, you need a meteorologist and an engineer and maybe even a pilot for fully debunking a random guy. But even the alt right can use it, combine it with the "whatabout argument" and you can generate tons of shιt easily
with AI entering wide usage on the internet and techbros who love it and use it often being right-leaning centrists at best and actual MAGA folks at worst, everything has taken a turn for the worse. we are in hell.
Exactly, that's why he picked the college students in the first place. Student have read a shit ton of books and developed their own ideas for months that they think they can take on Shapiro, but Shapiro checkmates them with "short, quippy and wrong" because these students didn't prepare for an idiot, they've prepared for a debate master yet Shapiro delivered them an idiot. And that's probably why Shapiro failed against BBC commentators, these guys were educated on that pattern so they've always countered with "short-quippy-you lie" and then Shapiro was forced to take the defence and excuse himself just to be hit by "short-quippy-you lie" once again...because he is full of shit.
My favorite way of describing Shapiro is “Professional Fast-Speaking (term meaning ‘stupid’”. But that’s wordy, so the more effective term being short and quippy is a delight.
I love how conservatives always complain about the "wall of text" during an argument. Which is basically just an unintented way of admitting that you don't care or are too stupid to understand a proper argument.
If you can keeping your own responses short and snappy like their questions can be quite effective. It quickly and easily makes it apparent that they're full of it. "She stole money from people." .....doesn't need a paragraph to respond. "People willingly donated to her crowd funding," says everything that needs to be said.
@@comradecam9530 it's also about how impactful the word choice is, "she stole money from people" will stick in someone's head way more than "people willingly donated to her crowd funding"; it's just human nature to want to accuse and punish
If you use more words than you have to in order to get your point across, you're falling into the high school essay trap. There's a time and a place for long form discussions, but it's not just conservatives recognize proper etiquette. Try, face to face, speaking to a person for 5 minutes before they get their turn, throw around name calling and the refuse to explain what you mean by the terms you use. You're comfortable behind your computer screen, in your circle jerk, but one day you'll wish you put the time you spent making walls of text into pushups, and after this wall of text, I'm doing one for every word I typed.
I just play their same game. Once I give an explanation and they make another short quip, I just say: “you didn’t address my point.” They’ll say the quip again, I’ll tell them that they’re wrong and they’ll move on to the next quip. I’ll then reiterate, “you didn’t address my point. That’s twice now.” I’ve found this to be surprisingly effective. Onlookers will this realize when they see it happening. Even in the lizard brain, that short reminder to the audience that your opponent isn’t addressing what you saying takes them out of lizard and into rational. It’s not foolproof, but you’ll be surprised how much it works. I’ve even seen Gabes tell the Angry Jacks that they’ve lost and are now embarrassing themselves.
That doesn't work. They still introduce the seed of bullshit to your followers. Pointing out that their argument is fundamentally unsound doesn't do anything because it's fundamentally unsound on purpose.
I do my best to avoid engaging at all cost, and when I have to I just love saying "wrong" and "no" to a lot of their quips. If pressed, I tell them to explain / prove their point. Bring up burden of proof being on them. Won't win you an argument, but usually annoys them into leaving and makes their quips look less quippy. 98% of people reading picked a side before they start reading, why bother explaining shit in a debate anymore.
@@NaruTheBlackSwan Only if you have followers, it's not a problem for someone like myself. They're just getting burned by a nobody and their followers are the ones being exposed to something new.
That whole thing about "short, quippy, and wrong" being countered with carefully researched explanations, only to get "short, quippy, and wrong" responses reminds me of an eye-opening and disappointing exchange that I had with my father. No surprise, he's more conservative than I am, but we have a good relationship. There are many things on which we respectfully disagree, and I never felt like I couldn't have a rational discussion with him... until the following event happened. We were discussing economics, and he made the questionable claim that "lowering taxes _ALWAYS_ increases tax revenue (because of the corresponding increase in economic activity)". I was surprised to hear this, and I thought he was being over-broad in his statement, so I replied with something like "Well, maybe in _some_ circumstances, but obviously not in _all_ cases-" "No! _ALWAYS!"_ So, I engaged the skills that I had learned in university, where I went to business school. Whether we _ought_ to use tax policies that maximize government revenue is another important topic, but not one I needed to research for this subject. I had one very clear fact-claim to assess. I researched multiple professional economists, some more liberal, some more conservative. I collected studies from multiple, different universities. I gained a basic understanding of the terms, assumptions, and framework that professors, experts in this precise field used to discuss this very subject. I presented my father a research paper of an email with academic citations for all of my claims. Long story short, almost all economists agree that there is a tax rate (the peak of the "Laffer curve") for a given country at a given time that maximizes government revenue, that tax rates above this rate decrease economic activity so much that it reduces government revenue, and tax rates below that special point _also_ decrease government revenue because the corresponding _boost_ to economic activity is outweighed by the reduction in the tax rate. Also, though they disagreed on the details of the _degree_ of the difference, almost all economists, regardless of economic ideology, agreed that the USA's current tax code put us well below the peak of the Laffer curve. In other words, it was generally accepted that, where we were then, increasing tax rates marginally would increase tax revenue. My father's entire rebuttal was to claim that Prof. Laffer himself showed up on Fox News to say that "supply-side economics always works". I was so dumbfounded that his response was so poor compared to my research, that he had engaged in no effort to match my research or to address my specific points, yet acted like what he said somehow rebutted my whole position. It came as such a disappointing shock to me.
agiar2000 to most conservatives, it’s never about the facts, it’s about beliefs. And ego. Boy is ego a HUGE factor- they think changing their outlook means losing.
Here is a much better counter. Don't go with complex theory, just go straight to the extreme to prove that his claim is absurd. Say, "so you're saying that if the government collected no taxes, they would have an increase in revenue?" Don't explain, just apply egg to face.
@@ganondorfchampin I agree... this works a lot of the times. You can either do what the video says, by not arguing, or sometimes you have no choice because it involves you and everybody you care about. I once 'debated' an anti-vaxer online and I've seen dozens of comments before me that failed to convince that person with facts. So instead I added, "So... we should let people die of polio and measles?". Immediately, the conversation shifted and they back-pedalled. Rather than capitalising on this gain by calling them names hoping to humiliate them into silence, just keep asking very short quippy questions with obvious answers. Like, "So... we are ALL wrong?" or "So... Should we kill all SJWs?" or "So... we need to abolish all government? Including hospitals, roads, public facilities, everything?" Take it to the extreme, but NEVER explain yourself. Just ask very silly extreme questions like a 4 year old. Soon, they'll start calling you names, or they'll start making long explanations themselves which they will eventually shoot themselves in the foot by making an argument they can't defend. Either ways, you win. If possible, use 'WE' instead of 'you' or 'I'. The word 'we' disarms an opponent because you don't come across as accusatory or defensive. Rather than saying "You're wrong and I'm right!", say... "So... we are all wrong? Like ALL OF US are wrong?" That usually throws them around and they get into the mood of explaining, "yes, you are ALL wrong, because bla bla bla bla bla", which then gives you a chance to deconstruct their argument with something short and quippy again. Lol
When you started describing "Never Play Defense," I started realizing that's _exactly_ what Trump does. It's amazing how successful someone can be by never admitting defeat, despite having lost.
@@pistolshrimp6252: Names and examples or stfu. You're a living example of this theory; attacking with no substance and no ability to explain, just an urge to be 'short, quippy and wrong.'
This is why the left has started using short, quippy, and *dismissive* phrases like "okay boomer" or memes like "source: I made it up," "source: crackpipe" in response to the short quippy and *wrong* statements of the right. This seems more successful than actually debating the right.
i dont like “ok boomer” because i feel like to the right it sounds like the left is avoiding the argument, which implies the right won, but the “source: trust me bro” or some variant of that feels a lot better :)
Looking back on this one two years later I think this is partially why the "Ok Boomer" meme may have hit such a nerve among Conservatives and the Alt-right. Because it really just shuts down the argument instead of giving them space to continue to attack. It's very different to how Liberals have been arguing previously, short, quippy and making little attempt to explain and educate like we usually do, but it certainly plays well for a crowd. Personally I'm hopeful that it's a first foray into a new era of progressive memeing that can capitalize on this kind of rhetoric so we can all save time for useful stuff instead of worrying about extensive time-wasting arguments with insincere people.
Instead of Short Quippy Wrong, it's Short Quippy Dismissive. Instead of lying, you denounce the very argument as beneath serious debate. I can see the success pattern.
You think Boomers are conservative? While it is true that people shift to the right as they age, the Baby Boom generation prides itself on being progressive. They ushered in the era of casual drug use, premarital sex, quicky divorces, and single motherhood. They are the generation of evading personal responsibility and becoming narcissistic dolts. And they spent all the money, while insisting you keep those pension checks rolling in.
FreeThoughtStorm I just ask them if this is what offended looks like and if so, whether they might be interested in buying a groupon for a local neurologist for a comprehensive brain scan.
@@リンゴ酢-b8g so with that going fetishized appearances more than. There is a reason for the kinky repressed Catholic school girl exist right The more pressure you put on something to conform the more they will fight.
Mahou Shoujo Hime understand how you feel completely; but unfortunately you run into these people in the work place in person or in public, and you’ll find out their just as worse.
Internet arguments are hell if you actually want to win or "put people in their place" or educate them or otherwise treat them like they're a real person. That's just the wrong aim entirely. I do Internet arguments because, regardless of what they say or who they are, I find personal value in my own responses. I honestly pretend like the other side isn't even a person anymore. They're more like a debate robot that generates interesting ideas/statements/prompts from which I can flesh out my own ideas and construct better and better arguments. (Yeah, it's easier to do that sort of thing if the interlocutor actually has good responses, but I can often develop my ideas even if they're arguing in bad faith.) And I save my own responses so that I can add it to my archive of worldviews that I have believed over time, and use them to explain to others (in real life) what I believe (people actually tend to care in real life lmao).
I fell into this quicksand from hell once in an MMO area chat talking to a self-professed "young conservative wanting to civilly debate" (I KNOW but I was young and not yet dead inside) and I felt like I was going crazy because of this exact bullshit, and I could see people reacting to it just like this! Like some being swayed to his side, etc., and it was literal years ago and my ass is still so chapped over it lmaooo. This video is a godsend and has saved my rhetorical bacon a fair few times. Jesus Christ. It was also horrifically disappointing to realize that onlookers super duper don't give a shit about what you're saying, they care if you "seem right." They really think explaining = losing, even if they wanted the explanation in the first place! So frustrating and insidious.
And after you had that (all too real) first epiphany about how humans really work you must likely be on a slide towards the alt right. Do you understand yet why democracy was a mistake?
@@zxumwmki3604 What? The tactics are not exclusive to the right, but the right uses it heavily. So by being aware of it, you can dodge it and possibly flip it against them.
**my god is it depressing** People used to dismiss the idea of hand washing as a preventative measure to disease. It was debated about for decades, and thousands of innocent people died because of the ignorance and stubbornness of some few doctors. (I'm referencing a vsauce2 video btw) Eventually, those people died out over time, and the strange, esoteric idea of hand washing became accepted, normalized, and is likely responsible for your privilege of not losing your mother to puerperal sepsis. Similarly, the conceited old people who grew up with too much lead in their system and a fundamental unwillingness to learn and reason will die out, and we'll move forward as a species. This is how it's been for millennia.
I had this kid in my third grade class that would make girls cry by saying stuff that's wrong then insulting them when they tried to correct him , always with the same calm tone. He got them riled up and would work them into a meltdown and act like he won because he's a calm collected person while she's being hysterical. And people would believe him because of this. This is why a lot of boys never grow out of that. Because of that kid there's a handful of people who still believe that bees are Beatles because Beatles all have stingers.
@@noahhale4862 he got less votes the first time. But because of the country's current electoral system, being the candidate that the people statistically wants does not necessarily mean you will get your rightful place in the capitol building.
I've often found that whenever I criticize the right, I'm met with a criticism against a prominent left-wing candidate I've never supported. And I'm like "cool cool, but I never said anything about them, what does your disdain for them have to do with my disdain for the candidate I know for sure you support?" Annoying how binary politics is treated in that regard. And whenever I see people seize on one part of something I actually said but they're ignoring the part it built up to and stuff surrounding it for context and other relevant stuff in the argument, I might say "hey, you neglected to comment upon all this other stuff I said".
I think the pointing to a specific political figure has a lot to do with the right's assumption that everyone with a given belief system consolidates under a single authority figure. And if they can't find somebody obvious that people actually follow to pin as the leftist authority, they will assign one for you based on their own arbitrary criteria. Hence the antisemitic right-wing meme that George Soros is the puppeteer of the entire left.
This happened to me when I told my mother that the president's response to the COVID-19 epidemic was terrible. She listed off the one or two things he did and then said " While he was doing such and such, your Democrat party was"... something, I dunno because I cut her off. She acted like I explicitly supported the Democrats because I was opposed to the president's clear incompetence, even though I had mentioned no political parties in the points I made and they had nothing to do with it. It threw me off a bit to realize how much of a target has been allowed to be painted on left-wingers, a target I freely admit I've taken shots at in the past.
My family thinks I support Biden because I really don’t like trump. Yeah, I voted for him. But I don’t love him. It either means they don’t know me personally or they don’t know Biden’s policy. (Hint: it’s the latter. They think he’ll bring us to socialism. 😂😂😂 I wonder how they think Obama did not do that in eight years???)
Playing dumb is a really important tactic that I don't see leftists using - I think smart people are just uncomfortable looking dumb. But you can avoid some arguments entirely and still reveal their lies this way. If he says "She stole all that money from people!" You can say, "Oh wow, really? I didn't know about this. What do you mean? Who did she steal from? When did this happen?" Now it's not an argument, just a person who made a claim and someone who wants to know more, someone he might want to try and convince. Putting you down and trying to look like the "winner" doesn't work for him in this situation. If he stays quippy and vague, keep asking questions, prodding at all those lies of omission. "Wait, you're saying she stole from the people who donated to her?" He might keep withholding, looking like he's hiding something and now he's playing defense. Or he'll have to give more details and reveal the fact that he's full of shit. Or he'll send you a link to some bullshit article - "Wait, I think you sent me the wrong article. This is talking about that project she did. Could you send the one about her stealing?" Or he'll try to pivot to another accusation - "Wait, I'm still confused. That's interesting too, but what did you mean when you said she stole from people?" The worst case for you is if he completely ignores you. Then you go put together your summary of what really happened and say, "To anybody who was wondering about the theft claims, here's what really happened."
This could work, but I'd be worried it just plays into the opponent's outward narrative of "I'm clearly winning". I kind of feel like asking a question or appearing to not know what they're talking about would signal to casual observers that they know more, and thus that they have a more nuanced/correct argument.
Nah they just repeat the lie and ask for your outrage. They won't expand. "Yeah, she stole their money! A total ripoff, I can't believe that (insert slur filled rant)..."
Oh man, this is so embarrasing to watch. That red dude is literally me back when Sarkeesian did her Feminist Frequency videos. Thank god I got out of that hell.
@Derek Flynn Part of the problem is the alarmist call everyone who disagree with them climate deniers when in fact the actual true deniers numbers are off the bottom of the radar low. Byond that is the growing reality that way too much of the alarmist sides supposed data and supporting evidence has a awful track record of now proven manipulation with intent to mislead and being the work of proven scammers out ot make a fast buck off gullible emotionally driven bleeding heart fools at the public level where there's the most easy money to be had. Then there's the growing issue with the actual skeptics being all too happy to agree to a half truth based climate/environmental issue then blowing up the 'who's getting the blame and being expected to change for it' end of it by showing the hard numbers of where such and such issue originates of which is almost exclusively from a source outside who and what the alarmists are claiming and blaming. Between the false labeling everyone who does not agree with the alarmist as deniers, the huge negative PR problem of how many scammers are tied to the alarmists agenda more than the skeptics, and the skeptics constantly pulling in the bigger picture of what's actually real and proveable in to discredit the alarmist stances, the alarmists are losing hard now on the credibility game. So much so that it often makes them look like they are the real deniers, not the rational and informed ones taking a objective and impartial look at the bigger picture of reality.
I like how the examples provide themselves in the comment section. Especially "pick one thing out and rebut it whilst ignoring the rest" part. Good work!
@xa xa No, it's meant to be incendiary. To both signal to others how comfortable you are with controversial topics (and thus are strong) and that you're a part of a group which prides itself on such edginess... Like how "72 genders" is so completely unrelated to anything. It's just a way to score cheap points by picking an easier topic to attack instead of contending with the one at hand.
I'm more than happy to do a numbered outline of points made and why they are wrong, but Leftists typically cherry pick their favorite to battle on or subject change anyway.
@@Heycool08 that wasn't an argument, but you do demonstrate my point. What are you sarcastically "taking my word on?" That I enumerate points and counterarguments(I do), that leftists choose their favorite to continue arguing and ignore the others(they usually do), or that they subject change(occasionally, for the more lazy and obviously wrong left wing debaters)?
Oh my God! This is so true! One time I had a convo with a dude who said systemic racism doesn't exist in America and I showed how the SC ruled NC state government engaged in voter suppression and I also pointed out how black men are incarcerated @ disproportional rates & he moved the goal post to, "you're assuming police target black men because they are black" and I pointed at studies where they showed the correlation and the he moved the goalpost to, "black men are more violent than any other racial group." I this point I realized what was going on & refused to engage with this person. He was only shifting goalpost further so he wouldn't have to address the issue or change his mind.
and, simultaneously, to subtly introduce his own racial realist argument into the fold, presented as a critique of YOUR alleged bigotry. Statements of racial inferiority disguised under this same aesthetic of accusation.
This video is a perfect summery of almost every single comment war I've gotten into on YourTube. Except instead of political debate, the topic we argue about is usually Star Wars.
the irony comes from the fact this argument style is the default left playbook and this video is a projection on cosmic scales. Goalposting is literally one of the most vanilla parts of alinsky playbook, not to mention the cornerstone of all leftist philosophies on social transformation, which they predominantly achieve through gradualism. Arguing with people on the right is generally much more obstinate and shutdowny, but leftists overwhelmingly put you in a box to not listen to you and instead focus on reframing the argument rather then addressing it. You have to pretend that postmodernism isnt a socio-linguistic (crackpot) theory to somehow say that the generally much more categorical style of the right is even in the same universe of goalposting.
@@garrickthomas8631 This was his first video I encountered, and for anybody familiar with leftist philosophy and postmodernism couldn't say with a straight face that this isn't a foundational part of their strategic thesis. It's literally baked right into most of their "sociolinguistics" and often used to promote ideas which are actual antithetical to the idea of debate (as they fundamentally disagree with the concept of a categorical truth). I also strongly dislike it as (if you read the comment below), it only serves to further ingrain this bad faith tactic in less radical leftists as a "countermeasure" when its already devolved the conversation primarily by its use from leftists. As much of this is subliminally introduced in the course of _____ study curriculum I cant help but wonder if Ian also approached this with less than honorable motivations.
