How do you argue with someone as stupid as a feminist or your typical liberal leftist pseudo-political student?

How do you argue with someone as stupid as a feminist or your typical liberal leftist pseudo-political student?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_psychological_effects
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence_bias
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindguard
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism_dispute
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
youtube.com/watch?v=4vvcyHl9otk)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You don't,specially not on the internet,but if you absolutely must you should stick to facts,hard facts and not some shitty flawed infographic or some arguement that relies on the ignorance of whoever you're arguing with because they tend to start ignoring anything you say once they find a single flaw within your arguement.

Why would you even bother? Arguing with neolibs is a waste of time

Basically, you must always find a way to justify your stance morally, or else they simply will not be able to comprehend your position.

Of course, in an actual debate, personal feelings hold no empirical merit. An SJW is a very broken, irrational type of person that you should not converse with at all, if possible.

You realise it aint important and you don't

Ideally you don't, but considering some arguments can't be avoided, I'll share what has worked for me on the past.

1) Leave your ego at the door. If you're arguing out from a place of ego, you're no better than them.

2) Do not react to them. Have them react to your points, otherwise, you'll always be letting them lead the discussion to a place where they can have the advantage.

3) LISTEN TO THEM. Just because they're idiots doesn't mean that you already know all they're going to say. If they feel you're not listening, they won't listen to you. Why should they?

4) Use a Socratic approach. Ask questions about their stance. If they're really idiots, they'll eventually contradict themselves after two - five questions.

5) Be willing to lose, but do everything in your power not to. It sounds hard, but if you're not being egotistical then it gets easier.

>Tell them they are in a safe space
>Ask them to share their feels.
>Try to hold your laughter in as they speak.

...

I posted the sarcastic But is actually a great answer for entertaining a debate with someone who you deeply disagree with.

>it aint important
Yeah, the fate of one's society isn't important. Just sit in your room and masturbate all day. You have no obligation to care about anybody. It's perfectly fine to be a piece of garbage, rather than a human being.
Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you.

I remember the last time I determined the fate of my society by discussing something with someone I disagreed with.

Oh wait, I don't, and neither does anyone else who ever existed.

you don´t

Why are you trying to argue with women in the first place? Just have sex with them

>neolibs

You're so fucking retarded that this can't even be bait

I think he means new, young, bleeding-heart liberals that provide a lot of voice but not much support, as opposed to actual neoliberals.

Posture yourself farther to the left like zizek, you can only convince some one arguing by their own value systems

I usually print out infographics and hand them out to people

Honestly just listen but say you don't agree but don't elaborate. If they actually respect you (coworker, friend of friend, etc.) and you don't weird them the fuck out, they'll wonder why someone so "normal" who should be "concerned with the same issues" doesn't get riled up over sjw stuff.

you don't actually ever win an argument by arguing.

The real question is how you argue with someone as stupid as a reddit9k misogynist or your typical stormfag alt right pseudo-political internet commenter.

you don't. you watch them destroy each other.

its pretty sad when you let politics dictate your humanity. You had one purpose and you stifled it with rhetoric and nonsense to make yourself feel strong and important, when in reality, you were no different from anyone. But go ahead; keep on segregating, keep on murdering your fellow human dweller, keep on reminding yourself you're on your own, when in the end, its all up to everyone. I promise you the world doesn't care, your little frame of mind doesn't have a reference, no drone strikes can cure your hate. No matter of bombs or benefit, will make you right. The human journey has one purpose and that is to get along.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here but what if they counter-argue with "toxic masculinity" and tell you that this is caused by gender constructs?

Can we please stop the "SJWs are taking over the world"-meme?

Like, honestly, I'm not a fan of the average American college "liberal" (why do Americans have to completely change the meaning of established political lingo) either, but you should seriously stop overestimating them. They're no big political players at the moment, and even if they were, simply spewing the same tired arguments at their same tired arguments will save nobody.

