[–] Eualos 1 points 24 points (+25|-1) ago 

They succeed by appealing to emotions without carrying about anything relating to facts. We need to get better at arguing with emotion if you want to beat them at their own game

[–] Weasel_Soup 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I think we need to become better at using "dead syrian child" tactics. Liberals only care about sob stories. They are like women.

[–] Eualos 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

A lot of them are women

[–] TheSeer 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

The mistake is thinking we can convince leftists of anything. The only thing we can do is show them that ultimately they will be forced to use violence to force the compliance of conservatives in their schemes (which is what government is, the sanctioned use of violence), and that even that will only result in more violence.

That there is no such thing as "the time for debate is over", as Dan Harmon tried to incite the crowd into believing, in that hyperbolic video of his.

[–] oddjob 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

This is true. You won't reach every liberal with facts. Also, you have to keep in mind that liberals don't like to see victims in the world. By their logic, anyone who's life sucks is a victim, and you can't have a victim without an oppressor. So they want to go after the oppressors in society. This really isn't all that different from a lot of the people on here, its just who do they see as victims of society. The left will say poor people of non-whites in America are victims while some on the right will say that unborn babies or hard working whites are the victims. Then you look around to see who has it better and deduce that they only have it better because they are in fact the oppressor. This is where their logic falls apart and no longer makes sense and they are arguing on emotion. At this point, facts no longer matter. They will simply make up their own facts because they think that the oppressor has so much power that they are able to hide evidence of their oppressing activities from the general public and the facts that people quote against them are not accurate.

You also have to keep in mind that people don't like to feel stupid, and being told that they are wrong often feels like a personal attack.

[–] kneo24 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

When talking about foreign invaders (illegal aliens), when "progressives" try to paint me as some uncaring, unfeeling monster, I point out that I'm arguing for the legal residents who already exist in the country. That they need to take priority first and we need to ensure we're in a good place before we throw ourselves into a scenario where we take on too much by giving away too much aid freely. The ones who aren't really poisoned at least pause and consider what you're saying. I sometimes take it a step further and question why they don't care about the existing people in the country and why aren't they thinking about them with all of the help that they need, the very help that they virtue signal about. Why are these other people so much more important?

Typically they have nothing to say in response.

[–] Doglegwarrior 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I dont understand how they dont understand that literaly no other country out side of western countries in any way do anything for noncitizen foriegn invaders imagine me going to china and crossing the border snd then demanding they give me a day in court! Lol or russia... thry will give me multiple days in prison with no fucking rights which i shouldnt have.. i didnt pay taxes to their goverment i didnt fight in warz for them i didnt take a fucking oath i am a foriegn invader pure and simple and would expect to be treated accorngly.

[–] fuckmyreddit 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

What I say when talking about illegal foreign invaders is something like, "I really think we should help them, but we should help them in their own country. Why should they have to leave their homes? Their families? It's terrible."

Edit: It works because its true!

I just thought of something. Do they still have The Peace Corps? If they do, maybe we can turn it around and get the crybabies to want to join the Peace Corps and to stop yammering in our faces about bullshit. I'll look it up. It's a great way to virtue signal I'll bet. EDIT: YES YES YES YES YES, THEY STILL HAVE IT. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT JFK STARTED?

THIS MIGHT WORK. AT the very least it will change the subject to common ground that we can talk about without losing our minds !!!

SORRY FOR THE SHOUTING. I'M OLD. I'M A FEMALE! MIGHT BE WORTH TRYING. I MIGHT START TALKING ABOUT HOW I WISH I COULD JOIN THE PEACE CORPS. (I think it was a way to dodge the draft when my friends were too stupid to get into college in the 70s.)

https://www.peacecorps.gov/

It's a much better way to virtue signal than to bike around Afghanistan! And it might actually do some good on the part of the POCS and the Crybabies.

Ps. Holy shit. Idiots who majored in Songs of Oppression of the Indigenous Malawi Basket Weavers or Community Organizing for Transgenders in Saudi Arabia might also be able to have their student loans forgiven! https://www.peacecorps.gov/volunteer/benefits/student-loan-information/

Can we use the idea of helping invaders in their own countries to our advantage. Is this an example of the proverbial win-win? Is there anyone on Voat who's not a bot?