@@garrickthomas8631 well gun control is a perfect example of where emotional adherence to narrative against debate makes no sense. At bare minimum 300,000 to 2.5 million (most methods place on the larger end) violent crimes a year are prevented by defensive gun use, yet they refuse to see pro-gun control arguments as an actual type of politicization of peoples safety in the negative direction. As per this video, they label anybody who disagrees with their narrative as being either callous monsters or just shy of in cahoots with mass murder. To the points you list: 1. It's literally the leftist playbook, pioneered and heavily documented in almost all their works and omni-present in all theories of its activism. The alt-right (which itself is a diffuse box created to attack anyone from classical liberals and libertarians to monarch revivalists as one band to direct two minutes of hate towards) is just one of the first group of "conservatism" (sic) in a long time to not play defensively. 2. Feeding into echo chambers is supposedly what the alt right is guilty of 3. Well sure, you welcome criticism when you dont address resounding irony in your argument
All sorts of deleted comments under here... Did another leftist poison-pill the tribe again? When is our guy gonna make a video to stop poison-pilling the ideological tribe?
I'd like to point out this actually relates back to "The Left Can't Meme". Memes work at their best when they're short, quippy, and posed in a weird/absurd way. Leftists are the ones who constantly have to provide the added context, make the correct statement, and explain their point, while conservatives are able to just say 5 or 6 words that sound funny, and undercut them. It doesn't matter if those 5 or 6 words are unrelated, wrong, or don't make sense; they're short and quippy.
Would it perhaps work if the Left posts a meme, then leave a short essay in a caption that elaborates on the content of the meme now that it has their attention?
and if you don't provide a full explanation every time, suddenly you are being reductionist or oversimplifying. Most of "The Left Can't Meme" are either because there is too much information, or not enough. Surprise, there is no in between to them.
universal truths are immediately perceived. pretty lies require a lot of tergiversation, mental gymnastics and obfuscation in the attempt to sound convincing
Something I have the tendency to do in an argument if my opponent is trying to change the subject is very loudly thank them for conceding the previous subject. They *HATE* that. Once I draw attention to everything they're trying to drop by the wayside, they either have to go back to it so they can "win," give a good reason for the change of subject, (which puts them on the defense) or just cede the issue to me and try to salvage things going forward. They never do the third thing and rarely do the second. They'll usually either let themselves be dragged back to the original point where they know they're being made to look foolish or, much more commonly, fire off some ad hominems in my direction and leave in a huff when I don't get pissed and defensive.
God I love doing this. The second I see them move those goalposts and ignore what I said, I always make sure to thank them THOROUGHLY for acknowledging my points they ignored as being correct. Of course they can't actually admit I'm correct so that always leads to the inevitable "Nuh uh!" reply.
Easy way to make them acknowledge that they lost a round is by making them confirming clearly that this is the case. If you ask something like: "so she did not steal money, correct?" You stop them in their tracks and usually can just go on with a peaceful life.
No matter how accurately you refute their points, their tried and true shield will always be "well what about-". You can see many examples in this very comment section.
You must be projecting, that is what delusional leftist do, they can't debate reality, and always resort with fantasy senarios and hypothetical questions.
Based on the last video, i changed the way i discuss with alt right. I never let them deflect but always end with a question. No matter what they say next, i come back to my original question. They deflect like crazy but it is MUCH easier to end it fast when there is a question you have given them, it stops that "accusation loop". You have the control if ou want to expand that question. Not them. You can give very, VERY short arguments: "answer my question first". Keep referring to the one and ONLY thing they said. Do not let them sidestep, deflect, pick your text apart. Just don't even let go of that control once you get it. Most often, they discussion ends very fast, it is less than the critical 5 minutes: if the discussion has not moved anywhere near conclusion in 5 minutes, it never will. I have not made anyone change my mind but boy, have i made a lot of them furious.. One warning: you actually have to know every single detail in your first response. You need to have all the weapons but you are deliberately using them. sparsely. If you have any doubts, just don't engage. Down vote, thumbs down and move on.
There is an alternative to just not engaging - it's to introduce your point of view through Socratic method. See James O'Brian do this in real time with UK right wingers. A:How can you support this woman that conned people out of 100K? B:Where did she do that? Link? A:[Links alt-right tweet about her kickstarter] B:[Link the actual kickstarter] But that's a Kickstarter for 10k, not 100K, how come? A:Well people gave her 100K and she never delivered anything! B:Isn't the delivery here? [link] A:It took too long to deliver! B:So she did deliver the thing right? A:But not what she promised! B:What did she promise? etc. Occasionally summarize how the argument has changed throughout the exchange. This way you 1) don't play defensive, you play the arbiter 2) you expose onlookers to the primary source instead of content that was pre-digested by alt right media 3) typically the extremist will get frustrated and simply start spouting agressive nonsense and then rage quit the conversation
@Yazarch Liseed very efficient way to deal with gish-gallop is to pick a single point and every time they launch into a new gish gallop just say something along the lines of "NOOOnonono we weren't done yet, I asked you this very specific question, and you haven't answered it yet." "We'll get to the rest once we've dealt with this one specific thing." "one topic at a time." Just pick the thing you know you can get them on.
, The aim is to make the other side look like they have no idea - that their ideas don't work. If you felt like you looked that way as well then you did something wrong. It's very important for you to know the topic very well even though you're mostly asking questions. Like the old lawyer's saying "never ask a question you don't know the answer for". You have to know what questions flat earthers have prepared themselves for (Eratosthenes' experiment, the existence of Focault's pendulum) and which ones they don't have any decent answers for (measuring Polaris' angle with a Sextant, why don't you build a real Focault's pendulum etc.). You can't do this unprepared. Like in my original example I do know what Sarkeesian did and ask the questions in such a way that it's clear that the other person does not have a clue or is intentionally misleading, but all in the guise of being an "independent" arbiter.
I think this strategy is rather effective, because often with bad faith actors, the more they talk and have to explain themselves, they will inevitably fuck up. That is why they tend to win with the short, quippy and wrong strategy.
I do this with antivaxxers. Instead of continuously rebutting their claims with facts, I take an interest in the numbers they quote and ask for links to the data. Because I'm a scientist. I like data. I say "Oh, wow, I haven't seen that before. Do you have a link to the data? I really want to read it." It instantly diffuses any conflict and they stop arguing. I never get any data from them, tho. (you're shocked, I know.) Sometimes I think people get so locked into the expectation of an argument, it surprises them when you don't.
This must be why calling them on their logical fallacies and shady debate tactics and going back to the original premise instead of engaging with their new premise is so effective at making them throw tantrums instead of continuing debating.
This is why I always answer to those short, quippy, wrong accusations with questions. If they want to continue the argument, they need to start explaining. Then we're on a level playing field.
I think this sort of phenomenon might be why you see so much "whataboutism" in arguments, political and non-political. "Your side is bad" is a universal ""rebuttal"" to literally any statement or question, usable at any time for any reason, that attempts to change the topic of conversation so you're attacking and THEY'RE defending. ...is "no u" really the strategically optimal debate response in all situations? Man, that's depressing.
@@Ninjat126 This person was talking about asking questions and trying to gain more insight into the other person's opinions and beliefs while also forcing the other person to clearly define said opinions and beliefs. No whataboutism or "no u" going on here.
I do that too, and I also make it known after a couple back and forths that they should know nothing I'm saying is even for them bc I have no delusions they even care about facts or logic or any interest in learning something new here, my responses are for the ppl reading our back and forth who actually do want some facts and a better understanding of the subject. They can read both our sides and decide who they think actually made sound arguments and who's just pulling crap out of their ass.🤷 I swear to God, 9/10 that's the end of it. Suddenly they have no interest in arguing further bc they realize I'm using them as a showcase of how stupid and unthought out their ideas are and how they don't actually want a "civil debate" etc. They no likey the idea of being used like that lol I've had ppl private message me too saying what I said made sense and thank you for.putting into words what they felt but couldn't express etc. You'd be surprised who's reading the discussion (if you want to even call it that) and getting something positive out of it. To be fair, I'm more interested in moving liberals further left than converting conservatives who aren't really interested in what's true and just want their confirmation bias confirmed or want to "own the libs." 🙄 And liberals do want facts and will read a few sentences long response and check a link etc. And my go to response every time some right wing idiot calls me a crazy socialist or claims Biden is etc. I just say, You couldn't actually define "socialism" if I slapped you in the face with a dictionary 🙄 They usually have no good response to that either lol Short, quippy, funny, and not defensive of the definition of socialism but attacking them on their stupidity for not knowing the actual definition.
You can also try "So you're saying..." _(if the arguer is mean and/or rude)_ or "Wait, I'm not sure I understand..." _(if they seem to be trying to be polite or make an actual point)._ They either have to admit that they don't understand their own argument or fight on your terms. But you're absolutely 100% correct - if they won't answer, you shouldn't either.
Also, there is another way to counter these guys, and it isn't by leaving the field (which they also want.) Simply ask for proof. Nothing else. If they bring out something from a source non-reliable, then ask them if they have this from a NEUTRAL source. To them Neutral = Liberal and they'll try to return to their boxes. Keep them on task. Keep responses short. Ask for context. They're bad at creating it. Don't EVER play nice. But never let yourself get trapped into a response that will get you deplatformed. What they can't handle is having their weapons used against them. There's two ways to win an argument, either never participate (which can work until they start calling their goon squad in to start causing trouble) or use rhetorical judo. Make *THEM* start explaining themselves (They aren't ready for that, and that scares the hell out of them). Draw their weakness out to where your strength can play. Or push them over an edge into a reportable offense. Many see the strategy and leave, some stay and make the MISTAKE, and some will try to actually engage on YOUR rules. But if you catch them slipping be sure as hell to put their noses BACK to the grindstone. They started the conversation with the flaming bag of turd on your doorstep, make them own that. Not by explaining it away, but by making THEM look like the dink that left that bag there without even the common courtesy of ringing the doorbell. *The left has lizard brains too.* It's sad we have to appeal to them, but that is what it is. Welcome to the modern era, the Mad Max era of politics. The Dark Ages. The normie neutrals have the same brains too. Maybe it's time to stop treating the internet like a debate stage with actual rules regarding logical fallacies, and start treating it like a schoolyard. And be ready if this encounter is in real life to take a 5-knuckle sandwich for free. But then they lose and you got them on assault charges. If you must, never throw the first punch but make damn sure you either show you took every step to leave a violent confrontation before throwing the last punch. I'm not saying it's right, it's just the sad state of fucking affairs in the world, and sooner or later something has to break. Hopefully that isn't modern civilization, but sometimes I think that's well since gone, personally.
This is how I would want to be treated if I pulled something like this. Demanding evidence is entirely appropriate and also respectful (so long as you don't immediately start throwing meme images around, anyway).
@phrenux True, though I think that's just a stand-in for the complex and hard-to-describe process of judging the credibility of a source, sifting out the fact from opinion, and making sure they're not flat-out-lying to you.
The fact that you think there is such a thing as 'neutral' reporting is damning. The fact that people who disagree with you find these sources to be left wing identifies your bias.
@@TheJacklikesvideos There is as much neutral reporting as there is neutral perception of reality. Your argument is nonsense; of course there are neutral sources of reporting. AP, Reuters, BBC. If you don't trust the actual facts being reported directly to you, then you must be looking to have your viewpoint confirmed. Cynicism isn't a good enough argument.
When I was in high school I did this a lot. The worst part was I didn't even know it. It's so baked into the Right's rhetoric that most of them don't even realize they're doing it. Thankfully those days are behind me.
Ha, you know as a screenwriter I've always absolutely despised the trope where one character makes this incredibly long, clearly manicured diatribe that's designed entirely around putting the antagonist character in their place and you've helped me realise why - because it's the most fallacious and artificial BS that trains people into thinking you can just 'own' your opponent like they're a boss in a video-game and you just have to keep hitting the X button. It's the equivalent of having a kid in a movie go up to his bullies and proudly say "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words may never hurt me" - you're just lying about how people work.
I mean tbf, it’s also another word for SJW, and before that SJW was another word for “political correctness”. The words change over time, but the definition, meaning, or person they’re trying to get you to imagine in your head so you don’t have to listen to your opponent because you’ve mentally put them in a box, does not change.
@@BlueTyphoon2017 It’s no coincidence that they co-opt words and phrases that generally originated out of positivity and turn them into terms of disparagement. It’s a mindset fueled by negativity.
I think this is why Jon Stewart was so effective. Jon didn't explain things has his first response, his first response was something along the lines of "You're full of shit!" or "That's fucking monsterous." He would back his statements up with the explanation, but it would always start with a direct contradiction that was equally short and quippy.
You made this comment a year ago but, if I may ask, what changed your mind? I'm really struggling to have a genuine discourse with members of the alt-right without them just getting angry and quippy. How were you convinced that your world view was incorrect?
Let's Just Play for me i never really cared about politics but i grew up in republican family, as a kid I based my POV off of my parents because “my parents are honest and intelligent people” as a child that makes sense. So from never really caring about politics, I’d only hear about it either from tv which i barely listened to when my dad would the news (fox of course) and when my whole family would get together and pat eachother on the back for their political views. For me i was the 4th kid so my parents were quite a bit older than most the other kids, so when i was 10 my dad was in his late 40’s. I continued to assume republicans were correct on most matters without research until my early 20’s about 21-22. Now what changed my mind is i started watching the Joe Rogan podcast and i thought it was cool that he would actually listen to others arguments and try to understand where they were coming from and had no hang ups on not seeming uneducated on topics. I didn’t adopt his views but i did adopt that style of communication with listening to others and trying to understand them. After that when my dad would rant about the “libtards and corrupt media” i would ask why are they corrupt? They change the narrative to fit their views.. doesn’t Fox News do that same thing but for the other side? No! Fox News is honest! So i went to UA-cam and i would watch unedited clips and form an opinion on my own. With this new strategy i would notice that my view and my dads view would be constantly different. He would always point out the things in any case that only supported his claims, anything that raised a doubt didn’t matter to his stance. I ended up on the left because now i make my decisions by looking up the information on everything and using science and facts to make my decisions. I think for everyone their reason will be a little different.
Let's Just Play TLDR grew up republican cause my parents were. Stayed republican without knowing what they stood for, until eventually i tried to find my own identity. After looking at the facts sided left.
@@letsjustplay8907 eventually, I realized that I was putting so much energy into spewing out things i didn't even believe. I couldnt support what i was saying with evidence, and I knew i would probably be alienating myself from others by holding so much hate.
@@DarthJacobi wow I can really tell because you not only took the time to really explain explain, but you also summed it up in a tldr. just felt like you deserve some cred for that lol, not that its exactly what OP's theory describes. The 'impression' you left on me was not made by your thoroughly detailed anecdote, but rather your short reflection that shows me that you are capable of doing both (not just a tldr). this is getting a tiny bit meta, but you get the gist :) side note, thats's probably why reddit satisfies us because even if someone throws something short and quippy out that's not logically valid, you know there's about to be a whole 135 people crushing them by citing sources, and generally the majority tends to engage in argument of good faith and intelligence
Damn, as of 2024 people still put others into boxes in order to justify not listing to differing viewpoints by saying things like "Pronouns in bio detected: opinion rejected" lol
Kinda crazy to think that the current trend of the Harris campaign calling conservatives "weird" might finally be the Dems figuring out that they don't have to engage with every bad faith argument!
It's surreal to watch this video and then see how many people have flocked to the comments (without having watched the video) to do exactly what the video is calling out.
It took me 10 years on the internet for the content of this video, a short explanation would simply be "don't feed the trolls" to sink in. I spent years and years getting sucked into so many arguments that I was actually depressed so finally realizing this and even better, acting on it, really helped my mental health on the internet. I WAS that "triggered" meme lol not literally, but I felt like that so many times it's insane...I am so glad I finally figured this out after years of my husband telling me that I didn't have to play with trolls.
6 years later, still infinitely relevant. I genuinely do not understand how these kinds of people don't feel infinite shame in providing 0 real arguments and hurling insults and false narratives. Make a point backed with facts and someone will respond with 4 comments that effectively say "nuh uh" and then hurl insults at you for the other 3.5 comments. Literally was told by someone when I said their opinion was not based in fact that "it's based on I think I'm right and I'm too lazy to look it up" My soul hurts. Caring about your neighbors shouldn't be this hard.
One thing I have tried that has worked for me is when someone says something short quipy and wrong, is to ask them HOW they are right. For example: "This lady stole money from people" "How did she steal money" This reframes the conversation as you trying to get a question answered and also makes it clear that what is being said isn't automatically true.
Debating alt-right ideologues and their ilk is always so damn frustrating because it's like talking against a wall. Just look at all the people in the comment section that are almost comically offended by a calm, rational, well-researched video about rhetorical techniques but offer no actual rebuttals other than personal insults, "some people on the left do this, too!!!" whataboutism and straight up lying about the content of the video.
Inda Co The discussion of rhetorical techniques is good but ... the left *do* use the technique too. If you don't recognise that, you are too far inside the clique to spot when it happens.
Anything that supports your position would seem reasonable/well researched/evidence based, but at the end of the day it comes down to emotional reasons why you support it, like for example you have an inferiority complex, don't want to work and wanna live off of welfare, feeling guilty about not helping other people, wanting to be thought of as a good person, being bitter about not being successful, etc...
This is exactly how my toxic older sister talks to everyone. She's mindless and impossible to say the least. This so eloquently put it in layman's terms while at the time the arguments feel like talking to a wall and losing my sanity. Im saving this video for my own mental health. Thank you so much.
For years I would argue with my brother about various political things. It would always end with me in tears and my brother laughing at how “frustrated I was for being proven wrong”. Whenever I would try to leave he would say that means he won. The reality was I just go frustrated with explaining my ideas over and over and he would just ignore what I said
I love this series so much. Every left leaning person should watch these and learn from your research and experience. I always hated the smug liberal being condescending because they are ultimately right, when the other side has never cared about being right. They only care about winning, and they have for so long.
You seem to be conflating the left with the right. The smug liberal thinks he is right, but can never back up his ignorant opinions with facts, they are ultimately wrong about everything. The other side never cared about winning, only having an honest debate, which the left is incapable of doing.
the worst is the double bind of saying you are defensive or sensitive as an insult. if you don't reply with proof that you aren't then they win. if you do reply with proof the fact that you replied contradicts it. cause if you weren't defensive or sensitive then you wouldn't feel the need to respond. you could walk away. these argument tactics suck no matter whose using them.
The best way to respond is to be flippant. If they go "aww, you mad?" or some variant of it, just reply "sure dude." and move on. Everyone can see it's sarcasm, and by showing that you've responded in the most nonchalant way possible, everyone can see that their attempt didn't work.
I realized that I don't even see insults directed at me anymore. My brain doesn't process them because they're worthless, so I ignore them while formulating a response. This past year has given me pretty thick skin I guess.