If you want to combat an actual potential oppressive force, divert your attention to neo-fascists. Look at Trump, look at Le Pen, look at Wilders, look at how much support they're receiving, and ask yourself what they could do to a free society if they gain power.

Workplace fatalities mostly happen in jobs that are generally considered to be "masculine", AKA jobs that women will steer clear from because society expects them to. If men are more inclined to work dangerous jobs than women, then it's logical that most workplace fatalities involve men.

>Can we please stop the "SJWs are taking over the world"-meme?

Yeah, i agree we should stop this political polarization, it's not going to hel..

>If you want to combat an actual potential oppressive force, divert your attention to neo-fascists. Look at Trump, look at Le Pen, look at Wilders, look at how much support they're receiving, and ask yourself what they could do to a free society if they gain power.

Oh bloody hell.

You're a moron.

>If men are more inclined to work dangerous jobs than women, then it's logical that most workplace fatalities involve men.

If women are more inclined to work less paying jobs than men, then it's logical that men earn more money.

How?

I usually tell them to get off Veeky Forums and post their thread on an appropriate board.

Now get off Veeky Forums and post this on an appropriate board, if you still want to have this discussion.

True. The only thing that would concern me is if a man and a woman in the exact same position don't make an equal amount of money, and I haven't read enough on the topic to be sure whether or not this wage gap truly exists. If it exists, it should naturally be destroyed. The fact that a man in a higher function makes more than a woman, however, is not something I disagree with.

How so? I see two things:
a: These people (I like to dub them neo-fascists, but a more neutral term would be "right wing populists", although their generally positive stance towards social security makes it hard to categorize them on the left-right spectrum from an economic point of view) are willing to infringe upon society's freedom in order to prevent terrorism/immigration/illegal labour.
b: These people are in an actual position where them gaining the power to infringe upon our freedom is not unimaginable.

If you see reason to believe that they are a false threat, please give arguments as to why you feel that way.

Zizek says the left-right dicotomy means nothing these days (he's right), and many SJW's and Tankies have taken this to mean he's a fascist

>neo-fascists, but a more neutral term would be "right wing populists"

They're not fascists by definition. Fascism is an older buzzword used to label anyone you don't like and a populist more recent one.

Populism is a standard of representative democracy, it always exists and will exist. It isn't a bad thing unto itself and it isn't exclusive to right wing politics.

In other hands using words like "facscist" and "populist" would go into the "not an argumet" camp of arguments. It's meaningless fluff.

>Are willing to infringe upon society's freedom in order to prevent terrorism/immigration/illegal labour.

No, they are infringing on what you view as the acceptable form of freedom. Remember that absolute freedom is an oxymoron.

>These people are in an actual position where them gaining the power to infringe upon our freedom is not unimaginable.


Not really. Trump isn't trying to become the King of U.S. They will be restricted by the parliament, whatever form it has.

All i see is democracy working as democracy works.

>Implying neoliberalism actually exists.

American's don't like to admit that Trump is in reality just an extreme neoliberal who says what he wants. He would be arguably less a warmonger than Clinton, and less a hypocrite

I know from personal experience that it's not worth it unless you want some SJW pussy, in this case it's often fun to pretend that you're one of them and try to one up their every point to see how far they can go.

You're right, communism won the cold war

Just a little continuation here, that left-wing populism is much, much more popular than right-wing. Marxism itself is very much based on rough juxtaposition and populism.

It exists. In fact, the modern "SJW" movement is a good representation of it.

SJW's are not neoliberals, they usually suscribe to some oxymoronic Anarchism in my experience. But they sure do love to bathe in the products of Neoliberalism

>SJW's are not neoliberals,

That's not what i meant. They don't identify as neoliberals but they are playing into neoliberal hands.

It's a clear cut example of neoliberal capitalism adapting to changing political climate.

You don't, instead you focus on swaying moderates. If you do argue with extremists of any stripe, do it only as a way to influence onlookers, since the chances of swaying an extremist are too low.