*** @kneo24 Your answer about helping our own is anther great way to handle the issue. But WE NEED TO TAKE IT FURTHER! We need to give them images (mental or literal) of crying, hungry brown American kids in the ghetto. We need to use their tactics. OP is spot on!

UPDATE: The shills are pushing this off the front page. Leave any comment to bump it back up. THIS MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT CONVO OF THE WEEK! Give more ideas. THERE ARE NO BAD IDEAS! This is important.

[–] McFucklet [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I didn't think about the emotion part... That's a really great point

[–] Eualos 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

If you want to argue with a child it's better to think about how a child thinks so you can reach them the most effectively

[–] alphasnail 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago  (edited ago)

"You're crazy." is pretty rational response to randomly being called a Nazi.

I think we need to get away from extremes. It's not either/or with most people. As in, most people aren't one extreme (Nazi) or the other extreme (crazy.) Those type of discussions are not constructive in any way and only solicit self-defense from each party.

Unfortunately, I think we need to get back to the elementary principles of how to think rationally, all of us, including conservatives.

Feelings are no substitute for rational thinking, ideas can be examined without being embraced, distinguish facts from opinions, avoiding biases that confirm a personal view, having the humility to change one's own mind, and most of all being honest with themselves.

In my opinion there is no easy fix as this mental sickness runs deep in society.

Either/or thinking, double standards, irrelevant criteria, and overgeneralizing people as Nazis or crazy is received as attacks. People really don't know how to communicate anymore.

[–] McFucklet [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I think incorporating philosphy into education at an early age would address a lot of this.

[–] alphasnail 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It probably would. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that if someone presented a school board with a curriculum that taught students how to engage each other in healthy ways that it might be called crazy.

When people talk it is supposed to be a meeting of minds where ideas can be examined. It is not supposed to be a warfare of minds at every turn, but it kind of is and it's discouraging.

Glad you had the rare encounter of meeting another rational person. That is truly rare these days.

[–] Doglegwarrior 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I think jordan peterson is pushing for this kind of thinking

[–] alphasnail 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Well, I think if people want to have constructive and actually productive discussions then they need to approach it rationally. Otherwise it inevitably devolves into pointless name calling and shit posting of people desperately grasping to control a narrative.

But maybe that's the point? Maybe some peoples' rationale is so weak and flawed that it can't stand to critical thinking so they take the low road to appeal to emotion.

[–] CaliforniaOrange 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I’m not a conservative, don’t ever fucking call me that.

You’ve been a member for 14 days and you say voat is conservatives?

We don’t fit into those stupid outdated terms of the 20th century, and you’re stupid if you think those apply today.

[–] theHubrisOfMan 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

(((They’re))) shilling on voat and have been for a while. When the thought police continue their attack on “right wing media” comes, they’ll want the fringe-thinkers taken out too. They’re trying to lump free speech in with hate speech by putting us in a box.

[–] TheSeer 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Any speech they hate, is hate speech.

[–] McFucklet [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

As a practical matter, your example of discourse is basically saying "I'm not X so don't call me X" when I am addressing X so if X doesn't apply to you and you're getting upset about X, it comes off as you being contrarian and making yourself conspicuous for the sake of conflict.

I agree that this kind of behavior and mode of discourse is one thing that's actively harming the advancement of some of the right-leaning interests in the world right now but I can't discern from your example what you propose. I hadn't thought of this before but I suppose there could be an element of "I'm a special snowflake, not an X Y Z" within both sides that could prevent people from rallying together who otherwise have similar viewpoints, but I do think most people are intelligent enough to know that the spectrum is a generalization (otherwise it's a false dichotomy and would not be part of discussion today).

Nobody says everyone is either X or Y but there are obviously diametrically opposed poles that people in our bimodal political spectrum fall under. Thank you for your example and for reminding me we don't fit into perfect categories.

[–] DeliciousOnions 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Most leftists are thinking about idealistic 'perfect world' scenarios when they form opinions. It's not often you see them being pragmatic unless it's to mount an effective political strategy, which is seen as What Must Be Done anyway.