I just realized the public facing short quippy wrong technique is the exact oppoaite to the technique I use for interpersonal conflict resolution. Basically when my friends fought in middle school and demanded I take a side, I yelled at both of them for putting me in that position when I Didn't Even Know What They Were Yelling About. Because that's not fair; you only demand judgement from the ignorant if you don't care whose right, you Just Want To Win And *Feel Validated.* After that, I told my friends I want to talk to them both, seperately, about what happened and go from there. I offered comfort, conversation, and advice, but outright refused to make a call on the dispute. I was not party to its beginning, and would only be party to the resolution if *both* parties asked for that. My friends eventually accepted that I Could Not Be Shoved Into A Kneejerk Decision ( years of bullying will do that to ya, particularly when the thing that makes you a target is strong emotions and high reactivity ) and talked to me, I found out the dispute was some SERIOUS petty bullshit involving a third friend whom they both had a crush on. Party A told party B about their crush on Party C, *unaware* that C had asked B out earlier that day. Blaming party B was pointless, they didn't know about A's crush when asked, and B had been OPEN about their intetest in C for weeks. C and B going out may have *caused* A's hury feelings, but neither could be expected to break up just because A's feelings were hurt.... but that's what A wanted, and wanted ME to enforce it. I refused, told A and B they needed to TALK ABOUT IT, and while I would mediate that conversation by preventing shouting and calmly repeating information when parties talked past one another, I Would Not Excommunicate Anyone Over Something This Goddamned Petty And Would Leave If Either Suggested As Much. Eventually the two of them worked it out, and I started gaining a Relationship Counciler reputation among my peers. Up to graduation day I had couples in various stages of conflict come find me as seperate parties to ask for advice, which was pretty consistantly "You need to talk to the other person about the bad feelings you get while alone." Like... there was more components, but that was always the bedrock. No one respected their SO enough to Trust What They Said When They Said It. In the girls' cases they had a track record to reference, but the boys had the same suspicions Sight Unseen... classic signs of projection. He broke a rule, and now suspects his GF of the same, and *gets mad* when called on his bad behavior. Sometimes it went the other way, like... 5% sometimes. Ultra rare but not impossible, and I would always listen for it.... and be very disappointed when a dude lied about her being unfaithful and eventually confessed to having no proof. You can't pin down a person and make them sit with their own guilt unless they sought you out. You can't provoke self reflection in a drive by. It takes one on one interrogation of thoughts, walking through actions, what was said, what wasn't said, what is supported by the material world, and what is not. All the feelings are real, and deserve the attention needed for resolve. Otherwise the boys keep lying and the girls keep feeling hurt all the time, *preventing* empathy. And that 5% of the time where the gal is the one fucking around and lying? The guy is devastated. Hurting. Dying inside. The few times I saw it, I felt like I was On Watch to prevent them harming themselves or others. I was an unpaid teenager. Wonder WTF the councilers were doing all day.
Also, this long answer responded to short quip is Brandolini's law. As per wikipedia: "also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle... The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."
2:55 I honestly get goose bumps how scary you’re able to articulate this phenomenon. Do y’all remember the Ben Shapiro van that bbc interviewer, Ben Shapiro at some point kept trying to make the interviewer say that he was on the left, like for him to admit it. I realize now it’s because he wanted to ability to label him a leftist so he could ignore the serious claims he was bringing to Ben, and this is the “heavy hitter” of the right wing? Lmao
this is why i got tired of arguing on the internet with people. its always this one guy who has no idea what hes talking about, yet hes so annoying to deal with
i just gave up long ago and just comment for enjoyment, trying to be witty or share my emotions on a video, or to helpfully explain for anyone legitimately lost.
I figured this out a few years ago, and my tactic now is to flip it on them IF they're genuinely not interested in an honest debate. I'll point out logical fallacies they've used, call them out for inherent biases, and if the opportunity presents itself, accurately call them out for being a certain type of character, i.e nazi or general bigot. If you call them out for being a certain type of character right away without a solid supporting argument, they throw it back at you saying that you just pigeonhole everyone who disagrees with you, even though the rational people in the crowd can see what kind of character they are. But when you get them to blurt out more obvious statements and build your case, and THEN hit them with the callout, it's like they're a fish out of water, they stutter and repeat themselves and just flap about, and give up. And they main thing is that you know you're never going to convince them you're right, like 98% of the time they will never concede, but it's about the audience that watches and makes a decision based on how the debate unfurls.
I personally never understood why someone would EVER want to go through life with the same beliefs, same points of view, day in, day out. What is so attractive about not having to change your mind? Personally, if I'm wrong about something, I'd like to know it...I'd like to know WHY, and I'd like to rectify that belief if the rationale given (no matter WHO gives it) makes sense. I deliberately expose myself to people who believe differently than me on subjects which are IMPORTANT to me. I want to see what those people have to say. For example, I've been through dozens of apologetics for Christianity...but nothing I've seen has convinced me that a Christian god exists. I'd want to know if there WAS a Christian god, so even now, I keep an ear out for new arguments. And while I might dismiss a Christian using their religion to prop up an anti-abortion or anti-feminism argument, since they haven't proven that I should value what their religious texts have to say about these things...if they made a secular argument, I would take it seriously. It might not change my mind, but I would hear it out. Why are people so afraid of being WRONG? I'm wrong all the time...and I value becoming LESS wrong. Is there some argument for not being open to changing your mind?
I think this video hits on a good point with the boxes thing. People just have a weird sort of fear of being wrong. Changing your mind is an admission of weakness, and of failure, so it pushes you to find things that support your side and give you that little dopamine hit. The same little "yeah, that's my side!" that you get when your favorite football team scores happens with opinions too I think, and so if looking right makes people feel happy, then they presume actually being wrong would make them unhappy.
@@RyanTosh I dunno. I think changing your mind is a sign of strength of character. I understand tribalism and people merging their beliefs and their identity - that is a very human thing to do and we all do it, to a certain extent. But I can't count the number of tribes I had been a part of in my youth, only to decide that they were wrong about a lot of things. I have since learned that no group has a monopoly on truth, and so I eschew group identity now (as much as is possible in a world that requires some kinds of allegiance). Tribalism is a curse on humanity for a number of reasons. My main problem is that people within such tribes are not evaluating information independently of their preconceived notions and biases which result from their group identities, and they're quick to dismiss information from outside of their group (if it does not conform to what they already believe). This is no way to learn and grow. However, what is potentially far more dangerous is that people in such groups can come to demonize those who oppose them, forgetting that we're all human, and we're all just trying to survive in an inscrutable world with no way to find objective moral truths. Nobody is advocating for policies that they themself consider to be evil, and so it pays to understand the assumptions inherent in one's own arguments...because we all prioritize certain facts and/or beliefs in forming our opinions, and that process is in no way objective. Nowadays I value consistency of belief over content of belief. I can respect someone who tries to diligently apply their initial assumptions about the way the world works to every aspect of their life, even if I disagree completely with those assumptions. People who do this typically have weak group identity, and they have no trouble going against their group(s) when they come across a logical inconsistency, or when an assumption made by other group members just doesn't ring true to them. What I don't respect is those people who let a group do their thinking for them, and who therefore don't even necessarily know why they believe what they believe, and who are not aware of the logical inconsistencies that litter their opinions. If you're going to advocate for a position, do it as an individual, not as a mindless drone, echoing platitudes passed down from the Borg queen(s) who control and take advantage of you. I understand well that it is the very people doing the taking advantage in these circumstances who have used their power and influence to oppose and destroy institutions that empower people, that give them the ability to reason - institutions of education. It's hard to blame a mindless drone for being that way, because they never had the opportunity to gain the skills that would allow them to challenge the group they were born into (or fell into based on propaganda and bad luck). There is no easy solution to this problem...just a long, hard fight. And I think the internet, on balance, has made that fight almost impossible to win. We are no longer arguing over beliefs...we are arguing over the nature of reality itself. I truly have no answers here. But I do like the Alt-right playbook, and Innuendo Studios' other videos a lot, because maybe some smart people, on being exposed to this high-quality media, might stumble on a solution that starts to reverse the insane political polarization that plagues our world.
It's depends on what we're wrong about. Short-circuiting any risk of thinking beyond the argument is a form of self-defense. There is a term in psychology for this that I can't quite recall right now. Being wrong about fundamental parts of our lives, like religion, or ideology, has a lot of consequences. It's built into your identity. Changing what you think about those may also mean that you need to rethink a million different preconceptions, it may mean you need to reshape your worldview. It may mean to admit you were wrong in a thousand different occasions, that you may have been an asshole in many circumstances, now that you understand things differently. It may change your identity. It may change your friends. These things take lots of time and energy. Not everyone is willing, ready, or even has the mental capacity for that kind of commitment.
Many people have very fragile egos. They're afraid of anything different or "other" what they're used to, so it threatens their sense of self. People who are secure in themselves are ok with learning and having their minds changed
Sometimes people correlate positions/ opinions with identity and thus become disturbed if such positions are contested as they feel it a threat to their sense of self.
There is a beautiful irony in how the comments are going and how people are reacting to them. Was this planned? Putting some hooks in the video to attract the kind of people who answer short, quippy and wrong and getting the viewership to excersise in not playing the game? Cause if so this is the single most brilliant video ever made. Bra-vo
Andres Arancio it really us amazing. I'm going through the comments and i feel awoken, like i can now see what i couldn't before. watching all these alt right morons moving the goal posts and putting ppl in boxes, it really is a sight to behold, and i dont feel inclined to engage with them in any way, as i now know the trappings they use to try and hook ppl like myself in. Planned or not, the effect this video is having is doing wonders for peeps like myself.
I stopped playing that game years ago but I never could put into words why I had to stop talking to people who debate in that way. Now I do thanks to this video.
Without having read any of those comments, since they don't seem to be floating to the top too much, I pose this: Do you not risk hypocrisy by putting people making short, quippy remarks in the Alt-Right box and then refusing to listen to them? Honest question, feel free to disagree.
Agreed. This attitude that alt-righters are "baited" to the video and "fooled to make themselves look dumb" gives off exactly the same vibes as trump-believers emanate when they say Trump is "playing 5D chess" with his opponents.
Part of the problem or maybe where this problem has its roots is that the right side of issues often lends itself to short and quipy explanations whereas the left side does not. Take the death penalty: the right side can pare it down to 'Eye for an eye' it's easy it's memorable and it just makes sense. But on the left there is no simple way of explaining the reasons why you are against it. I am old (56) and I have observed this problem long before internet comment sections. My solution has been to try to consolidate my positions into semi-memorable and not so quipy but short as possible single statement. my greatest success with this is the death penalty issue where I state my position with 'You shouldn't let the state kill people'. By saying this the conversation becomes about state power and punishment rather than if the death penalty makes one feel better. I'm not saying we should use their tactics because they are dishonest but rather develop a way to state ones side in a way that controls the conversation better. I don't look at comment debates as a place to school but rather an opportunity to state what I believe. I don't correct people I try to only state my position. If they ask me to back it up I do which then usually involves corrections of their 'facts' but these are in context of what I believe and not in context of 'you are wrong and here's some facts to prove it'. At the very least I've gotten my ideas out there for their audience.
When it comes to the death penalty I think it's best to avoid moral issues because we'll just keep arguing and get nowhere. Concede that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, killing criminals is fine for those particular crimes, and argue instead why it is the wrong punishment to use in any circumstance for practical reasons. Those practical reasons being that when compared to the direct alternative, life imprisonment without parole, the death penalty does three things: 1) Cost more. 2) Worsen crime. 3) Kill innocent people. And therefore the death penalty, even if it were an appropriate punishment, should not be used.
Your last sentence is what it's all about. I'm never going to convince someone whose talking points make me dumber just by reading them. Plus those dudes love a scrap and seem to have unlimited time on their hands. So once I realise a debate is going nowhere I try to lay out something beneficial to anyone else who happens to be reading and back away. If they get the last word, so be it.
I have had more success bullying conservatives into accepting my viewpoints than convincing them through cogent speech. The conservative mind seems to love to submit to strong authority figures. I grew up in a rough neighborhood. I was poor, and destitute. No one ever picked on me though because i was always willing to fight. Its very easy to fight anyone anyplace when you have nothing to lose... Its also easy to fight when you believe you have everything to lose. Conservatives live in this fearful world where they will slip down the social ladder. These people don't seem to understand reason. When passions are high and fear turns to anger, the degree of intelligence drops. No sense in talking rationally to these people. When you use bully tactics against them they don't know how to react. Their world view crumbles before them as their intellectual weakness gets mirrored back at them. How could they condemn you for using the same tactics they employ? Worse yet, not only do they use the tactics but they have something of value to say as well. They can tune you out but they can't tune out themselves. Bully them with facts. Troll them with intelligence and for gods sake people, don't back down. I still remember the blood gushing from the nose of that first asshole that tried to bully me. The left has this sad reputation of being spineless and its this pretense that allows these sheep to elect the wolf as their Shepard. Be the sheepdog ready to tear the wolf to pieces.
This is very true. The best part is that we have an advantage over them. They never play defensive so they dont have any experience at it. An agressive left winger has way more chances to practice this, so we easily get on top.
There's a fun twitter account I follow called "Gourmet Hot Takes" which screenshots and shares stupid things that the alt-right says. I always got a kick out of it (as you said, liberals like the feeling of putting conservatives in their place) but after seeing this, I'm starting to wonder if that account does more harm than good by still spreading these alt-right sound-bytes.
Cameron Tauxe The account being run by someone named "KILLEVERYHETERO" also doesn't help. Like...seriously, does no one on the left care about optics or
Cool Calm Cam yeah right that's so offensive and insensitive considering the horrible amounts of heteros discriminated because of their sexuality throughout history...
Know your battles. There is no point in arguing when your opponent refuses to listen and refuses to let you speak. Reality is like a train. Sure, you can try and convince them to get off the tracks all you want, but they are not going to listen. Sometimes, lessons can only be learned through pain and suffering.
Thank you for this series. I have talked myself into circles explaining to magats why they have the cognitive range of a 2 year possum carcass on the side of the freeway and now I know why it doesn't matter.
+Dæmon Knight 1) Stay on narrative (Unless it doesn't suit my point) 2) Speak words that make your post ironic 3) Embrace victimhood from post-ironic deconstructionism The only true way to bring balance to the force.
Katrina L Our narratives, posts, and attitudes are far more honest than anything the left represents today. The left was okay with using victimhood until the right used it because it's the only method of engagement left in a modern world that suppresses the masculine instinct and champions the feminine. Despite men being in positions of authority, they are feminine in their service to the state as all modern citizens are.
I wish there was a *little* more time spent on the ending, because the "you don't have to play" message at the end can easily be interpreted as the "say nothing" and the "short, quippy, wrong" thing has no rebuttal, making them appear correct (as addressed earlier in the video, ~2:26). Knowing what TO DO is often more valuable than knowing what NOT to do.
The point is you don't focus your energy engaging with those who want to provoke an argument in bad faith at all. Instead, if you care to inform the truth, you channel directing that information towards those who are open to listening and understanding. If you need more context spent understanding how to do that (which Ian has gone on record saying that this video series is an ongoing process of him searching for the solution as he unveils what he has come to understand), he has recommended the Debunking Handbook, which goes into delivering the truth in a manner that theoretically avoids reinforcing the myth being debunked in question. ua-cam.com/video/e46uOGQ6RWg/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/j6GFKo6_sOU/v-deo.html www.climatechangecommunication.org/debunking-handbook-2020/
Watching this video reminds me of the arguments I've engaged with on Facebook. One tactic I've often used is when they are always on the offense, I lay out my goal of the conversation, which is not to win, but to share my perspective with them and learn from their perspective. After doing this, any talk that they have that is short and quippy and that puts me in a box comes off as disrespectful. Though it may be difficult, I have to not respond in kind and take the high ground. If I take all of the punches with no response and I frame the conversation in this way, it sends off a peaceful-protester-getting-beat-up sorta vibe. But the most important thing is not to think of the other person as an enemy, but to have genuine empathy and try to find common ground among all of their harsh talk. Thanks for this video series, I'm loving them!
Takes a lot of patience. Most of these people are my friends, or at least acquaintances in real life, so I've had to maintain those relationships outside of facebook. Every person has a complex story behind their views, and even if they're wrong, they should still be treated with respect. Now if you're dealing with randos on the internet, that's a bit harder, especially if you're just engaging with trolls.
Reminds me of the "if your criticism is longer than the movie, it's worthless"-crowd... It always takes a second to spout bullshit, It never takes so little to prove it wrong.
@@リンゴ酢-b8g it's not so much trying to shove it down their throats as to bring the country closer to actual equality. No one is blaming a 23 yr old white guy for decisions made 40, 100, 400 years ago, just acknowledging that white people as a whole benefit from an unjust system and culture
I was just watching the Witcher, and at the very end of the first episode, about five minutes before the end, this dynamic plays out, so seamlessly you don’t even notice it. I didn’t even notice it, except for the fact that I had just watched this video today. If I had not watched this video, and seeing how this played out, I would not have recognized the seam. but this, illustrates it beautifully. Where the priest plays the crowd against the Witcher. I couldn’t ask for a better example if I created one. Excellent video, thank you.
Replying to every point is not fruitful. Responses are always longer than the point they are responding to, so it just causes the conversation to grow exponentially and where them out. Instead, figure out what actually matters, and only respond to that.
@Derek Flynn There is a simple way to respond to the whole comment without needing a mile-long response. Just say something like "I don't have the time to respond to the whole thing, but I disagree with points 1, 3 ,4 and 5. Point 2 I agree with. Point 6 is pretty resonable, but obvious. Here's a detailed rebuttal to point 3: ...". You don't need to give a detailed response to every point, but it can be helpful if you give your opinion about most of it. This shows that you have listened to the whole thing and gives a clearer picture to everyone listening.
As a Christian leftist, I tend to get into plenty of debates with leftist atheists and they are somehow shocked that I know how to get my point across and respond to theirs. We usually end up simply agreeing to disagree as I'm not tryna convert and they aren't gonna say the one thing that's gonna make me ditch faith so 🤷🏾♂️ When I argue with right wing atheists, however, I get thrown into a box pretty quickly as they try to move goal posts and pseudo intellect me into oblivion.
This is why I like to also say, simply put "Source? :3" They quickly divulge into other tactics, but learning to force them into switching tactics constantly makes them angry, which is funny. I'll be learning a lot from this series.
One great example of this is the x-argument (idk what it's called); "You're a man. Why do you care about women's rights?" "You're a woman. The world doesn't revolve around you. Why do you care about women's rights? There's African children starving." Basically the idea that you can't care about an issue if you're part of the group. And you can't care if you're not part of the group. I've seen a lot of versions of it.
"You don't have to play." The greatest lesson for degraded discourse one can learn, and yet the hardest to apply. The best answer seems so easy, but it's so hard to actually do. That's very...human.
That doesn’t work either. Most of these people don’t honestly believe they’re using trickery, or arguing in bad faith. Nor do they believe it’s a tactic. They have heavy confirmation biases. And so do their audiences. It’s extremely difficult to prove to people they’re being fooled or played.
@@Prof_Tickles92 It has no tract with the påeople talking like this. It has tract with the audience and those are the ones you aim to convince about their dishonesty.. If you ever get caught in an argument on the terms they've already succeeded in making it seem like their argument has merit. If someone talks like this the only way you can ever convince them is if they're put in a double-bind where they either have to debunk their own claim or straight-up lie. An example is if they use the 13-50 argument, then you ask them to imagine this. One day driving to work there are a lot more cops on a stretch of road than previously.. They get pulled over for driving a little over the speed limit and get a warning along with the message that the cops can do nothing about this it's orders from higher up the food chain that has sent them there. Due to the stop, they're a little late for work and while it's annoying it's nowhere near the end of the world. They get a warning to be on time tomorrow. They drive a little faster the next day to be able to get there on time, and when they get to that stretch of the road, the cops are out in force again. They're stopped for speeding and this time given a fine. Due to the fine, they're really late for and their boss is really angry at them and gives them a warning to be on fucking time tomorrow. The next day they're going over the limit o be on time,. it's their job after all and their salary which means their rent and their food, and how can the cops be there again. Lo and behold they are. This time something has changed and the people stopped cuss at them and are generally angry. The cop that pulls them over is pissed off and angry as well over being treated the way they are for just doing their job. They make a show out of inspecting the car when they suddenly hear a crunch and the cop saying that their tail-light is busted and they're gonna get a fine for that as well as for seeding. Due to all that they're now monstrously late and instead of giving them a warning their boss just straight up fires them for being unreliable. When they agree to have been over-policed and that the police abused their power, and show clear sign of anger and rage, you then ask them how this is any different from the over-policing and abuse of authority experienced in black neighborhoods? You've now set them up where they can only answer that's it's similar or they can lie as the emotional response has already been seen in them and felt by any audience that may be there. This is incredibly difficult to pull off. The other thing is much easier and thus I recommend that.
