You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
People attempting to forum slide and disrupt this board in contravention of Q's call for unity through patriotism may be banned
What is Q related? Anything involving Trump. Politics, Fake news, Censorship, Pizzagate, lluminati, New World Order, Secret Societies, Mk-Ultra, False Flags, Q proofs, etc...
Also, corruption in the following areas...
Government, Entertainment industry, celebrities, charities, corporations, etc...
No Pornographic Material Allowed
Continually harassing users can get your post/comment removed and you possibly banned. Threats of violence against other users or their family members are not allowed on v/GreatAwakening
Those belong in the comment section. If you need help, you can ping a mod, or PM us.
Posts need to be Q related. Not for attacking other users.
GAM is the new place for all things drama/mods/other users pertaining to v/GreatAwakening.
No usernames imitating mods
Misc reasons
Voat Rules
Content violates spam guidelines
Content contains or links to content that is illegal
Content contains personal information that relates to a Voat users real world or online identity
As I hope I made clear, your argument is sound and I agree with it. If this were a debate, it would be a winning argument. You'd score points.
Our goals, I would hope, are not to score points. Our goal is to get enough people to start questioning the storyline they've been fed for years that entails binary, right/wrong, us/them, red/blue thinking where Orange Man Bad and that the .gov can solve everything, etc..etc... Our goal, to use a terrible phrase, is to win hearts and minds, not debate points.
In trying to win hearts, and maintain family civility, I'm suggesting that if you walk them down the path to either A) find the truth themselves, or B) question their own sources, they'll let go of the ingrained gaslighting and start thinking for themselves. After that, the facts can be laid out.
It's about the thought process, not the facts.
(I love this conversation and am more than happy to continue, but gotta get some zzzzzzz).
[–]Johnny_Ninja0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
I am convinced that there's something I'm missing, mainly the difference between winning an argument VS what you're talking about.
I think you're right, we should be focused on doing what you're talking about VS simply proving someone wrong.
I guess my problem is that I don't understand the nuances of the goals you're talking about achieving, much less how to achieve them. I think I could be a more effective soldier in this war if I understood these things better. Like I said before, I'm all ears.
Please feel free to expand on these things, I know it would be helpful for me and likely others.
I watch the Dan Bongino podcast on YouTube daily. One of the things he's said on several occasions is that when you are debating a rabid Leftist, they aren't your target. Many of them are too far gone down the brainwashing road. Their minds aren't going to change until it's too late, and some of them will still remain in denial, sticking to their sick worldview.
It's the audience that matters. If your arguments are rational and your manner is reasonable, you'll convert more of the onlookers.
I try to apply Socratic methods. Here's a link that describes this to some degree: Socratic Method
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Paladin_Diver ago
As I hope I made clear, your argument is sound and I agree with it. If this were a debate, it would be a winning argument. You'd score points.
Our goals, I would hope, are not to score points. Our goal is to get enough people to start questioning the storyline they've been fed for years that entails binary, right/wrong, us/them, red/blue thinking where Orange Man Bad and that the .gov can solve everything, etc..etc... Our goal, to use a terrible phrase, is to win hearts and minds, not debate points.
In trying to win hearts, and maintain family civility, I'm suggesting that if you walk them down the path to either A) find the truth themselves, or B) question their own sources, they'll let go of the ingrained gaslighting and start thinking for themselves. After that, the facts can be laid out.
It's about the thought process, not the facts.
(I love this conversation and am more than happy to continue, but gotta get some zzzzzzz).
[–] Johnny_Ninja ago (edited ago)
I am convinced that there's something I'm missing, mainly the difference between winning an argument VS what you're talking about.
I think you're right, we should be focused on doing what you're talking about VS simply proving someone wrong.
I guess my problem is that I don't understand the nuances of the goals you're talking about achieving, much less how to achieve them. I think I could be a more effective soldier in this war if I understood these things better. Like I said before, I'm all ears.
Please feel free to expand on these things, I know it would be helpful for me and likely others.
[–] Paladin_Diver ago
I watch the Dan Bongino podcast on YouTube daily. One of the things he's said on several occasions is that when you are debating a rabid Leftist, they aren't your target. Many of them are too far gone down the brainwashing road. Their minds aren't going to change until it's too late, and some of them will still remain in denial, sticking to their sick worldview.
It's the audience that matters. If your arguments are rational and your manner is reasonable, you'll convert more of the onlookers.
I try to apply Socratic methods. Here's a link that describes this to some degree: Socratic Method