For example, when you hear them talk about socialism, they're imagining a world where lazy freeloaders and assholes don't exist. Asking "what if some portion of the population is just a dick" ruins their argument, but it doesn't convince them either.

[–] Whitemail 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The ridiculous leftist will suggest changes to improve conditions for a tiny group while disregarding any effect on the larger group (this can also be the less-populous, designated-evil-oppressor group instead of the oppressed such as with whites or white men compared to any other group). This is why they think letting anyone use any restroom is a great idea. It will benefit tranny freaks while everyone else is disregarded. If anyone else is harmed by this, it's not important, because they're evil oppressors of poor innocent trannies.

[–] TheAntiZealot 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Basically, it runs on the tenets of Communism:

(1) That there is a a privileged oppressor and an underprivileged victim and (2) that it must be corrected.

Less known is the proposed solution; that (3) a monopoly on violence a.k.a. government must take over the public interest for the public good.

[–] McFucklet [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This makes me wonder how much of it is that and how much of it is essentially a platform of buying votes on credit. Eg elect me for "free" college or "free" healthcare or "reparations". How do you see that part as fitting in?

[–] DeliciousOnions 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's always been justified to me as simple self-interest. The same way a Republican can vote for lower taxes, or a weed smoker can vote for legalization.

[–] acratus 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

Voat is right-wing but not necessarily conservative, in case you're confused who your audience is.

[–] McFucklet [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This is definitely something I glossed over in my assumptions. I appreciate you and the others who pointed this out.

[–] fuckmyreddit 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Eff you, acratus. I am not right wing. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I think for myself. I hope you're a bot because you have a small mind if you're human.

[–] acratus 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

You do realize that free-thinking human beings can come to right-wing conclusions, right?

[–] individualin1984 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

What you are asking is a difficult task. As mentioned the mind of someone from the left is based on a fondation of emotion. Logic, facts, and general critical thinking are as foriegn to them as the most obscure language. All of their world is a ((( reinforced))) wall of emotional storytelling. When you pull out a statistic at them this is a crack in that wall and an afront to all of thier world. Thier only recourse is to quickly spackle over that crack and then turn thier back to it. This is the clasic you are a Nazi and therefore I need to silence you by any means. To them this is perfectly rational so calling them crazy has no affect. To reach them you must first teach them rational thought. I do not see this as viable. The only other solution is to realize you have to treat them like the mental children that they are.

[–] Heliarc 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I believe that conservatives, in general, tend to play by the rules; they expect others to do so also, and tend to flail around in disbelieving outrage (and little else) when others do -not- play by the rules. This puts conservatives immediately at a disadvantage when in conflict with liberals, who rarely place any constraints on their behavior.

In general, there seem to be no rules in the liberal playbook other than "win at all costs". They give themselves a pass to say anything, do anything, and stage any kind of attack on anyone when it suits their purposes.

To be successful in the long term, I believe conservatives must level the playing field by adopting the liberal playboook and using liberals' own strategies against them. Conservatives are going to have to learn to become absolutely ruthless in pursuit of their goals. This will be tough for a lot of people, especially those that believe that "...if we just -reason- with them..." that they'll "fix" liberals. That's not going to happen, but conservatives keep wasting their time.

*This resurrects a very, very old argument that has no answer, however: In a conflict is it okay for good to use the same methods as evil does, as long as good desires a different outcome assumed to be a greater good for most? To those taken aback by relating conservative/liberal to good/evil: While it would be naive to say that there aren't people with evil intent scattered throughout any group, I do believe the core of -modern- liberalism is absolutely evil.

[–] Drowpic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

liberals, who rarely place any constraints on their behavior

I have rarely seen people more dishonest and lacking basic decency than the Left.

[–] captainstrange 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

assumed to be a greater good for most

It's not about what is good, it is about what has to be done.

I believe conservatives must level the playing field by adopting the liberal playboook and using liberals' own strategies against them

We're a small but growing camp in this regard.

There is such a thing as a just war.

[–] Sw0rdofDamocles 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” – Richard Buckminster Fuller

load more comments ▼ (33 remaining)