I will share a personal anecdote that I think fits in the discussion. Back in 7th or 8th grade I was taking part in a inter-school presentation competition on the subject of physics. Our team was finished with our presentation and the Q&A started, during which one of the jury members asked me about a formula that I didn't know at the time (that formula being S=(at^2)/2 , in case you're interested). I felt embarrassed and the air in the room was getting very heavy. - *Well, that sucks* , - I say into the microphone. And the whole room laughed it off. Obviously, we didn't win anything since our arguments and findings didn't have much merit, not after that short quip. But, when I and my team left the conference hall, something funny happened. People were smiling at me and fist-bumping me, as well as one of the members of the jury. It's incredible how much hold the posture and the composure of the speaker has over our phyche. I've, objectively, made a clown-show of myself, but acting cool made it look like a win. Thing is: I grew past the 12-year-old I used to be.
First: Q: She stole! A: Explanation, explanation, explanation. Q: She asked for $100,000! A: So you're admitting she didn't steal. Q: And her project was shitty! A: What you're admitting here is that she didn't steal. Q: And it was late! A: I just want to clarify here that you're admitting that she didn't steal... (This can go on as long as you like.) Second: It matters a great deal that when Trump's lawyers went to court to defend his Muslim ban, they tried these exact tactics. Red herrings, changing the subject, rewriting history, reframing, avoiding the question. The judges didn't buy any of it. Over and over again they were crushed by a system that is built on the *explanation part*. "If you're explaining, you're losing" was an abysmal strategy. Or consider Trump's failed Asia trip. All that off-topic rhetoric might have played well with the base, but the other countries in that summit were not impressed. They proceeded to do the thing that pros do when you act like a clown: they walked away, and made their own deal, and left the US out in the cold. They can spin that into whatever they want in the alt-reality sphere, but reality is still reality. Anti-evolution rhetoric can dazzle a pliant audience, but if you have a resistant bacterial infection, you're going to die without an accurate understanding of how evolution works. This goes right back to the Bush aide's words: "we create our own reality". It's true you can get a certain number of people to do along with that kind of thing, and if the ball bounces just the right way you might pull off an Electoral College victory, but day in and day out, that buffonery doesn't work. The ability to identify a fallacy and demolish it is a vital skill for getting your astronauts back to Earth alive, or building a bridge that doesn't fall down, or correctly diagnosing your disease. Even in the soft science of international treaty negotiations, all that Three Stooges misdirection falls flat in the end. You're right that it's not always necessary to engage on their terms or play their game, but your grounding must always be in facts and in sound reasoning. If you forget that and get enticed into beating them at their short-sighted goal of merely swaying a crowd, they're still winning.
Your first point is probably the best tactical option. Explain yourself once, then go on the attack. The second... Arguing in a legal or diplomatic context is very different than arguing on the internet. If there's a specifically worded, binding code of behavior to fall back on, and at least some means to enforce it, aggressive non-arguments won't cut it. But on the internet there are no consistently enforced rules so things work differently.
Dennis Bratland I like how you explained this rhetorical tension as a living thing - it is always growing and adapting, like a predator and prey. A scheme that might work for awhile gets adapted to by the public.
People can't even deny what is said in the video, so they reach for "NO U". They _know_ what they do is a dishonest tactic, so it would be really easy to paint their opposition as the one doing it.
Lolt West just curious, if stuff like race and sex are "superficial things", then what would you consider NON-superficial traits for the purposes of identity politics?
Lolt West Thank you for taking the time to give a real answer! I can see the logic you're working from, but I also think it's a little naive and idealistic. In a perfect world, yeah, traits like race and sex and gender identity and so on would be completely superficial traits on the same level as, say, hair or eye color. That is a world I _aspire_ to live in. It is, unfortunately, not the world I _actually_ live in. I assume, by your saying that you try to set a good example to change people's perceptions of Muslims, that you yourself are Muslim. So let me use that to demonstrate what I mean. There are certain traits that one might have which lead the people around them to make assumptions and then they act on those assumptions in the way they treat that person. So for instance someone who finds out you're Muslim might react by harassing you and telling you to get out of the country, implying you're connected to ISIS, or even, I dunno, trying to blow up your fuckin house which actually happened to one of my Muslim friends (nothing exploded, everyone was fine). No matter how kind you are to these people, no matter how good an example you set, there are some people whose minds just cannot be changed and they will _always_ treat you poorly if they even _suspect_ that you're Muslim. I probably don't have to explain this to you, I'm sure you've encountered people like this before. Now, being Muslim does not affect your capability to or quality of work, that's a fact. But the people around you still affect your life in a pretty big way, and that effect is magnified if you happen to have a trait that typically falls under the scrutiny of bigots, like being Muslim, or gay, or black, or trans, just to name a few examples. Those experiences forced upon you from the outside shape who you are and how you act. In your case, they have led you to be constantly aware of the example you're setting for other people - you worry about providing a good example to non-Muslims and try to change their perception of Muslims in general. Would I be correct in saying that, in a sense, you feel a responsibility to act as a representative of your entire faith to non-Muslims? The thing is, many non-Muslims _also_ expect you to be a representative sample of that entire, massive, incredibly varied population of which you are just one member. That expectation impacts both how they act toward you, and how you act toward them. Being Muslim doesn't affect your life in any _capability_ related way, but it does affect the sorts of experiences you have, and your interactions with the rest of society. In this sense, such a trait is _not_ superficial, as it may greatly impact the sort of person you become. Would you have been so conscious of your behavior and setting a good example for others had you been, say, a straight white male christian in the US? I'm guessing probably not. Those people don't generally think of themselves as having to be representatives of their entire group to the rest of society. They have the luxury of being able to, I dunno, be petty or mean sometimes without having to worry that suddenly everyone they know will assume ALL straight white christian men are assholes. (That's part of what privilege is, by the way. The luxury of not having to consider things like that, because they're not part of your lived experiences.) I'm willing to bet a lot of other Muslims have had similar experiences to yours. _That_ is what the identity in identity politics is based on, that shared experience that only other people in your group can really know and understand because they also live it every day of their lives. And "superficial" traits like race & religion tend to be the signifiers of these identities because those are the common threads in shaping the experiences they go through, and they also tend to be things that you can't hide - or at least, not without denying some important part of yourself in order to do so. anyway tl;dr: any trait that makes you a target of bigots impacts your lived experience even if it doesn't impact your job performance, and people who share the same trait(s) will also share similar lived experiences that other people will not, and this shared experience is the basis of the "identity" in "identity politics".
The “NO U” you refer to is generally already known as the ‘tu quoque’ fallacy and is generally better known as the straw man fallacy. This guy really doesn’t bring anything new on the table. Its sure as shit not only applicable to alt right but in general it can be applied to everyone in a discussion who is already convinced of his or her own right and is willig to go the distance to defend their point of view. Left vs right, science vs religion, capitalists vs communists, hooligans vs hooligans etc etc etc.
Best reaction is to force them to explain themselves instead of doing it for them by saying stuff like "Ok, why is that so ?" "How do you know this is true ?" "Where is this information from ?" etc. Eventually you force them to elaborate if they do so - its the right time to correct them.
If you get one that's less well versed in it, they tend to reply sooner. I collect their responses and deliver them back to them in a summary of everything they'd said, and it unsurprisingly is usually nonsensical and contradictory. Then their comments start mysteriously disappearing. :P
Hello Black queer person here! Just wanted to say we are new to the channel but you do a great job of checking your privelage at the door! Its also really insigtful to hear a white person break down how dumb white racism is! Been dealing with lots of microagressions and ignorance at university and hearing you competently articulate these points and messges is impactful truly!
All racism and queerphobia, transphobia, xenophobia is dumb, leave people alone and don't judge them by color, or lack of it, how they dress or look physically.
It’s best to not engage with them at all. Their entire ideology does not care if they are correct. They can fundamentally know they are wrong. Right wing ideology is the thought process of a bully, and giving a reaction only validates them
When ever i argue with these "accusing rightists" i like to slip in, very deliberately "you lost the arguement". Sometimes i say " you lost the arguement and now you are hurt". A lot of the time they will reply "i didnt lose because i said this...". Then they start becomine defensive because they have to prove their words made sense.
I once got into a lengthy discussion with a Chinese person. When after a while, the topic veered into politics and it became clear that I don't think highly of dictatorships and how the Chinese state controls its people, they immediately changed how they approached me. Suddenly, this wasn't just a discussion with a random person on the internet - suddenly, I was "obviously and without question" a Taiwanese spy, trying to subtly brainwash people into "bad" political ideologies. Nothing I said had a chance to sway them from this accusation. When a person has a specific enemy in mind to blame, when you argue from a position they cannot defend against or that contradicts their core values ... you immediately may find yourself to "reveal yourself" as one of these enemies. Then everything makes sense again and they can just ignore every word you say.
I’ve never gotten the “individualist vs collectivist” dichotomy. How can one create a happy collective when the individuals that make up the collective aren’t happy? And if the collective isn’t happy, doesn’t that mean you missed a few individuals?
@@sertaki the chinese have it right: they despise islam, homosexuality, feminism and globalists. as a result, they're outperforming the west in economics and technology without having to deal with diversity or affirmative action pets
I've noticed this in conversations that I have with friends but I've also noticed (since these conversations are in text) that my "argument" is straw manned by my opposing friend trying to tell me off. Sometimes I don't even argue in the first place and I get 'schooled' for what I apparently was thinking and saying that it wasn't my argument leads my friend to say "Don't change the subject." ??? *what was the subject? when was I going to know my argument?* Explaining the situation to others without acting on the initial comment was my way of dealing with the argument (as well as learning the 15 logical fallacies) so finding this video was interesting because we've come to the same conclusion through opposing means.
Excellent analysis. I stumbled upon a basic understanding of the concept when I once broke the cycle. Simply going back to the first point and continuing to ask for some response breaks the user of the tactic down pretty quickly. After a while of evasive tactics I just stated I had to assume that he conceded the point and it is time to move on. He was the one that decided he didn't want to play in short order, haha. Taking control over the flow of the discussion from the beginning and ensuring that proper ground rules are enforced goes a long way to expose an empty position. He couldn't even get past point #1 with any researched response.
00:38 and here's your mistake; don't stop to let them bring another accustation and defend against that. Take the initiative and accuse them of lying or of ignorance or whatever. Because that's what they did; they lied. Don't just gloss over that. Don't bring analysis to a knife fight; bring a sword, a great big sharp sword
i always just agree with whatever they accuse me of. "you're just lazy and want free government hand-outs" "yeah. and im gonna get them" or whatever. it usually confuses them enough to allow you to derail the whole convo
I've found that this also happens a lot of the time in other scenarios. When people just want to feel like you're a bad person, for whatever reason, even if there's no evidence, they'll figure out some way or another to do it.
These are absolute fire, man. Keep it up! As a social psychology nerd dealing with constant colonial racism, your channel is a gold mine of practical insight. Peoples' Champ. I know this seems to have been published 6 years ago, but it's aged like fine wine.
"The right has learned that if you never *look* like you're losing, you can convince a lot of people that you're not." That reminded me of Contrapoints' video "The Aesthetic" - winning a debate in the eyes of the public is not about being factually or logically correct. It's all about pageantry. We're in the circus, not the forum
“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
It looks like people only listened to half of that and made it work. You may have lost an arguement but you looked strong when the whole time your argument was weak and made the other person look weak when/or if their arguement was strong. Of course it depends but generally thats how it goes
That's why the "Come on" was such a huge punch and won a debate.
@@SleepyBrady Appearing strong when you are weak is still weakness, it just needs to be capitalized on. There are plenty of ways to engage with these arguments and destroy them.
For example: in the above donation example you start by calling them a liar for presenting such easily check argument like the basic difference between stealing money vs asking for donations. Then in their second response you call out that they have lied two times in a row, and counter with a direct statement against their character and the worth of their arguments.
It's easy to defeat these individuals with truth, but you have to be willing to be bold for the sake of truth and attack the entirety of the situation.
Nothing is more effective than calling out these strategies for what they are while they are in the process of using them. Because the conversation chain is publicly visible it forces them either to delete their comments or leave up evidence of their transgressions, which in turn provides your audience with direct evidence of the unworthiness of their words.
and that's why they're always trying to rile people up i think lol, cause like sometimes it's hard to side with someone if they're delivering their message poorly and are overwhelmed with anger :/
@AlexisWenberg What do you mean?
You forgot to mention one other strength of this approach: the application of the so called "theorem of the pile of shιt".
It goes like this:
- he throws some bullshιt at you, it takes 10 seconds for him to do it.
- you dig it up, it takes you 10 minutes!
- he do it again, on another subject, for him it's still 10 seconds.
- you dig it up again, it takes you even more than 10 minutes. etc etc
Creating shιt is faster than digging it up, you can't win.
It works the best for the conspiration theorist. Take the chemtrails, you need a meteorologist and an engineer and maybe even a pilot for fully debunking a random guy.
But even the alt right can use it, combine it with the "whatabout argument" and you can generate tons of shιt easily
Never argue with a conspiracy theorist by trying to convince them, just make fun of their sources and move on.
@@ToveriJuri nonwhites commit more crime
To put it more succinctly, it takes 10 minutes to debunk a 10 second lie.
with AI entering wide usage on the internet and techbros who love it and use it often being right-leaning centrists at best and actual MAGA folks at worst, everything has taken a turn for the worse. we are in hell.
That's Brandolini's law.
"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."
"Short, quippy and wrong" -- this is how I am going to describe Ben Shapiro to people from now on.
Exactly, that's why he picked the college students in the first place. Student have read a shit ton of books and developed their own ideas for months that they think they can take on Shapiro, but Shapiro checkmates them with "short, quippy and wrong" because these students didn't prepare for an idiot, they've prepared for a debate master yet Shapiro delivered them an idiot.
And that's probably why Shapiro failed against BBC commentators, these guys were educated on that pattern so they've always countered with "short-quippy-you lie" and then Shapiro was forced to take the defence and excuse himself just to be hit by "short-quippy-you lie" once again...because he is full of shit.
the more i think about this comment the more accurate and better it becomes omg
Well you and all others on this comments page isn't worth anymore of my time. Everything ____ turns to 💩.
My favorite way of describing Shapiro is “Professional Fast-Speaking (term meaning ‘stupid’”. But that’s wordy, so the more effective term being short and quippy is a delight.
Inaccurate tell me how he has been wrong without using one of the methods in the video (putting people in a box etc)
I love how conservatives always complain about the "wall of text" during an argument. Which is basically just an unintented way of admitting that you don't care or are too stupid to understand a proper argument.
Conciseness is quite important.
@@keyboardguru4212 reality isnt concise.
If you can keeping your own responses short and snappy like their questions can be quite effective. It quickly and easily makes it apparent that they're full of it.
"She stole money from people." .....doesn't need a paragraph to respond. "People willingly donated to her crowd funding," says everything that needs to be said.
@@comradecam9530 it's also about how impactful the word choice is, "she stole money from people" will stick in someone's head way more than "people willingly donated to her crowd funding"; it's just human nature to want to accuse and punish
If you use more words than you have to in order to get your point across, you're falling into the high school essay trap. There's a time and a place for long form discussions, but it's not just conservatives recognize proper etiquette. Try, face to face, speaking to a person for 5 minutes before they get their turn, throw around name calling and the refuse to explain what you mean by the terms you use. You're comfortable behind your computer screen, in your circle jerk, but one day you'll wish you put the time you spent making walls of text into pushups, and after this wall of text, I'm doing one for every word I typed.
I just play their same game. Once I give an explanation and they make another short quip, I just say: “you didn’t address my point.”
They’ll say the quip again, I’ll tell them that they’re wrong and they’ll move on to the next quip. I’ll then reiterate, “you didn’t address my point. That’s twice now.”
I’ve found this to be surprisingly effective. Onlookers will this realize when they see it happening. Even in the lizard brain, that short reminder to the audience that your opponent isn’t addressing what you saying takes them out of lizard and into rational.
It’s not foolproof, but you’ll be surprised how much it works. I’ve even seen Gabes tell the Angry Jacks that they’ve lost and are now embarrassing themselves.
That doesn't work. They still introduce the seed of bullshit to your followers. Pointing out that their argument is fundamentally unsound doesn't do anything because it's fundamentally unsound on purpose.
i do this all the time, all they do is ignore me, lol
Right can do that too be careful. You can see that technic in almost every J. Peterson debate.
I do my best to avoid engaging at all cost, and when I have to I just love saying "wrong" and "no" to a lot of their quips. If pressed, I tell them to explain / prove their point. Bring up burden of proof being on them. Won't win you an argument, but usually annoys them into leaving and makes their quips look less quippy. 98% of people reading picked a side before they start reading, why bother explaining shit in a debate anymore.
@@NaruTheBlackSwan Only if you have followers, it's not a problem for someone like myself. They're just getting burned by a nobody and their followers are the ones being exposed to something new.
That whole thing about "short, quippy, and wrong" being countered with carefully researched explanations, only to get "short, quippy, and wrong" responses reminds me of an eye-opening and disappointing exchange that I had with my father. No surprise, he's more conservative than I am, but we have a good relationship. There are many things on which we respectfully disagree, and I never felt like I couldn't have a rational discussion with him... until the following event happened.
We were discussing economics, and he made the questionable claim that "lowering taxes _ALWAYS_ increases tax revenue (because of the corresponding increase in economic activity)". I was surprised to hear this, and I thought he was being over-broad in his statement, so I replied with something like "Well, maybe in _some_ circumstances, but obviously not in _all_ cases-" "No! _ALWAYS!"_
So, I engaged the skills that I had learned in university, where I went to business school. Whether we _ought_ to use tax policies that maximize government revenue is another important topic, but not one I needed to research for this subject. I had one very clear fact-claim to assess. I researched multiple professional economists, some more liberal, some more conservative. I collected studies from multiple, different universities. I gained a basic understanding of the terms, assumptions, and framework that professors, experts in this precise field used to discuss this very subject. I presented my father a research paper of an email with academic citations for all of my claims. Long story short, almost all economists agree that there is a tax rate (the peak of the "Laffer curve") for a given country at a given time that maximizes government revenue, that tax rates above this rate decrease economic activity so much that it reduces government revenue, and tax rates below that special point _also_ decrease government revenue because the corresponding _boost_ to economic activity is outweighed by the reduction in the tax rate. Also, though they disagreed on the details of the _degree_ of the difference, almost all economists, regardless of economic ideology, agreed that the USA's current tax code put us well below the peak of the Laffer curve. In other words, it was generally accepted that, where we were then, increasing tax rates marginally would increase tax revenue.
My father's entire rebuttal was to claim that Prof. Laffer himself showed up on Fox News to say that "supply-side economics always works".
I was so dumbfounded that his response was so poor compared to my research, that he had engaged in no effort to match my research or to address my specific points, yet acted like what he said somehow rebutted my whole position. It came as such a disappointing shock to me.
agiar2000 to most conservatives, it’s never about the facts, it’s about beliefs. And ego. Boy is ego a HUGE factor- they think changing their outlook means losing.
