0
3

[–] RedditDead2005-2015 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I bet you that kind of thinking didn't sit too well with the mods on Reddit. Thoughts and comments like these will get deleted in a hurry...and get you banned too. ;) Reddit admin and mods will never relinquish the power to control what their users see and hear. Your opinions and thoughts are as important as they say they are. Just an example of what Reddit DELETES from such an non-controversial post on their front page currently:

GoFundMe Shuts Down Campaign Of Woman Who Blew Life Savings on Powerball Tickets

These are just the deleted comments that no Reddit user will ever see. Seriously, this is no way to have a discussion.

0
3

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

Your individualism is also an ideology. Individualism is the ideology they're pushing these days. Doesn't individualism divide society a lot more than a collectivist ideology? What if collectivist ideologies aren't only about controlling people, also about empowering them, like in a patrician? For instance, maybe Christian family values aren't supposed to be about hating gays, but more about encouraging a successful, and reproducible way of life? As in people in families on the whole are a lot wealthier and better off than single parents.

I'm an atheist, and I have my own ideology too, but as far as I can tell most people are completely incapable of thinking for themselves, they need guidance. They need to be brought up with some ideology. If people could think for themselves we wouldn't be surronded by so many morons.

0
0

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

I am advocating for the collectivism of "I am a human" that surpasses the importance of any other ideology, even atheism. You seemed to have missed that part.

0
1

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

Humanism. Good idea. You're right, it's hard work trying to be human when they portray us all as irrational and neurotic on TV. There's not many mentally stable heroes to follow.

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

[Deleted]

0
2

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

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed the article. The best approach I've found is to touch on the subjects lightly, in a manner where you can say something and then just leave it and move on to another topic. This lightness is persuasive because it counter-acts the "conspiracy theory" stereotype of being unflinchingly obsessed with the details of an occurrence or whatever. Set it and forget it.

Also another thing is to not confuse resistance with failure. Just because someone calls you crazy doesn't mean that they haven't listened to what you've said. They may churn over it for weeks or months, before deciding you were right. And they may never admit that to you. You just have to be confident in saying the truth. People fight changes to their ideology, it's just what they do. So when you're truly challenging someone's beliefs is when they're most likely to lash out potentially, but also when you're most likely to have a big influence. You must be careful not to mistake their ideology lashing out in self-defense as an attack on your character or person. Certain information just triggers the emotional defense mechanisms, and you unfortunately have to bear the brunt of that because you're the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger, right?

Another tip I've found is to avoid using terms that trigger emotional reactions. Instead of saying "The ideas of communism are good." Instead say "Due to automation, there are less and less jobs. Those people need money, I think it'd be good if everyone got an unconditional basic income and there was more ownership of companies by the workers instead of CEOs so the profits go around." The first one will trigger a hugely negative gut reaction from anyone over 40, the second one will actually win some people over, despite the fact they're saying essentially the same thing. Avoiding the trigger terms and words is a great way to keep people from raising their defenses.

0
1

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

Please contribute to /v/society and /v/propaganda

0
1

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

welcome aboard

0
0

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

"Therefore, the spreading of information that leads people to outgrow old belief systems, leads to the direct evolution of the culture of humanity. I'm not just talking belief in god here, I'm talking about belief in the state, belief in the usefulness of police, belief in a particular political party's ability to represent the people, belief in the validity of a certain information source or TV channel, belief that McDonald's is yummy, and so on." That's basic constructivism, but under a constructivist model there's no reason this would be a bad thing. I'm confused about why you used constructivist theory then eschewed it everywhere else. "So if you really want to help humanity out, fill some people in on this little game that is constantly being played on us." This reads like a false choice fallacy. You seem to be implying that you can either follow your advice and help humanity, of not follow your advice and hurt humanity. That's a false choice fallacy. "Imagine if our mainstream culture was organically created by each of us, instead of by a handful of huge companies!" This is what I like to call the "organic" or "artisanal" fallacy. Just because it's made by the public, or by a small group, doesn't mean it's better. In fact, that usually means it sucks. Anyways, sorry, nothing against you, I just came back to Voat so I had to do what I do best: semi-thorough criticism, baby.

0
0

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

Overuse of fallacies, as you've done here, is called the "fallacy fallacy"

0
0

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

The "fallacy fallacy" doesn't denote "the overuse of fallacies", but claiming that on account of an argument's inclusion of a fallacy, the argument is incorrect. Look it up.

0
0

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

Welcome! We love be your kind here

0
0

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

"belief that McDonald's is yummy"

It is not a belief that McDonald's is yummy but a fact.

Now a belief that eating it is good for you is another matter. Though there was that one professor who ate it exclusively and lost weight.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/05/he-ate-only-mcdonalds-food-for-90-days-and-ended-up-like-this/

My belief about McDonald's (which is the same about any high fat high carb foods) is it probably depends mostly on quantity eaten.

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)