Ask them if they know what epistemology and demarcation are.
Then ask them what doxa and flawed heuristical induction and mimetic repetition is.
If they say no or refuse to admit to their ignorance, just show them what you're studying.
Also give them the following:

Please study the following:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_psychological_effects
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence_bias
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justification
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindguard
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism_dispute
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

>It's meaningless fluff.
You'll have to label them in one way or another. Plus, there is a distinct difference between, say, a social democratic party trying to gain votes and an actual populist party trying to gain votes. The main distinction is that the traditional parties may try to get votes, but do so while still holding on to some form of ideology. Actual populists (Trump being the clearest example with the amount of lies and reconsiderations he's made) don't base their party on a defined political philosophy, but simply pander to what the public wants to hear entirely (maaaybe you could call their ideological foundation "nationalism", but I don't know if mere nationalism is a sufficient ideological foundation for a political party).

>No, they are infringing on what you view as the acceptable form of freedom. Remember that absolute freedom is an oxymoron.
Yeah, when I say "society's freedom" I obviously mean "society's freedom according to what I consider to be freedom". Everyone does this. It doesn't change the fact that if they gain the power to legislate, they might very well implement legislation that is against what I hold to be an essential cornerstone of a free society.

>They will be restricted by the parliament, whatever form it has.
Trump could be restricted by the senate and house of representatives if those institutions are mostly controlled by Democrats or if the Republicans decide to block Trump's legislation, but considering the conservative figureheads have already started reluctantly backing Trump, I don't see it below the GOP to blindly follow Trump's command, considering how massively polarized US politics are right now. Being loyal to your party seems more important than ever right now (a disastrous thing, considering the amount of different viewpoints that are represented within each of these two parties), so yeah, I really can't say what the USA would look like under Trump with a GOP-dominated House, and I'd rather not find out

>extreme neoliberal
The fundamental difference between the neoliberal establishment and Trump is the fact that neoliberals are vehemently pro-globalization, whereas Trump seems to be vehemently anti-globalization, almost protectionist.

I don't know if Trump will be less of a warmonger than Clinton, I don't see either as being very pacifist. They're also both pretty damn good at lying, so there's that. Really, this presidential race is the biggest mess ever, both candidates are trash and have more haters than lovers.

>The only thing that would concern me is if a man and a woman in the exact same position don't make an equal amount of money

First of all, that's illegal in all countries in the West. Secondly, why is that wrong exactly?

If two people work the exact same position, but one of them is a man that works 500 hours of overtime, and the other one is a woman that takes more time off than she's working, it's still logical for the man to make more.

>You'll have to label them in one way or another.

Yes but a label isn't enough. It's not an argument.

> Plus, there is a distinct difference between, say, a social democratic party trying to gain votes and an actual populist party trying to gain votes. The main distinction is that the traditional parties may try to get votes, but do so while still holding on to some form of ideology. Actual populists (Trump being the clearest example with the amount of lies and reconsiderations he's made) don't base their party on a defined political philosophy, but simply pander to what the public wants to hear entirely

Okay, first:

>The main distinction is that the traditional parties may try to get votes, but do so while still holding on to some form of ideology.

The left has experienced a massive change in philosophy in the last decade. The left isn't about protecting workers rights or the betterment of the middle class, it's about globalism and multiculti.

>Actual populists (Trump being the clearest example with the amount of lies and reconsiderations he's made) don't base their party on a defined political philosophy

A common misconception actually. Check this out. (youtube.com/watch?v=4vvcyHl9otk) He's pretty much saying the same things now as he was then.

Sanders and Trump are both pretty honest and consistent (sanders representing the "old left", while Hillary is actually very inconsistent, but Hillary is a neoliberal coon.

>but simply pander to what the public wants to hear entirely

I just want to point out that this is not the definition of populism.

>maaaybe you could call their ideological foundation "nationalism

Not at all. Nationalism is also defined wrong very often.

>against what I hold to be an essential cornerstone of a free society.

Welcome to democracy. It is the tyranny of the 51% percent.

Not your personal army.

Reported.