Gish Gallop
this is how my parents feel about gender
they can be convinced twice a month but after a while they're back to normal
Here is a much better counter. Don't go with complex theory, just go straight to the extreme to prove that his claim is absurd. Say, "so you're saying that if the government collected no taxes, they would have an increase in revenue?" Don't explain, just apply egg to face.
@@ganondorfchampin I agree... this works a lot of the times. You can either do what the video says, by not arguing, or sometimes you have no choice because it involves you and everybody you care about.
I once 'debated' an anti-vaxer online and I've seen dozens of comments before me that failed to convince that person with facts. So instead I added, "So... we should let people die of polio and measles?".
Immediately, the conversation shifted and they back-pedalled. Rather than capitalising on this gain by calling them names hoping to humiliate them into silence, just keep asking very short quippy questions with obvious answers. Like, "So... we are ALL wrong?" or "So... Should we kill all SJWs?" or "So... we need to abolish all government? Including hospitals, roads, public facilities, everything?"
Take it to the extreme, but NEVER explain yourself. Just ask very silly extreme questions like a 4 year old. Soon, they'll start calling you names, or they'll start making long explanations themselves which they will eventually shoot themselves in the foot by making an argument they can't defend. Either ways, you win.
If possible, use 'WE' instead of 'you' or 'I'. The word 'we' disarms an opponent because you don't come across as accusatory or defensive. Rather than saying "You're wrong and I'm right!", say... "So... we are all wrong? Like ALL OF US are wrong?" That usually throws them around and they get into the mood of explaining, "yes, you are ALL wrong, because bla bla bla bla bla", which then gives you a chance to deconstruct their argument with something short and quippy again. Lol
When you started describing "Never Play Defense," I started realizing that's _exactly_ what Trump does. It's amazing how successful someone can be by never admitting defeat, despite having lost.
but the left does it all the time....
@@pistolshrimp6252 true 😂
@@pistolshrimp6252 like who, just off the top of your head?
and actual leftists please, not democrats or liberals
@@pistolshrimp6252: Names and examples or stfu. You're a living example of this theory; attacking with no substance and no ability to explain, just an urge to be 'short, quippy and wrong.'
@@LieutenantSteel Hilary Clinton.Majority of left winged media.Tumblr
This is why the left has started using short, quippy, and *dismissive* phrases like "okay boomer" or memes like "source: I made it up," "source: crackpipe" in response to the short quippy and *wrong* statements of the right. This seems more successful than actually debating the right.
i dont like “ok boomer” because i feel like to the right it sounds like the left is avoiding the argument, which implies the right won, but the “source: trust me bro” or some variant of that feels a lot better :)
aren't boomers left-leaning by nature?
@@topapo3661 But that's the thing, there is no argument there anyway. Just aggressive posturing by the right.
Ok Boomer is absolutely a good response.
And that's how the discourse dies ...
There can only be a discourse if both sides agree. The right had long checked out.
Looking back on this one two years later I think this is partially why the "Ok Boomer" meme may have hit such a nerve among Conservatives and the Alt-right. Because it really just shuts down the argument instead of giving them space to continue to attack. It's very different to how Liberals have been arguing previously, short, quippy and making little attempt to explain and educate like we usually do, but it certainly plays well for a crowd.
Personally I'm hopeful that it's a first foray into a new era of progressive memeing that can capitalize on this kind of rhetoric so we can all save time for useful stuff instead of worrying about extensive time-wasting arguments with insincere people.
yes!
ok boomer.
Omg this is like the best “ok boomer” meme analysis I’ve seen. Thank you.
Instead of Short Quippy Wrong, it's Short Quippy Dismissive. Instead of lying, you denounce the very argument as beneath serious debate. I can see the success pattern.
You think Boomers are conservative? While it is true that people shift to the right as they age, the Baby Boom generation prides itself on being progressive.
They ushered in the era of casual drug use, premarital sex, quicky divorces, and single motherhood. They are the generation of evading personal responsibility and becoming narcissistic dolts. And they spent all the money, while insisting you keep those pension checks rolling in.
“You’re offended” is their favorite box.
'You are a snowflake'
FreeThoughtStorm I just ask them if this is what offended looks like and if so, whether they might be interested in buying a groupon for a local neurologist for a comprehensive brain scan.
"how much soy do you consume?"
Good one for that can be 'so are you', half the time they'll get on defence themsleves and then you just..leave.
What about 'alt-right', 'fascist', 'racist', 'nazi', 'mysoginist' 'sexist'? These are boxes some people on the left love to lump their opposition in.
Videos like these make me grateful that I don’t do internet arguments anymore.
Mahou Shoujo Hime I DISAGREE
Spawny Chancer cool
@@リンゴ酢-b8g so with that going fetishized appearances more than.
There is a reason for the kinky repressed Catholic school girl exist right
The more pressure you put on something to conform the more they will fight.
Mahou Shoujo Hime understand how you feel completely; but unfortunately you run into these people in the work place in person or in public, and you’ll find out their just as worse.
Internet arguments are hell if you actually want to win or "put people in their place" or educate them or otherwise treat them like they're a real person. That's just the wrong aim entirely. I do Internet arguments because, regardless of what they say or who they are, I find personal value in my own responses. I honestly pretend like the other side isn't even a person anymore. They're more like a debate robot that generates interesting ideas/statements/prompts from which I can flesh out my own ideas and construct better and better arguments. (Yeah, it's easier to do that sort of thing if the interlocutor actually has good responses, but I can often develop my ideas even if they're arguing in bad faith.) And I save my own responses so that I can add it to my archive of worldviews that I have believed over time, and use them to explain to others (in real life) what I believe (people actually tend to care in real life lmao).
I fell into this quicksand from hell once in an MMO area chat talking to a self-professed "young conservative wanting to civilly debate" (I KNOW but I was young and not yet dead inside) and I felt like I was going crazy because of this exact bullshit, and I could see people reacting to it just like this! Like some being swayed to his side, etc., and it was literal years ago and my ass is still so chapped over it lmaooo. This video is a godsend and has saved my rhetorical bacon a fair few times. Jesus Christ. It was also horrifically disappointing to realize that onlookers super duper don't give a shit about what you're saying, they care if you "seem right." They really think explaining = losing, even if they wanted the explanation in the first place! So frustrating and insidious.
And after you had that (all too real) first epiphany about how humans really work you must likely be on a slide towards the alt right. Do you understand yet why democracy was a mistake?
@@zxumwmki3604 WHAT
@@zxumwmki3604 What? The tactics are not exclusive to the right, but the right uses it heavily. So by being aware of it, you can dodge it and possibly flip it against them.
they're trolls. don't feed the trolls. end of story.
**my god is it depressing**
People used to dismiss the idea of hand washing as a preventative measure to disease. It was debated about for decades, and thousands of innocent people died because of the ignorance and stubbornness of some few doctors. (I'm referencing a vsauce2 video btw) Eventually, those people died out over time, and the strange, esoteric idea of hand washing became accepted, normalized, and is likely responsible for your privilege of not losing your mother to puerperal sepsis.
Similarly, the conceited old people who grew up with too much lead in their system and a fundamental unwillingness to learn and reason will die out, and we'll move forward as a species.
This is how it's been for millennia.
I had this kid in my third grade class that would make girls cry by saying stuff that's wrong then insulting them when they tried to correct him , always with the same calm tone. He got them riled up and would work them into a meltdown and act like he won because he's a calm collected person while she's being hysterical. And people would believe him because of this. This is why a lot of boys never grow out of that. Because of that kid there's a handful of people who still believe that bees are Beatles because Beatles all have stingers.
Caring about something is seen as no longer deserving lungs...
This is just bullying, but with your brain instead of your body. I used to do it too, when I was a kid. It was hard to stop, but very satisfying.
They got mad so to a person who values emotionlessness they lost and proved themselves lesser. Just another form of elitism
Sounds like an absolute baller. I wish him nothing but the best in life!
@@painunending4610dude I really hope your joking or that you wind up okay wherever you are
"never admit defeat"
even when you lose a national election in a landslide
true :/
@@aturchomicz821 Twice :D
@@ashe.7945 Twice?
@@noahhale4862 he got less votes the first time.
But because of the country's current electoral system, being the candidate that the people statistically wants does not necessarily mean you will get your rightful place in the capitol building.
@@hewhomustnotbenamed5912 He didn't lose by a landslide that year tho, the popular vote was pretty close and obviously he won the electoral vote.
I've often found that whenever I criticize the right, I'm met with a criticism against a prominent left-wing candidate I've never supported. And I'm like "cool cool, but I never said anything about them, what does your disdain for them have to do with my disdain for the candidate I know for sure you support?" Annoying how binary politics is treated in that regard. And whenever I see people seize on one part of something I actually said but they're ignoring the part it built up to and stuff surrounding it for context and other relevant stuff in the argument, I might say "hey, you neglected to comment upon all this other stuff I said".
I think the pointing to a specific political figure has a lot to do with the right's assumption that everyone with a given belief system consolidates under a single authority figure. And if they can't find somebody obvious that people actually follow to pin as the leftist authority, they will assign one for you based on their own arbitrary criteria. Hence the antisemitic right-wing meme that George Soros is the puppeteer of the entire left.
This happened to me when I told my mother that the president's response to the COVID-19 epidemic was terrible. She listed off the one or two things he did and then said " While he was doing such and such, your Democrat party was"... something, I dunno because I cut her off. She acted like I explicitly supported the Democrats because I was opposed to the president's clear incompetence, even though I had mentioned no political parties in the points I made and they had nothing to do with it. It threw me off a bit to realize how much of a target has been allowed to be painted on left-wingers, a target I freely admit I've taken shots at in the past.
Let me guess, just from experience
Obama
AOC
Hillary Clinton
And any other person Fox decides to Target
@@joemama8436 how did you leave Bernie off that list??? They love calling him a commie. It’s like a sport!
My family thinks I support Biden because I really don’t like trump. Yeah, I voted for him. But I don’t love him. It either means they don’t know me personally or they don’t know Biden’s policy. (Hint: it’s the latter. They think he’ll bring us to socialism. 😂😂😂 I wonder how they think Obama did not do that in eight years???)
Playing dumb is a really important tactic that I don't see leftists using - I think smart people are just uncomfortable looking dumb. But you can avoid some arguments entirely and still reveal their lies this way. If he says "She stole all that money from people!" You can say, "Oh wow, really? I didn't know about this. What do you mean? Who did she steal from? When did this happen?" Now it's not an argument, just a person who made a claim and someone who wants to know more, someone he might want to try and convince. Putting you down and trying to look like the "winner" doesn't work for him in this situation. If he stays quippy and vague, keep asking questions, prodding at all those lies of omission. "Wait, you're saying she stole from the people who donated to her?" He might keep withholding, looking like he's hiding something and now he's playing defense. Or he'll have to give more details and reveal the fact that he's full of shit. Or he'll send you a link to some bullshit article - "Wait, I think you sent me the wrong article. This is talking about that project she did. Could you send the one about her stealing?" Or he'll try to pivot to another accusation - "Wait, I'm still confused. That's interesting too, but what did you mean when you said she stole from people?" The worst case for you is if he completely ignores you. Then you go put together your summary of what really happened and say, "To anybody who was wondering about the theft claims, here's what really happened."
This could work, but I'd be worried it just plays into the opponent's outward narrative of "I'm clearly winning". I kind of feel like asking a question or appearing to not know what they're talking about would signal to casual observers that they know more, and thus that they have a more nuanced/correct argument.
Im not sure why a smart person would worry about looking dumb, that sounds like an ego thing which is not smart
Don't just put the summary. Offer that if anyone else wants to know more, then you'll put up a summary.
Nah they just repeat the lie and ask for your outrage. They won't expand.
"Yeah, she stole their money! A total ripoff, I can't believe that (insert slur filled rant)..."
Being dumb is pretty based tbh
Oh man, this is so embarrasing to watch. That red dude is literally me back when Sarkeesian did her Feminist Frequency videos. Thank god I got out of that hell.
Glad to hear you got out!
How did you get out and what did it take?
@@ignisterzone5399 Thanos stares off into the grain fields.
"Everything..."
okay but do you actually agree with with anything she said in those videos
@@louiseckstark31 No, not really. Thunderf00t has an excellent set of videos that take Sarkeesian's arguments down quite well.
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Message of video: Never pick a fight with the Alt-Right. Never pick a fight you can't win. The "fool" has a stronger argument.
Subtext is a thing
@Anon 1
Npc
@@Ruldolphmaker Most
functionally intelligent people call that mind reading and false self justification and know how to pick it out with ease.
@Derek Flynn Part of the problem is the alarmist call everyone who disagree with them climate deniers when in fact the actual true deniers numbers are off the bottom of the radar low.
Byond that is the growing reality that way too much of the alarmist sides supposed data and supporting evidence has a awful track record of now proven manipulation with intent to mislead and being the work of proven scammers out ot make a fast buck off gullible emotionally driven bleeding heart fools at the public level where there's the most easy money to be had.
Then there's the growing issue with the actual skeptics being all too happy to agree to a half truth based climate/environmental issue then blowing up the 'who's getting the blame and being expected to change for it' end of it by showing the hard numbers of where such and such issue originates of which is almost exclusively from a source outside who and what the alarmists are claiming and blaming.
Between the false labeling everyone who does not agree with the alarmist as deniers, the huge negative PR problem of how many scammers are tied to the alarmists agenda more than the skeptics, and the skeptics constantly pulling in the bigger picture of what's actually real and proveable in to discredit the alarmist stances, the alarmists are losing hard now on the credibility game. So much so that it often makes them look like they are the real deniers, not the rational and informed ones taking a objective and impartial look at the bigger picture of reality.
I like how the examples provide themselves in the comment section. Especially "pick one thing out and rebut it whilst ignoring the rest" part. Good work!
well most people dont have time to write out there opinion on every topic in a video so you cant really fault internet comments for that
@xa xa No, it's meant to be incendiary. To both signal to others how comfortable you are with controversial topics (and thus are strong) and that you're a part of a group which prides itself on such edginess...
Like how "72 genders" is so completely unrelated to anything. It's just a way to score cheap points by picking an easier topic to attack instead of contending with the one at hand.
I'm more than happy to do a numbered outline of points made and why they are wrong, but Leftists typically cherry pick their favorite to battle on or subject change anyway.
Michael McGrath I guess everyone will just take your word on that 🙄
@@Heycool08 that wasn't an argument, but you do demonstrate my point. What are you sarcastically "taking my word on?" That I enumerate points and counterarguments(I do), that leftists choose their favorite to continue arguing and ignore the others(they usually do), or that they subject change(occasionally, for the more lazy and obviously wrong left wing debaters)?
Oh my God! This is so true! One time I had a convo with a dude who said systemic racism doesn't exist in America and I showed how the SC ruled NC state government engaged in voter suppression and I also pointed out how black men are incarcerated @ disproportional rates & he moved the goal post to, "you're assuming police target black men because they are black" and I pointed at studies where they showed the correlation and the he moved the goalpost to, "black men are more violent than any other racial group." I this point I realized what was going on & refused to engage with this person. He was only shifting goalpost further so he wouldn't have to address the issue or change his mind.
Wow "racism doesn't exist" to "black people inferior" is a pretty big leap
and, simultaneously, to subtly introduce his own racial realist argument into the fold, presented as a critique of YOUR alleged bigotry. Statements of racial inferiority disguised under this same aesthetic of accusation.
Sometimes you should just not engage with people specially when you know they wont try to understand your point
this is why we invented the "Ok boomer" meme
Tsouki lmao and then anti-SJWs will accuse you for having no argument, even tho they never had a good argument to begin with
boomers were the ones who came with the insiduous civil rights movement. if only they had realised what they were unleashing
@@リンゴ酢-b8g Ok boomer lol
Yossy Yossi Okay parrot with no original thought
Emeleen McDonald Okay parrot with no original thought
"Only the Sith deal in absolutes"
Alas, Obi Wan also didn't grasp the irony of his words.
“And the Jedi don’t ?”
Sidious knew, that’s why Grey Jedi rule, acknowledges the weaknesses, temper thy will.
Carl Grey Jedi are the fedora tippers of Jedi.
And that's how Rey was born. Thanks Obamiwan!
@@TheUnnamedAssailant Grey Jedi is like centrism. They will eventually fall to the Darkside.
Grey Jedi is Chris Avellone being a edgy intellectual because he hates Star Wars.
This video is a perfect summery of almost every single comment war I've gotten into on YourTube. Except instead of political debate, the topic we argue about is usually Star Wars.
Hello there!
This comment ruined my childhood.
Dorian sapiens you have done that yourself
Anakin did nothing wrong.
i hate sand
This video genuinely puts the entire argument style of right leaning people into words, well done & I will be saving this for later use
fist ehehehehehheheheheh
the irony comes from the fact this argument style is the default left playbook and this video is a projection on cosmic scales. Goalposting is literally one of the most vanilla parts of alinsky playbook, not to mention the cornerstone of all leftist philosophies on social transformation, which they predominantly achieve through gradualism. Arguing with people on the right is generally much more obstinate and shutdowny, but leftists overwhelmingly put you in a box to not listen to you and instead focus on reframing the argument rather then addressing it. You have to pretend that postmodernism isnt a socio-linguistic (crackpot) theory to somehow say that the generally much more categorical style of the right is even in the same universe of goalposting.
@@garrickthomas8631 This was his first video I encountered, and for anybody familiar with leftist philosophy and postmodernism couldn't say with a straight face that this isn't a foundational part of their strategic thesis. It's literally baked right into most of their "sociolinguistics" and often used to promote ideas which are actual antithetical to the idea of debate (as they fundamentally disagree with the concept of a categorical truth). I also strongly dislike it as (if you read the comment below), it only serves to further ingrain this bad faith tactic in less radical leftists as a "countermeasure" when its already devolved the conversation primarily by its use from leftists. As much of this is subliminally introduced in the course of _____ study curriculum I cant help but wonder if Ian also approached this with less than honorable motivations.
@@garrickthomas8631 well gun control is a perfect example of where emotional adherence to narrative against debate makes no sense. At bare minimum 300,000 to 2.5 million (most methods place on the larger end) violent crimes a year are prevented by defensive gun use, yet they refuse to see pro-gun control arguments as an actual type of politicization of peoples safety in the negative direction. As per this video, they label anybody who disagrees with their narrative as being either callous monsters or just shy of in cahoots with mass murder.
To the points you list:
1. It's literally the leftist playbook, pioneered and heavily documented in almost all their works and omni-present in all theories of its activism. The alt-right (which itself is a diffuse box created to attack anyone from classical liberals and libertarians to monarch revivalists as one band to direct two minutes of hate towards) is just one of the first group of "conservatism" (sic) in a long time to not play defensively.
2. Feeding into echo chambers is supposedly what the alt right is guilty of
3. Well sure, you welcome criticism when you dont address resounding irony in your argument
All sorts of deleted comments under here... Did another leftist poison-pill the tribe again? When is our guy gonna make a video to stop poison-pilling the ideological tribe?
I'd like to point out this actually relates back to "The Left Can't Meme". Memes work at their best when they're short, quippy, and posed in a weird/absurd way. Leftists are the ones who constantly have to provide the added context, make the correct statement, and explain their point, while conservatives are able to just say 5 or 6 words that sound funny, and undercut them. It doesn't matter if those 5 or 6 words are unrelated, wrong, or don't make sense; they're short and quippy.
