[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Some people can't articulate a counter argument, but feel the need to air their objection. They then spur on a champion to face off in an intellectual gladiator fight. These dismissive responses are meant to convey that your objection is not even worth a champion's time because it does not rise doubt in the champion's ability in the listener.
When you're arguing, know you're not arguing with the person you're talking to, but with the source of their opinions. Only when you threaten the reputation (perception) of the source do you have a chance to persuade.
This is why persuasion includes Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. If you're all Logos, you have the curse of Cassandra.
[–] Tsilent_Tsunami ago
When you say "the source of their opinions", are you referring to their poorly functioning cognitive system? Because I see that all day. You can explicitly lay out your premise or contention, and their reply will often misconstrue or misunderstand the meaning you handed them on a silver platter.
I meant where they get their information. If people get their opinions from limited personal experience and lack the wisdom to contextualize it in a field of probabilities and counter examples, then they get stupid opinions.
Most people get their opinion from somewhere or someone. You're usually stuck addressing that, not the person themselves, because they don't understand their beliefs, they Trust someone else has a deeper understanding.
If you replace someone's belief without making them doubt their previous belief, they'll only feel NPC frown cognitive dissonance. You have to make them doubt themselves and the ones they trust, then trust you, then you tell them the truth after they beg you for it.
[–] Throwawayx123 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
So what? Schlomo preaches rules he doesn't follow. Why should anyone care about rhetoric calling him an oven doger? This right wing insistence on taking the high road against people who have no scruples is a major thorn in our side. If it works, it works. Schlomo hates being called a circle. You sound like a demoralizing shill.
[–] [deleted] 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
[–] Tsilent_Tsunami ago (edited ago)
Rot in hell you piece of shit. Blocked bitch. Feel free to respond but I won't see it nigger. You lose.
If this goof could see my comment, I'd point out that believing a shill or troll is unable to lie on the internet is incredibly retarded.
[–] AgentSakura 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
Yup, every time I'm insulted for having a refined yet different opinion that I articulate I'm insulted, called a kike and then ignored. This just means you've won the argument when they resort to Ad hominem
[–] NatSocTemplar 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Everyone here who hasn't should read both The Gentleman's Guide to Forum Shills as well as the section of Mein Kampf on Debating Jews. This will open your eyes to the tactics used by actual shills. I'll tell you what. It's not the people blatantly saying bullshit. Those are just trolls trying for the downvoat high score. The copypasta shills and sleeper accounts are easy to spot for anyone. But, the actual good shills, that we should worry about, will do their best to blend in. They will have a decent CCP because they make lots of generic posts in agreement with the consensus. But then they will post things intended to discourage in general (blackpill) or to prevent IRL campaigns or raids of other sites (circlejerk promoters) The actions of these shills are the most damaging to us being able to increase our reach and bring people to the redpill. Back on 8/pol/ I saw these tactics a lot. Since coming here I've been creating a list of accounts I find suspicious. I won't list them yet but sometime here i will, with proof of their behavior. Stay vigilant, men.
[–] Civil_Warrior 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
Sure thing, rabbi schlomo.