Would it perhaps work if the Left posts a meme, then leave a short essay in a caption that elaborates on the content of the meme now that it has their attention?
@@CrowTR0bot 🤣🤣🤣
@@CrowTR0bot That’s how it usually works. And even when it works that way the right usually just denied that that context comment exists at all.
and if you don't provide a full explanation every time, suddenly you are being reductionist or oversimplifying. Most of "The Left Can't Meme" are either because there is too much information, or not enough. Surprise, there is no in between to them.
universal truths are immediately perceived. pretty lies require a lot of tergiversation, mental gymnastics and obfuscation in the attempt to sound convincing
Something I have the tendency to do in an argument if my opponent is trying to change the subject is very loudly thank them for conceding the previous subject. They *HATE* that. Once I draw attention to everything they're trying to drop by the wayside, they either have to go back to it so they can "win," give a good reason for the change of subject, (which puts them on the defense) or just cede the issue to me and try to salvage things going forward. They never do the third thing and rarely do the second. They'll usually either let themselves be dragged back to the original point where they know they're being made to look foolish or, much more commonly, fire off some ad hominems in my direction and leave in a huff when I don't get pissed and defensive.
God I love doing this. The second I see them move those goalposts and ignore what I said, I always make sure to thank them THOROUGHLY for acknowledging my points they ignored as being correct.
Of course they can't actually admit I'm correct so that always leads to the inevitable "Nuh uh!" reply.
Easy way to make them acknowledge that they lost a round is by making them confirming clearly that this is the case.
If you ask something like: "so she did not steal money, correct?" You stop them in their tracks and usually can just go on with a peaceful life.
I referred someone to an article, and tried to make them answer with the name in the article of the victim. Never got one.
isn't this still conceding to the boxes they're setting up though
I just point out that I'm taking their subject change as a concession.
No matter how accurately you refute their points, their tried and true shield will always be "well what about-". You can see many examples in this very comment section.
You must be projecting, that is what delusional leftist do, they can't debate reality, and always resort with fantasy senarios and hypothetical questions.
One way to counter whataboutism is to call it uot ... its that simple tell them to stick to the subject
@@silversurfer6360 You've never debated against a leftist, huh?
@@user-tf5lg7fc9s i did and they never use whataboutism lol
@@silversurfer6360 Lmfao, no you have not. You're a leftist. And leftist only use whataboutism.
Based on the last video, i changed the way i discuss with alt right. I never let them deflect but always end with a question. No matter what they say next, i come back to my original question. They deflect like crazy but it is MUCH easier to end it fast when there is a question you have given them, it stops that "accusation loop". You have the control if ou want to expand that question. Not them. You can give very, VERY short arguments: "answer my question first". Keep referring to the one and ONLY thing they said. Do not let them sidestep, deflect, pick your text apart. Just don't even let go of that control once you get it. Most often, they discussion ends very fast, it is less than the critical 5 minutes: if the discussion has not moved anywhere near conclusion in 5 minutes, it never will. I have not made anyone change my mind but boy, have i made a lot of them furious..
One warning: you actually have to know every single detail in your first response. You need to have all the weapons but you are deliberately using them. sparsely. If you have any doubts, just don't engage. Down vote, thumbs down and move on.
SquidCaps Thanks for the tip!
There is an alternative to just not engaging - it's to introduce your point of view through Socratic method. See James O'Brian do this in real time with UK right wingers.
A:How can you support this woman that conned people out of 100K?
B:Where did she do that? Link?
A:[Links alt-right tweet about her kickstarter]
B:[Link the actual kickstarter] But that's a Kickstarter for 10k, not 100K, how come?
A:Well people gave her 100K and she never delivered anything!
B:Isn't the delivery here? [link]
A:It took too long to deliver!
B:So she did deliver the thing right?
A:But not what she promised!
B:What did she promise?
etc.
Occasionally summarize how the argument has changed throughout the exchange.
This way you
1) don't play defensive, you play the arbiter
2) you expose onlookers to the primary source instead of content that was pre-digested by alt right media
3) typically the extremist will get frustrated and simply start spouting agressive nonsense and then rage quit the conversation
@Yazarch Liseed very efficient way to deal with gish-gallop is to pick a single point and every time they launch into a new gish gallop just say something along the lines of "NOOOnonono we weren't done yet, I asked you this very specific question, and you haven't answered it yet." "We'll get to the rest once we've dealt with this one specific thing." "one topic at a time."
Just pick the thing you know you can get them on.
, The aim is to make the other side look like they have no idea - that their ideas don't work. If you felt like you looked that way as well then you did something wrong. It's very important for you to know the topic very well even though you're mostly asking questions. Like the old lawyer's saying "never ask a question you don't know the answer for". You have to know what questions flat earthers have prepared themselves for (Eratosthenes' experiment, the existence of Focault's pendulum) and which ones they don't have any decent answers for (measuring Polaris' angle with a Sextant, why don't you build a real Focault's pendulum etc.). You can't do this unprepared. Like in my original example I do know what Sarkeesian did and ask the questions in such a way that it's clear that the other person does not have a clue or is intentionally misleading, but all in the guise of being an "independent" arbiter.
@Derek Spencer how do you know what the onlookers thought?
I think this strategy is rather effective, because often with bad faith actors, the more they talk and have to explain themselves, they will inevitably fuck up. That is why they tend to win with the short, quippy and wrong strategy.
I do this with antivaxxers. Instead of continuously rebutting their claims with facts, I take an interest in the numbers they quote and ask for links to the data. Because I'm a scientist. I like data. I say "Oh, wow, I haven't seen that before. Do you have a link to the data? I really want to read it." It instantly diffuses any conflict and they stop arguing. I never get any data from them, tho. (you're shocked, I know.) Sometimes I think people get so locked into the expectation of an argument, it surprises them when you don't.
This must be why calling them on their logical fallacies and shady debate tactics and going back to the original premise instead of engaging with their new premise is so effective at making them throw tantrums instead of continuing debating.
I've done this on a topic of race and the idiot just started screaming 13 50 over and over
@brajamtho757 nope. name all these rampant fallacies on the left. I will wait.
@@claynorth964 **snerks**
Ah, sweet silence.
This is why I always answer to those short, quippy, wrong accusations with questions. If they want to continue the argument, they need to start explaining. Then we're on a level playing field.
The Socratic method in a nutshell ;-)
I think this sort of phenomenon might be why you see so much "whataboutism" in arguments, political and non-political.
"Your side is bad" is a universal ""rebuttal"" to literally any statement or question, usable at any time for any reason, that attempts to change the topic of conversation so you're attacking and THEY'RE defending.
...is "no u" really the strategically optimal debate response in all situations? Man, that's depressing.
@@Ninjat126 This person was talking about asking questions and trying to gain more insight into the other person's opinions and beliefs while also forcing the other person to clearly define said opinions and beliefs. No whataboutism or "no u" going on here.
I do that too, and I also make it known after a couple back and forths that they should know nothing I'm saying is even for them bc I have no delusions they even care about facts or logic or any interest in learning something new here, my responses are for the ppl reading our back and forth who actually do want some facts and a better understanding of the subject. They can read both our sides and decide who they think actually made sound arguments and who's just pulling crap out of their ass.🤷
I swear to God, 9/10 that's the end of it. Suddenly they have no interest in arguing further bc they realize I'm using them as a showcase of how stupid and unthought out their ideas are and how they don't actually want a "civil debate" etc. They no likey the idea of being used like that lol I've had ppl private message me too saying what I said made sense and thank you for.putting into words what they felt but couldn't express etc. You'd be surprised who's reading the discussion (if you want to even call it that) and getting something positive out of it. To be fair, I'm more interested in moving liberals further left than converting conservatives who aren't really interested in what's true and just want their confirmation bias confirmed or want to "own the libs." 🙄 And liberals do want facts and will read a few sentences long response and check a link etc.
And my go to response every time some right wing idiot calls me a crazy socialist or claims Biden is etc. I just say, You couldn't actually define "socialism" if I slapped you in the face with a dictionary 🙄 They usually have no good response to that either lol Short, quippy, funny, and not defensive of the definition of socialism but attacking them on their stupidity for not knowing the actual definition.
You can also try "So you're saying..." _(if the arguer is mean and/or rude)_ or "Wait, I'm not sure I understand..." _(if they seem to be trying to be polite or make an actual point)._ They either have to admit that they don't understand their own argument or fight on your terms. But you're absolutely 100% correct - if they won't answer, you shouldn't either.
Also, there is another way to counter these guys, and it isn't by leaving the field (which they also want.)
Simply ask for proof. Nothing else. If they bring out something from a source non-reliable, then ask them if they have this from a NEUTRAL source.
To them Neutral = Liberal and they'll try to return to their boxes. Keep them on task. Keep responses short. Ask for context. They're bad at creating it. Don't EVER play nice. But never let yourself get trapped into a response that will get you deplatformed.
What they can't handle is having their weapons used against them.
There's two ways to win an argument, either never participate (which can work until they start calling their goon squad in to start causing trouble) or use rhetorical judo. Make *THEM* start explaining themselves (They aren't ready for that, and that scares the hell out of them). Draw their weakness out to where your strength can play. Or push them over an edge into a reportable offense. Many see the strategy and leave, some stay and make the MISTAKE, and some will try to actually engage on YOUR rules. But if you catch them slipping be sure as hell to put their noses BACK to the grindstone. They started the conversation with the flaming bag of turd on your doorstep, make them own that. Not by explaining it away, but by making THEM look like the dink that left that bag there without even the common courtesy of ringing the doorbell.
*The left has lizard brains too.* It's sad we have to appeal to them, but that is what it is. Welcome to the modern era, the Mad Max era of politics. The Dark Ages. The normie neutrals have the same brains too. Maybe it's time to stop treating the internet like a debate stage with actual rules regarding logical fallacies, and start treating it like a schoolyard.
And be ready if this encounter is in real life to take a 5-knuckle sandwich for free. But then they lose and you got them on assault charges. If you must, never throw the first punch but make damn sure you either show you took every step to leave a violent confrontation before throwing the last punch.
I'm not saying it's right, it's just the sad state of fucking affairs in the world, and sooner or later something has to break. Hopefully that isn't modern civilization, but sometimes I think that's well since gone, personally.
Those "Citation" .gif files sure come in handy....
This is how I would want to be treated if I pulled something like this. Demanding evidence is entirely appropriate and also respectful (so long as you don't immediately start throwing meme images around, anyway).
@phrenux True, though I think that's just a stand-in for the complex and hard-to-describe process of judging the credibility of a source, sifting out the fact from opinion, and making sure they're not flat-out-lying to you.
The fact that you think there is such a thing as 'neutral' reporting is damning. The fact that people who disagree with you find these sources to be left wing identifies your bias.
@@TheJacklikesvideos There is as much neutral reporting as there is neutral perception of reality. Your argument is nonsense; of course there are neutral sources of reporting. AP, Reuters, BBC. If you don't trust the actual facts being reported directly to you, then you must be looking to have your viewpoint confirmed.
Cynicism isn't a good enough argument.
When I was in high school I did this a lot. The worst part was I didn't even know it. It's so baked into the Right's rhetoric that most of them don't even realize they're doing it. Thankfully those days are behind me.
Ha, you know as a screenwriter I've always absolutely despised the trope where one character makes this incredibly long, clearly manicured diatribe that's designed entirely around putting the antagonist character in their place and you've helped me realise why - because it's the most fallacious and artificial BS that trains people into thinking you can just 'own' your opponent like they're a boss in a video-game and you just have to keep hitting the X button. It's the equivalent of having a kid in a movie go up to his bullies and proudly say "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words may never hurt me" - you're just lying about how people work.
I've seen people do it. Not as dramatically, but it's been done.
“Woke” is the new catch all box. Someone or something you disliked encountered failure? Must be because they went woke.
*insert a professor or scientist defending our points* "theyre just trying to not get cancelled!"
This car is woke.
I mean tbf, it’s also another word for SJW, and before that SJW was another word for “political correctness”. The words change over time, but the definition, meaning, or person they’re trying to get you to imagine in your head so you don’t have to listen to your opponent because you’ve mentally put them in a box, does not change.
@@BlueTyphoon2017 It’s no coincidence that they co-opt words and phrases that generally originated out of positivity and turn them into terms of disparagement. It’s a mindset fueled by negativity.
any piece of media that contains a minority is also woke now
"Short, quippy, and wrong."
Awesomely succinct.
I have returned!!! Rewatching the vids, bc I'm looking for an anecdote I remember seeing.
excepte when "Short, quippy, and right."
No 😀
I’m amused that these is “Short, quippy, and sometimes wrong.”
🤔
I think this is why Jon Stewart was so effective. Jon didn't explain things has his first response, his first response was something along the lines of "You're full of shit!" or "That's fucking monsterous." He would back his statements up with the explanation, but it would always start with a direct contradiction that was equally short and quippy.
Much as I wish he were a lot less liberal and a lot more leftist, gosh I really miss Jon Stewart
@@stephaniel2850He's still kicking! Very well in fact.
One of many reasons Jon was so effective.
As a former alt Righter, I can tell you this is how they argue most of the time even I did it alot
You made this comment a year ago but, if I may ask, what changed your mind? I'm really struggling to have a genuine discourse with members of the alt-right without them just getting angry and quippy. How were you convinced that your world view was incorrect?
Let's Just Play for me i never really cared about politics but i grew up in republican family, as a kid I based my POV off of my parents because “my parents are honest and intelligent people” as a child that makes sense. So from never really caring about politics, I’d only hear about it either from tv which i barely listened to when my dad would the news (fox of course) and when my whole family would get together and pat eachother on the back for their political views. For me i was the 4th kid so my parents were quite a bit older than most the other kids, so when i was 10 my dad was in his late 40’s. I continued to assume republicans were correct on most matters without research until my early 20’s about 21-22. Now what changed my mind is i started watching the Joe Rogan podcast and i thought it was cool that he would actually listen to others arguments and try to understand where they were coming from and had no hang ups on not seeming uneducated on topics. I didn’t adopt his views but i did adopt that style of communication with listening to others and trying to understand them. After that when my dad would rant about the “libtards and corrupt media” i would ask why are they corrupt? They change the narrative to fit their views.. doesn’t Fox News do that same thing but for the other side? No! Fox News is honest! So i went to UA-cam and i would watch unedited clips and form an opinion on my own. With this new strategy i would notice that my view and my dads view would be constantly different. He would always point out the things in any case that only supported his claims, anything that raised a doubt didn’t matter to his stance. I ended up on the left because now i make my decisions by looking up the information on everything and using science and facts to make my decisions. I think for everyone their reason will be a little different.
Let's Just Play TLDR grew up republican cause my parents were. Stayed republican without knowing what they stood for, until eventually i tried to find my own identity. After looking at the facts sided left.
@@letsjustplay8907 eventually, I realized that I was putting so much energy into spewing out things i didn't even believe. I couldnt support what i was saying with evidence, and I knew i would probably be alienating myself from others by holding so much hate.
@@DarthJacobi wow I can really tell because you not only took the time to really explain explain, but you also summed it up in a tldr. just felt like you deserve some cred for that lol, not that its exactly what OP's theory describes. The 'impression' you left on me was not made by your thoroughly detailed anecdote, but rather your short reflection that shows me that you are capable of doing both (not just a tldr). this is getting a tiny bit meta, but you get the gist :)
side note, thats's probably why reddit satisfies us because even if someone throws something short and quippy out that's not logically valid, you know there's about to be a whole 135 people crushing them by citing sources, and generally the majority tends to engage in argument of good faith and intelligence
Damn, as of 2024 people still put others into boxes in order to justify not listing to differing viewpoints by saying things like "Pronouns in bio detected: opinion rejected" lol
Kinda crazy to think that the current trend of the Harris campaign calling conservatives "weird" might finally be the Dems figuring out that they don't have to engage with every bad faith argument!
I love that eventually we landed on calling republicans “weird.”
I think I would actually watch West Wing if a chugging guitar riff chimed in every time someone got rhetorically owned.
I swear it actually is a good show, even if the writer has a bit of a hard on for owning made up people in arguments
It's surreal to watch this video and then see how many people have flocked to the comments (without having watched the video) to do exactly what the video is calling out.
"Right wingers will say X, Y and Z"
Comments pour in:
X!!!
Y!!!
Z!!!
Ha showed those Ess Jay Dublues....
Watched. Upshot is avoid arguing with the right because you can't contest them in an argument. Censorship is the only way forward for left.
@@remtheoryvideoseries9234 No. You don't engage with someone trying to argue in BAD FAITH.
@@remtheoryvideoseries9234 and strawmanning and offensively reductionist arguments is the only way forward for the right.
@@carle2511
if you want premises based on bad faith, look up iq level and crime stats by race
It took me 10 years on the internet for the content of this video, a short explanation would simply be "don't feed the trolls" to sink in. I spent years and years getting sucked into so many arguments that I was actually depressed so finally realizing this and even better, acting on it, really helped my mental health on the internet. I WAS that "triggered" meme lol not literally, but I felt like that so many times it's insane...I am so glad I finally figured this out after years of my husband telling me that I didn't have to play with trolls.
6 years later, still infinitely relevant.
I genuinely do not understand how these kinds of people don't feel infinite shame in providing 0 real arguments and hurling insults and false narratives. Make a point backed with facts and someone will respond with 4 comments that effectively say "nuh uh" and then hurl insults at you for the other 3.5 comments.
Literally was told by someone when I said their opinion was not based in fact that "it's based on I think I'm right and I'm too lazy to look it up"
My soul hurts. Caring about your neighbors shouldn't be this hard.
One thing I have tried that has worked for me is when someone says something short quipy and wrong, is to ask them HOW they are right.
For example:
"This lady stole money from people"
"How did she steal money"
This reframes the conversation as you trying to get a question answered and also makes it clear that what is being said isn't automatically true.
Ooh, that's smart!
"How did she steal money?"
"By freaking stealing it! You brain damaged‽"
Debating alt-right ideologues and their ilk is always so damn frustrating because it's like talking against a wall. Just look at all the people in the comment section that are almost comically offended by a calm, rational, well-researched video about rhetorical techniques but offer no actual rebuttals other than personal insults, "some people on the left do this, too!!!" whataboutism and straight up lying about the content of the video.
Inda Co The discussion of rhetorical techniques is good but ... the left *do* use the technique too. If you don't recognise that, you are too far inside the clique to spot when it happens.
GuruJ
Not the point of the video. Watch again.
Anything that supports your position would seem reasonable/well researched/evidence based, but at the end of the day it comes down to emotional reasons why you support it, like for example you have an inferiority complex, don't want to work and wanna live off of welfare, feeling guilty about not helping other people, wanting to be thought of as a good person, being bitter about not being successful, etc...
GuruJ Please rewatch the video.
how is ''people on the left do this too'' a personal insult again...? it's just a fact....
This is exactly how my toxic older sister talks to everyone. She's mindless and impossible to say the least. This so eloquently put it in layman's terms while at the time the arguments feel like talking to a wall and losing my sanity. Im saving this video for my own mental health. Thank you so much.
Wait?! Do we have the same older sister??
For years I would argue with my brother about various political things. It would always end with me in tears and my brother laughing at how “frustrated I was for being proven wrong”. Whenever I would try to leave he would say that means he won. The reality was I just go frustrated with explaining my ideas over and over and he would just ignore what I said
This is so good! I've wanted to describe this "[GRIFTER] DESTROYS COLLEGE SNOWFLAKE" phenomenon for so long but I'm not as articulate so thank you!
Sounds like a porn title
@@Dhdhdhfbdndnncjcjxhxhsis It’s basically porn for middle aged conservative Christians
@@Dhdhdhfbdndnncjcjxhxhsis im yoir little snowflake please destroy me
@@Dhdhdhfbdndnncjcjxhxhsisomg it so does
I love this series so much. Every left leaning person should watch these and learn from your research and experience. I always hated the smug liberal being condescending because they are ultimately right, when the other side has never cared about being right. They only care about winning, and they have for so long.
You seem to be conflating the left with the right. The smug liberal thinks he is right, but can never back up his ignorant opinions with facts, they are ultimately wrong about everything. The other side never cared about winning, only having an honest debate, which the left is incapable of doing.
the worst is the double bind of saying you are defensive or sensitive as an insult. if you don't reply with proof that you aren't then they win. if you do reply with proof the fact that you replied contradicts it. cause if you weren't defensive or sensitive then you wouldn't feel the need to respond. you could walk away.
these argument tactics suck no matter whose using them.
worse yet, is when this argument style is used to talk to friends and family.
The best way to respond is to be flippant.
If they go "aww, you mad?" or some variant of it, just reply "sure dude." and move on. Everyone can see it's sarcasm, and by showing that you've responded in the most nonchalant way possible, everyone can see that their attempt didn't work.
I realized that I don't even see insults directed at me anymore. My brain doesn't process them because they're worthless, so I ignore them while formulating a response. This past year has given me pretty thick skin I guess.
Can confirm, evidence doesn't work at any time, so it's not going to work when they accuse you of being 'emotionally invested'.
i wonder if these people all have narcissistic personality disorder. seems very similar.
I just realized the public facing short quippy wrong technique is the exact oppoaite to the technique I use for interpersonal conflict resolution.
Basically when my friends fought in middle school and demanded I take a side, I yelled at both of them for putting me in that position when I Didn't Even Know What They Were Yelling About. Because that's not fair; you only demand judgement from the ignorant if you don't care whose right, you Just Want To Win And *Feel Validated.*
After that, I told my friends I want to talk to them both, seperately, about what happened and go from there. I offered comfort, conversation, and advice, but outright refused to make a call on the dispute. I was not party to its beginning, and would only be party to the resolution if *both* parties asked for that.
My friends eventually accepted that I Could Not Be Shoved Into A Kneejerk Decision ( years of bullying will do that to ya, particularly when the thing that makes you a target is strong emotions and high reactivity ) and talked to me, I found out the dispute was some SERIOUS petty bullshit involving a third friend whom they both had a crush on. Party A told party B about their crush on Party C, *unaware* that C had asked B out earlier that day.
Blaming party B was pointless, they didn't know about A's crush when asked, and B had been OPEN about their intetest in C for weeks. C and B going out may have *caused* A's hury feelings, but neither could be expected to break up just because A's feelings were hurt.... but that's what A wanted, and wanted ME to enforce it.
I refused, told A and B they needed to TALK ABOUT IT, and while I would mediate that conversation by preventing shouting and calmly repeating information when parties talked past one another, I Would Not Excommunicate Anyone Over Something This Goddamned Petty And Would Leave If Either Suggested As Much.
Eventually the two of them worked it out, and I started gaining a Relationship Counciler reputation among my peers. Up to graduation day I had couples in various stages of conflict come find me as seperate parties to ask for advice, which was pretty consistantly "You need to talk to the other person about the bad feelings you get while alone." Like... there was more components, but that was always the bedrock. No one respected their SO enough to Trust What They Said When They Said It. In the girls' cases they had a track record to reference, but the boys had the same suspicions Sight Unseen... classic signs of projection. He broke a rule, and now suspects his GF of the same, and *gets mad* when called on his bad behavior. Sometimes it went the other way, like... 5% sometimes. Ultra rare but not impossible, and I would always listen for it.... and be very disappointed when a dude lied about her being unfaithful and eventually confessed to having no proof.
You can't pin down a person and make them sit with their own guilt unless they sought you out. You can't provoke self reflection in a drive by. It takes one on one interrogation of thoughts, walking through actions, what was said, what wasn't said, what is supported by the material world, and what is not.
All the feelings are real, and deserve the attention needed for resolve. Otherwise the boys keep lying and the girls keep feeling hurt all the time, *preventing* empathy. And that 5% of the time where the gal is the one fucking around and lying? The guy is devastated. Hurting. Dying inside. The few times I saw it, I felt like I was On Watch to prevent them harming themselves or others.
I was an unpaid teenager. Wonder WTF the councilers were doing all day.
Also, this long answer responded to short quip is Brandolini's law. As per wikipedia: "also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle... The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."
2:55
I honestly get goose bumps how scary you’re able to articulate this phenomenon.
Do y’all remember the Ben Shapiro van that bbc interviewer, Ben Shapiro at some point kept trying to make the interviewer say that he was on the left, like for him to admit it. I realize now it’s because he wanted to ability to label him a leftist so he could ignore the serious claims he was bringing to Ben, and this is the “heavy hitter” of the right wing? Lmao
this is why i got tired of arguing on the internet with people.
its always this one guy who has no idea what hes talking about, yet hes so annoying to deal with
i just gave up long ago and just comment for enjoyment, trying to be witty or share my emotions on a video, or to helpfully explain for anyone legitimately lost.
Are you sure it isn't you sometimes?
@@BeardFaceSuper *air horns*
are you a girl
This shit is why I cut ties with my brother.
He said “why are you mad? I’m just asking questions”
Nah, he was gaslighting at that point so I was done.
You should look up the term "sealioning", if you haven't already. My condolences for dealing with that behavior.
@@Physbrkr yup that’s him
Haha, sealioning isn't a term Ive seen before, that's pretty good
Twitter loves to highlight polarizing content, which amplifies this effect.
I figured this out a few years ago, and my tactic now is to flip it on them IF they're genuinely not interested in an honest debate.
I'll point out logical fallacies they've used, call them out for inherent biases, and if the opportunity presents itself, accurately call them out for being a certain type of character, i.e nazi or general bigot. If you call them out for being a certain type of character right away without a solid supporting argument, they throw it back at you saying that you just pigeonhole everyone who disagrees with you, even though the rational people in the crowd can see what kind of character they are. But when you get them to blurt out more obvious statements and build your case, and THEN hit them with the callout, it's like they're a fish out of water, they stutter and repeat themselves and just flap about, and give up. And they main thing is that you know you're never going to convince them you're right, like 98% of the time they will never concede, but it's about the audience that watches and makes a decision based on how the debate unfurls.
@Anon 1 And you basically used the same exact argument that was presented and debunked in this video, good job.
I personally never understood why someone would EVER want to go through life with the same beliefs, same points of view, day in, day out. What is so attractive about not having to change your mind? Personally, if I'm wrong about something, I'd like to know it...I'd like to know WHY, and I'd like to rectify that belief if the rationale given (no matter WHO gives it) makes sense. I deliberately expose myself to people who believe differently than me on subjects which are IMPORTANT to me. I want to see what those people have to say. For example, I've been through dozens of apologetics for Christianity...but nothing I've seen has convinced me that a Christian god exists. I'd want to know if there WAS a Christian god, so even now, I keep an ear out for new arguments. And while I might dismiss a Christian using their religion to prop up an anti-abortion or anti-feminism argument, since they haven't proven that I should value what their religious texts have to say about these things...if they made a secular argument, I would take it seriously. It might not change my mind, but I would hear it out. Why are people so afraid of being WRONG? I'm wrong all the time...and I value becoming LESS wrong. Is there some argument for not being open to changing your mind?
I think this video hits on a good point with the boxes thing. People just have a weird sort of fear of being wrong. Changing your mind is an admission of weakness, and of failure, so it pushes you to find things that support your side and give you that little dopamine hit. The same little "yeah, that's my side!" that you get when your favorite football team scores happens with opinions too I think, and so if looking right makes people feel happy, then they presume actually being wrong would make them unhappy.
@@RyanTosh I dunno. I think changing your mind is a sign of strength of character. I understand tribalism and people merging their beliefs and their identity - that is a very human thing to do and we all do it, to a certain extent. But I can't count the number of tribes I had been a part of in my youth, only to decide that they were wrong about a lot of things. I have since learned that no group has a monopoly on truth, and so I eschew group identity now (as much as is possible in a world that requires some kinds of allegiance).
Tribalism is a curse on humanity for a number of reasons. My main problem is that people within such tribes are not evaluating information independently of their preconceived notions and biases which result from their group identities, and they're quick to dismiss information from outside of their group (if it does not conform to what they already believe). This is no way to learn and grow. However, what is potentially far more dangerous is that people in such groups can come to demonize those who oppose them, forgetting that we're all human, and we're all just trying to survive in an inscrutable world with no way to find objective moral truths. Nobody is advocating for policies that they themself consider to be evil, and so it pays to understand the assumptions inherent in one's own arguments...because we all prioritize certain facts and/or beliefs in forming our opinions, and that process is in no way objective.
Nowadays I value consistency of belief over content of belief. I can respect someone who tries to diligently apply their initial assumptions about the way the world works to every aspect of their life, even if I disagree completely with those assumptions. People who do this typically have weak group identity, and they have no trouble going against their group(s) when they come across a logical inconsistency, or when an assumption made by other group members just doesn't ring true to them. What I don't respect is those people who let a group do their thinking for them, and who therefore don't even necessarily know why they believe what they believe, and who are not aware of the logical inconsistencies that litter their opinions. If you're going to advocate for a position, do it as an individual, not as a mindless drone, echoing platitudes passed down from the Borg queen(s) who control and take advantage of you. I understand well that it is the very people doing the taking advantage in these circumstances who have used their power and influence to oppose and destroy institutions that empower people, that give them the ability to reason - institutions of education. It's hard to blame a mindless drone for being that way, because they never had the opportunity to gain the skills that would allow them to challenge the group they were born into (or fell into based on propaganda and bad luck).
There is no easy solution to this problem...just a long, hard fight. And I think the internet, on balance, has made that fight almost impossible to win. We are no longer arguing over beliefs...we are arguing over the nature of reality itself. I truly have no answers here. But I do like the Alt-right playbook, and Innuendo Studios' other videos a lot, because maybe some smart people, on being exposed to this high-quality media, might stumble on a solution that starts to reverse the insane political polarization that plagues our world.
It's depends on what we're wrong about. Short-circuiting any risk of thinking beyond the argument is a form of self-defense. There is a term in psychology for this that I can't quite recall right now. Being wrong about fundamental parts of our lives, like religion, or ideology, has a lot of consequences. It's built into your identity. Changing what you think about those may also mean that you need to rethink a million different preconceptions, it may mean you need to reshape your worldview. It may mean to admit you were wrong in a thousand different occasions, that you may have been an asshole in many circumstances, now that you understand things differently. It may change your identity. It may change your friends. These things take lots of time and energy. Not everyone is willing, ready, or even has the mental capacity for that kind of commitment.
Many people have very fragile egos. They're afraid of anything different or "other" what they're used to, so it threatens their sense of self. People who are secure in themselves are ok with learning and having their minds changed
Sometimes people correlate positions/ opinions with identity and thus become disturbed if such positions are contested as they feel it a threat to their sense of self.
the more time i spend on the internet the more accurate this series gets
There is a beautiful irony in how the comments are going and how people are reacting to them. Was this planned? Putting some hooks in the video to attract the kind of people who answer short, quippy and wrong and getting the viewership to excersise in not playing the game? Cause if so this is the single most brilliant video ever made.
Bra-vo
Andres Arancio it really us amazing. I'm going through the comments and i feel awoken, like i can now see what i couldn't before. watching all these alt right morons moving the goal posts and putting ppl in boxes, it really is a sight to behold, and i dont feel inclined to engage with them in any way, as i now know the trappings they use to try and hook ppl like myself in. Planned or not, the effect this video is having is doing wonders for peeps like myself.
+1
I stopped playing that game years ago but I never could put into words why I had to stop talking to people who debate in that way. Now I do thanks to this video.
Without having read any of those comments, since they don't seem to be floating to the top too much, I pose this: Do you not risk hypocrisy by putting people making short, quippy remarks in the Alt-Right box and then refusing to listen to them? Honest question, feel free to disagree.
Agreed. This attitude that alt-righters are "baited" to the video and "fooled to make themselves look dumb" gives off exactly the same vibes as trump-believers emanate when they say Trump is "playing 5D chess" with his opponents.
You hit the nail on the head with this series in a way I haven't seen elsewhere. I can observe this in my daily life.
Ahh, the bit with the Historian and PJW is so true, I get really annoyed when I see articles going "This guy got owned!!!"... dude you're not 15.
BadMouseProductions OUR COMRADE LIVES GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!
PJW is like a human meme. He was genetically engineered to be the perfect dogwhistle troll; to perpetually be in the spotlight.
Alexander Mothersill lol
BadMouseProductions could you debunk Angry Foreigner please?
Limey Lassen pjw looks like he's a ghost that never went outside.
5:00 I had a massive argument in that exact structure about IF THERE WAS AGRICULTURE IN AFRICA BEFORE EUROPEAN COLONISATION, NO IM NOT JOKING
Lol imagine thinking Egypt isn't real.
@@jameslanier2510 no they only thought it was sub Saharan Africa that just, didn’t know how to farm.... it still hurts thinking about it.
Part of the problem or maybe where this problem has its roots is that the right side of issues often lends itself to short and quipy explanations whereas the left side does not.
Take the death penalty: the right side can pare it down to 'Eye for an eye' it's easy it's memorable and it just makes sense. But on the left there is no simple way of explaining the reasons why you are against it. I am old (56) and I have observed this problem long before internet comment sections. My solution has been to try to consolidate my positions into semi-memorable and not so quipy but short as possible single statement. my greatest success with this is the death penalty issue where I state my position with 'You shouldn't let the state kill people'. By saying this the conversation becomes about state power and punishment rather than if the death penalty makes one feel better. I'm not saying we should use their tactics because they are dishonest but rather develop a way to state ones side in a way that controls the conversation better. I don't look at comment debates as a place to school but rather an opportunity to state what I believe. I don't correct people I try to only state my position. If they ask me to back it up I do which then usually involves corrections of their 'facts' but these are in context of what I believe and not in context of 'you are wrong and here's some facts to prove it'. At the very least I've gotten my ideas out there for their audience.
And this is why democracy fails. Slogans that rhymes have to be used to gain the attention of the average idiot voter.
When it comes to the death penalty I think it's best to avoid moral issues because we'll just keep arguing and get nowhere. Concede that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, killing criminals is fine for those particular crimes, and argue instead why it is the wrong punishment to use in any circumstance for practical reasons. Those practical reasons being that when compared to the direct alternative, life imprisonment without parole, the death penalty does three things:
1) Cost more.
2) Worsen crime.
3) Kill innocent people.
And therefore the death penalty, even if it were an appropriate punishment, should not be used.
Your last sentence is what it's all about. I'm never going to convince someone whose talking points make me dumber just by reading them. Plus those dudes love a scrap and seem to have unlimited time on their hands. So once I realise a debate is going nowhere I try to lay out something beneficial to anyone else who happens to be reading and back away. If they get the last word, so be it.
An eye for an eye makes the world blind.
I have had more success bullying conservatives into accepting my viewpoints than convincing them through cogent speech. The conservative mind seems to love to submit to strong authority figures. I grew up in a rough neighborhood. I was poor, and destitute. No one ever picked on me though because i was always willing to fight. Its very easy to fight anyone anyplace when you have nothing to lose... Its also easy to fight when you believe you have everything to lose. Conservatives live in this fearful world where they will slip down the social ladder.
These people don't seem to understand reason. When passions are high and fear turns to anger, the degree of intelligence drops. No sense in talking rationally to these people. When you use bully tactics against them they don't know how to react. Their world view crumbles before them as their intellectual weakness gets mirrored back at them. How could they condemn you for using the same tactics they employ? Worse yet, not only do they use the tactics but they have something of value to say as well. They can tune you out but they can't tune out themselves. Bully them with facts. Troll them with intelligence and for gods sake people, don't back down. I still remember the blood gushing from the nose of that first asshole that tried to bully me. The left has this sad reputation of being spineless and its this pretense that allows these sheep to elect the wolf as their Shepard. Be the sheepdog ready to tear the wolf to pieces.
I have rarely agreed with someone more.
I know, I called one a triggered snowflake today, and told him the f*** off.
This is very true. The best part is that we have an advantage over them. They never play defensive so they dont have any experience at it. An agressive left winger has way more chances to practice this, so we easily get on top.
There's a fun twitter account I follow called "Gourmet Hot Takes" which screenshots and shares stupid things that the alt-right says. I always got a kick out of it (as you said, liberals like the feeling of putting conservatives in their place) but after seeing this, I'm starting to wonder if that account does more harm than good by still spreading these alt-right sound-bytes.
Cameron Tauxe The account being run by someone named "KILLEVERYHETERO" also doesn't help. Like...seriously, does no one on the left care about optics or
The Left will look into this matter at the next The Left board meeting
While we're there I want to ask why I still haven't received my check for shilling for Hillary and covering up Pizzagate.
Cool Calm Cam yeah right that's so offensive and insensitive considering the horrible amounts of heteros discriminated because of their sexuality throughout history...
+Cameron Tauxe +1
Know your battles. There is no point in arguing when your opponent refuses to listen and refuses to let you speak. Reality is like a train. Sure, you can try and convince them to get off the tracks all you want, but they are not going to listen. Sometimes, lessons can only be learned through pain and suffering.
this video and the comments just confirming everything you said are so satisfying
Their lack of self awareness is just so delicious
Elis Regina learn English
I personally feel as if the video is putting the entire Right into one large box. I feel as if it makes a lot of assumptions about the listeners.
@@edsidfug207 The video points out specific behaviors that don't apply to everyone, and how to deal with them.
Thank you for this series. I have talked myself into circles explaining to magats why they have the cognitive range of a 2 year possum carcass on the side of the freeway and now I know why it doesn't matter.
1) Stay on point
2) Ask Socratic questions
3) Be polite
The only true way to beat Reactionaries.
What are Socratic questions?
1) Stay on point (Unless it doesn't suit my narrative)
2) Deconstruct (Unless it deconstructs my position)
3) Be Smug
Fixed that for you.
+Dæmon Knight
1) Stay on narrative (Unless it doesn't suit my point)
2) Speak words that make your post ironic
3) Embrace victimhood from post-ironic deconstructionism
The only true way to bring balance to the force.
Katrina L
Our narratives, posts, and attitudes are far more honest than anything the left represents today.
The left was okay with using victimhood until the right used it because it's the only method of engagement left in a modern world that suppresses the masculine instinct and champions the feminine.
Despite men being in positions of authority, they are feminine in their service to the state as all modern citizens are.
+Dæmon Knight "Us" "Them". Oh, you're one of "those". I guess the message of the video was completely lost on you.
I wish there was a *little* more time spent on the ending, because the "you don't have to play" message at the end can easily be interpreted as the "say nothing" and the "short, quippy, wrong" thing has no rebuttal, making them appear correct (as addressed earlier in the video, ~2:26). Knowing what TO DO is often more valuable than knowing what NOT to do.
The point is you don't focus your energy engaging with those who want to provoke an argument in bad faith at all. Instead, if you care to inform the truth, you channel directing that information towards those who are open to listening and understanding.
If you need more context spent understanding how to do that (which Ian has gone on record saying that this video series is an ongoing process of him searching for the solution as he unveils what he has come to understand), he has recommended the Debunking Handbook, which goes into delivering the truth in a manner that theoretically avoids reinforcing the myth being debunked in question.
ua-cam.com/video/e46uOGQ6RWg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/j6GFKo6_sOU/v-deo.html
www.climatechangecommunication.org/debunking-handbook-2020/
@@Hypeathon Nice, t hank you :)
Watching this video reminds me of the arguments I've engaged with on Facebook. One tactic I've often used is when they are always on the offense, I lay out my goal of the conversation, which is not to win, but to share my perspective with them and learn from their perspective. After doing this, any talk that they have that is short and quippy and that puts me in a box comes off as disrespectful. Though it may be difficult, I have to not respond in kind and take the high ground. If I take all of the punches with no response and I frame the conversation in this way, it sends off a peaceful-protester-getting-beat-up sorta vibe. But the most important thing is not to think of the other person as an enemy, but to have genuine empathy and try to find common ground among all of their harsh talk. Thanks for this video series, I'm loving them!
Huh. How exactly do you that?
Takes a lot of patience. Most of these people are my friends, or at least acquaintances in real life, so I've had to maintain those relationships outside of facebook. Every person has a complex story behind their views, and even if they're wrong, they should still be treated with respect. Now if you're dealing with randos on the internet, that's a bit harder, especially if you're just engaging with trolls.
Hey, MamaLuigisXbox. You're cool. Keep being cool.
@ZeonTwilight Thanks, I plan on it. You're pretty cool yourself.
@MamaluigisXbox Also plan on it! Have a great day and enjoy some positive energy from the internet for a change :)
Reminds me of the "if your criticism is longer than the movie, it's worthless"-crowd...
It always takes a second to spout bullshit,
It never takes so little to prove it wrong.
I’ve given up on the right. I treat them the same way they treat the left
Rasheed Lewis yup. Ridicule the dipshits at any chance I get
Olivia Moore treat them worse
with indifference? most white people just want to be left alone, tired of having diversity pushed on them.
@@リンゴ酢-b8g it's not so much trying to shove it down their throats as to bring the country closer to actual equality. No one is blaming a 23 yr old white guy for decisions made 40, 100, 400 years ago, just acknowledging that white people as a whole benefit from an unjust system and culture
@@リンゴ酢-b8g I love how Olivia said "the right" and you said "white people"
Just that tells us a lot about you
I was just watching the Witcher, and at the very end of the first episode, about five minutes before the end, this dynamic plays out, so seamlessly you don’t even notice it. I didn’t even notice it, except for the fact that I had just watched this video today. If I had not watched this video, and seeing how this played out, I would not have recognized the seam. but this, illustrates it beautifully. Where the priest plays the crowd against the Witcher. I couldn’t ask for a better example if I created one. Excellent video, thank you.
THIS IS REDDIT EVERY DAY. Stop taking 1/6 of my rebuttal and responding to it. Respond to all of it
Replying to every point is not fruitful. Responses are always longer than the point they are responding to, so it just causes the conversation to grow exponentially and where them out. Instead, figure out what actually matters, and only respond to that.
@Derek Flynn There is a simple way to respond to the whole comment without needing a mile-long response. Just say something like "I don't have the time to respond to the whole thing, but I disagree with points 1, 3 ,4 and 5. Point 2 I agree with. Point 6 is pretty resonable, but obvious. Here's a detailed rebuttal to point 3: ...".
You don't need to give a detailed response to every point, but it can be helpful if you give your opinion about most of it. This shows that you have listened to the whole thing and gives a clearer picture to everyone listening.
maybe they agree with the rest of your 5/6 rebuttal, thats why theres no response.
So, one technique then might be, "So, I'm gratified to see we are in agreement about points 1-5. In response to your reply to my point 6..."
As a Christian leftist, I tend to get into plenty of debates with leftist atheists and they are somehow shocked that I know how to get my point across and respond to theirs. We usually end up simply agreeing to disagree as I'm not tryna convert and they aren't gonna say the one thing that's gonna make me ditch faith so 🤷🏾♂️
When I argue with right wing atheists, however, I get thrown into a box pretty quickly as they try to move goal posts and pseudo intellect me into oblivion.
Props for referencing the drastically game-changing 1960 televised debate
This is why I like to also say, simply put "Source? :3" They quickly divulge into other tactics, but learning to force them into switching tactics constantly makes them angry, which is funny. I'll be learning a lot from this series.
They'll just reply with a picture of soyjak saying "Source?!"
One great example of this is the x-argument (idk what it's called);
"You're a man. Why do you care about women's rights?"
"You're a woman. The world doesn't revolve around you. Why do you care about women's rights? There's African children starving."
Basically the idea that you can't care about an issue if you're part of the group. And you can't care if you're not part of the group.
I've seen a lot of versions of it.
Insincere weaponization of identity politics
Brazilian reality nowdays. Im exhausted of arguing with those people.
Latin america as a whole, i can confirm
France reality also😭
I'm just sick of them at this point.
A chance they didn't won in my country yet.
Same in India 😒
Minions are essencially bloodthirsty wackos.
"You don't have to play."
The greatest lesson for degraded discourse one can learn, and yet the hardest to apply. The best answer seems so easy, but it's so hard to actually do. That's very...human.
Timothy McLean So, literally, don't say shit and let them tire themselves out?
The only way to win is to stop playing. State clearly what they're doing instead of answering their "honest question."
That doesn’t work either. Most of these people don’t honestly believe they’re using trickery, or arguing in bad faith. Nor do they believe it’s a tactic.
They have heavy confirmation biases. And so do their audiences. It’s extremely difficult to prove to people they’re being fooled or played.
@@Prof_Tickles92 It has no tract with the påeople talking like this. It has tract with the audience and those are the ones you aim to convince about their dishonesty.. If you ever get caught in an argument on the terms they've already succeeded in making it seem like their argument has merit.
If someone talks like this the only way you can ever convince them is if they're put in a double-bind where they either have to debunk their own claim or straight-up lie.
An example is if they use the 13-50 argument, then you ask them to imagine this. One day driving to work there are a lot more cops on a stretch of road than previously.. They get pulled over for driving a little over the speed limit and get a warning along with the message that the cops can do nothing about this it's orders from higher up the food chain that has sent them there.
Due to the stop, they're a little late for work and while it's annoying it's nowhere near the end of the world. They get a warning to be on time tomorrow.
They drive a little faster the next day to be able to get there on time, and when they get to that stretch of the road, the cops are out in force again. They're stopped for speeding and this time given a fine. Due to the fine, they're really late for and their boss is really angry at them and gives them a warning to be on fucking time tomorrow.
The next day they're going over the limit o be on time,. it's their job after all and their salary which means their rent and their food, and how can the cops be there again. Lo and behold they are. This time something has changed and the people stopped cuss at them and are generally angry. The cop that pulls them over is pissed off and angry as well over being treated the way they are for just doing their job. They make a show out of inspecting the car when they suddenly hear a crunch and the cop saying that their tail-light is busted and they're gonna get a fine for that as well as for seeding. Due to all that they're now monstrously late and instead of giving them a warning their boss just straight up fires them for being unreliable.
When they agree to have been over-policed and that the police abused their power, and show clear sign of anger and rage, you then ask them how this is any different from the over-policing and abuse of authority experienced in black neighborhoods?
You've now set them up where they can only answer that's it's similar or they can lie as the emotional response has already been seen in them and felt by any audience that may be there.
This is incredibly difficult to pull off. The other thing is much easier and thus I recommend that.
I will share a personal anecdote that I think fits in the discussion.
Back in 7th or 8th grade I was taking part in a inter-school presentation competition on the subject of physics. Our team was finished with our presentation and the Q&A started, during which one of the jury members asked me about a formula that I didn't know at the time (that formula being S=(at^2)/2 , in case you're interested). I felt embarrassed and the air in the room was getting very heavy.
- *Well, that sucks* , - I say into the microphone.
And the whole room laughed it off. Obviously, we didn't win anything since our arguments and findings didn't have much merit, not after that short quip. But, when I and my team left the conference hall, something funny happened. People were smiling at me and fist-bumping me, as well as one of the members of the jury.
It's incredible how much hold the posture and the composure of the speaker has over our phyche. I've, objectively, made a clown-show of myself, but acting cool made it look like a win.
Thing is: I grew past the 12-year-old I used to be.
First:
Q: She stole!
A: Explanation, explanation, explanation.
Q: She asked for $100,000!
A: So you're admitting she didn't steal.
Q: And her project was shitty!
A: What you're admitting here is that she didn't steal.
Q: And it was late!
A: I just want to clarify here that you're admitting that she didn't steal...
(This can go on as long as you like.)
Second:
It matters a great deal that when Trump's lawyers went to court to defend his Muslim ban, they tried these exact tactics. Red herrings, changing the subject, rewriting history, reframing, avoiding the question. The judges didn't buy any of it. Over and over again they were crushed by a system that is built on the *explanation part*. "If you're explaining, you're losing" was an abysmal strategy. Or consider Trump's failed Asia trip. All that off-topic rhetoric might have played well with the base, but the other countries in that summit were not impressed. They proceeded to do the thing that pros do when you act like a clown: they walked away, and made their own deal, and left the US out in the cold. They can spin that into whatever they want in the alt-reality sphere, but reality is still reality. Anti-evolution rhetoric can dazzle a pliant audience, but if you have a resistant bacterial infection, you're going to die without an accurate understanding of how evolution works.
This goes right back to the Bush aide's words: "we create our own reality". It's true you can get a certain number of people to do along with that kind of thing, and if the ball bounces just the right way you might pull off an Electoral College victory, but day in and day out, that buffonery doesn't work. The ability to identify a fallacy and demolish it is a vital skill for getting your astronauts back to Earth alive, or building a bridge that doesn't fall down, or correctly diagnosing your disease. Even in the soft science of international treaty negotiations, all that Three Stooges misdirection falls flat in the end.
You're right that it's not always necessary to engage on their terms or play their game, but your grounding must always be in facts and in sound reasoning. If you forget that and get enticed into beating them at their short-sighted goal of merely swaying a crowd, they're still winning.
Your first point is probably the best tactical option. Explain yourself once, then go on the attack.
The second... Arguing in a legal or diplomatic context is very different than arguing on the internet. If there's a specifically worded, binding code of behavior to fall back on, and at least some means to enforce it, aggressive non-arguments won't cut it. But on the internet there are no consistently enforced rules so things work differently.
Dennis Bratland I like how you explained this rhetorical tension as a living thing - it is always growing and adapting, like a predator and prey. A scheme that might work for awhile gets adapted to by the public.
People can't even deny what is said in the video, so they reach for "NO U".
They _know_ what they do is a dishonest tactic, so it would be really easy to paint their opposition as the one doing it.
FINALLY, SOMEONE SAYS IT.
Lolt West He constantly clarifies that the tactics he describe aren't exclusive to the right.
And you're generalising horribly about the left
Lolt West just curious, if stuff like race and sex are "superficial things", then what would you consider NON-superficial traits for the purposes of identity politics?
Lolt West Thank you for taking the time to give a real answer! I can see the logic you're working from, but I also think it's a little naive and idealistic. In a perfect world, yeah, traits like race and sex and gender identity and so on would be completely superficial traits on the same level as, say, hair or eye color. That is a world I _aspire_ to live in. It is, unfortunately, not the world I _actually_ live in.
I assume, by your saying that you try to set a good example to change people's perceptions of Muslims, that you yourself are Muslim. So let me use that to demonstrate what I mean.
There are certain traits that one might have which lead the people around them to make assumptions and then they act on those assumptions in the way they treat that person. So for instance someone who finds out you're Muslim might react by harassing you and telling you to get out of the country, implying you're connected to ISIS, or even, I dunno, trying to blow up your fuckin house which actually happened to one of my Muslim friends (nothing exploded, everyone was fine). No matter how kind you are to these people, no matter how good an example you set, there are some people whose minds just cannot be changed and they will _always_ treat you poorly if they even _suspect_ that you're Muslim. I probably don't have to explain this to you, I'm sure you've encountered people like this before.
Now, being Muslim does not affect your capability to or quality of work, that's a fact. But the people around you still affect your life in a pretty big way, and that effect is magnified if you happen to have a trait that typically falls under the scrutiny of bigots, like being Muslim, or gay, or black, or trans, just to name a few examples. Those experiences forced upon you from the outside shape who you are and how you act. In your case, they have led you to be constantly aware of the example you're setting for other people - you worry about providing a good example to non-Muslims and try to change their perception of Muslims in general. Would I be correct in saying that, in a sense, you feel a responsibility to act as a representative of your entire faith to non-Muslims?
The thing is, many non-Muslims _also_ expect you to be a representative sample of that entire, massive, incredibly varied population of which you are just one member. That expectation impacts both how they act toward you, and how you act toward them. Being Muslim doesn't affect your life in any _capability_ related way, but it does affect the sorts of experiences you have, and your interactions with the rest of society. In this sense, such a trait is _not_ superficial, as it may greatly impact the sort of person you become. Would you have been so conscious of your behavior and setting a good example for others had you been, say, a straight white male christian in the US? I'm guessing probably not. Those people don't generally think of themselves as having to be representatives of their entire group to the rest of society. They have the luxury of being able to, I dunno, be petty or mean sometimes without having to worry that suddenly everyone they know will assume ALL straight white christian men are assholes. (That's part of what privilege is, by the way. The luxury of not having to consider things like that, because they're not part of your lived experiences.)
I'm willing to bet a lot of other Muslims have had similar experiences to yours. _That_ is what the identity in identity politics is based on, that shared experience that only other people in your group can really know and understand because they also live it every day of their lives. And "superficial" traits like race & religion tend to be the signifiers of these identities because those are the common threads in shaping the experiences they go through, and they also tend to be things that you can't hide - or at least, not without denying some important part of yourself in order to do so.
anyway tl;dr: any trait that makes you a target of bigots impacts your lived experience even if it doesn't impact your job performance, and people who share the same trait(s) will also share similar lived experiences that other people will not, and this shared experience is the basis of the "identity" in "identity politics".
The “NO U” you refer to is generally already known as the ‘tu quoque’ fallacy and is generally better known as the straw man fallacy. This guy really doesn’t bring anything new on the table. Its sure as shit not only applicable to alt right but in general it can be applied to everyone in a discussion who is already convinced of his or her own right and is willig to go the distance to defend their point of view. Left vs right, science vs religion, capitalists vs communists, hooligans vs hooligans etc etc etc.
It’s incredible to see the subject of the video play out in real time in the comments.
Best reaction is to force them to explain themselves instead of doing it for them by saying stuff like "Ok, why is that so ?" "How do you know this is true ?" "Where is this information from ?" etc. Eventually you force them to elaborate if they do so - its the right time to correct them.
If you get one that's less well versed in it, they tend to reply sooner. I collect their responses and deliver them back to them in a summary of everything they'd said, and it unsurprisingly is usually nonsensical and contradictory. Then their comments start mysteriously disappearing. :P
Hello Black queer person here! Just wanted to say we are new to the channel but you do a great job of checking your privelage at the door! Its also really insigtful to hear a white person break down how dumb white racism is! Been dealing with lots of microagressions and ignorance at university and hearing you competently articulate these points and messges is impactful truly!
All racism and queerphobia, transphobia, xenophobia is dumb, leave people alone and don't judge them by color, or lack of it, how they dress or look physically.
It’s best to not engage with them at all. Their entire ideology does not care if they are correct. They can fundamentally know they are wrong. Right wing ideology is the thought process of a bully, and giving a reaction only validates them
When ever i argue with these "accusing rightists" i like to slip in, very deliberately "you lost the arguement". Sometimes i say " you lost the arguement and now you are hurt". A lot of the time they will reply "i didnt lose because i said this...". Then they start becomine defensive because they have to prove their words made sense.
I was arguing with an internet racist and he just dismissed me as a “collectivist goy”
I once got into a lengthy discussion with a Chinese person. When after a while, the topic veered into politics and it became clear that I don't think highly of dictatorships and how the Chinese state controls its people, they immediately changed how they approached me.
Suddenly, this wasn't just a discussion with a random person on the internet - suddenly, I was "obviously and without question" a Taiwanese spy, trying to subtly brainwash people into "bad" political ideologies. Nothing I said had a chance to sway them from this accusation.
When a person has a specific enemy in mind to blame, when you argue from a position they cannot defend against or that contradicts their core values ... you immediately may find yourself to "reveal yourself" as one of these enemies. Then everything makes sense again and they can just ignore every word you say.
I’ve never gotten the “individualist vs collectivist” dichotomy. How can one create a happy collective when the individuals that make up the collective aren’t happy? And if the collective isn’t happy, doesn’t that mean you missed a few individuals?
@@sertaki
the chinese have it right: they despise islam, homosexuality, feminism and globalists. as a result, they're outperforming the west in economics and technology without having to deal with diversity or affirmative action pets
@@リンゴ酢-b8g you seem like a person I would not enjoy meeting.
UA-cam smokes mid, sounds like you also dismissed him as an internet racist.
Whenever I challenge someone on their actual ideas, they suddenly "don't want to talk about it anymore"
I've noticed this in conversations that I have with friends but I've also noticed (since these conversations are in text) that my "argument" is straw manned by my opposing friend trying to tell me off. Sometimes I don't even argue in the first place and I get 'schooled' for what I apparently was thinking and saying that it wasn't my argument leads my friend to say "Don't change the subject." ??? *what was the subject? when was I going to know my argument?* Explaining the situation to others without acting on the initial comment was my way of dealing with the argument (as well as learning the 15 logical fallacies) so finding this video was interesting because we've come to the same conclusion through opposing means.
Excellent analysis. I stumbled upon a basic understanding of the concept when I once broke the cycle. Simply going back to the first point and continuing to ask for some response breaks the user of the tactic down pretty quickly. After a while of evasive tactics I just stated I had to assume that he conceded the point and it is time to move on. He was the one that decided he didn't want to play in short order, haha. Taking control over the flow of the discussion from the beginning and ensuring that proper ground rules are enforced goes a long way to expose an empty position. He couldn't even get past point #1 with any researched response.
00:38 and here's your mistake; don't stop to let them bring another accustation and defend against that. Take the initiative and accuse them of lying or of ignorance or whatever. Because that's what they did; they lied. Don't just gloss over that. Don't bring analysis to a knife fight; bring a sword, a great big sharp sword
i always just agree with whatever they accuse me of. "you're just lazy and want free government hand-outs" "yeah. and im gonna get them" or whatever. it usually confuses them enough to allow you to derail the whole convo
I've found that this also happens a lot of the time in other scenarios. When people just want to feel like you're a bad person, for whatever reason, even if there's no evidence, they'll figure out some way or another to do it.
I just avoid socializing on the internet altogether.
Wait, shit.
yeah, and trying to reply to UA-cam comments is about the worst waste of time imaginable
Haha, you fool! Now I'm responding to your post! We're socializing!
You win the comment section of this vedio
How to counter: Just say "Don't change the subject"
These are absolute fire, man. Keep it up! As a social psychology nerd dealing with constant colonial racism, your channel is a gold mine of practical insight. Peoples' Champ. I know this seems to have been published 6 years ago, but it's aged like fine wine.