This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Splooge [S] ago (edited ago)
Oh the “point by point” thing is a misdirect every time.
Say you rattle off a bunch of statistics, say, percentage of nog-on-nog crime, percentage of nogs in jail, the Bell Curve and the number of cops killed by nogs.
A standard response will be “Let’s take this point by point,” then they’ll select the “weakest” one and focus entirely on that. If you try to bring up one of the other points, you’ll be chided not to “change the subject” or “get off topic.” In the provided example, they’d probably go after “mass incarceration.”
In some cases, when they’re completely lost, they’ll use the line too, but then introduce a completely new premise and pretend you brought it up.
So as with the provided example, it’d be something like “Okay, let’s take this point by point. We all agree with the fact that poverty affects a large number of African American communities; no one is gonna disagree with you on that. The real question we should ask is what’s the best way to resolve the issues of lack of jobs, support programs and discriminatory banking systems?”
[–] philmchawk 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Right but you see how the "point by point" isn't the important part in all those examples? The misdirection comes after. So my point is that it is a bit different then the other because the other themselves are misdirection. Idk could be i'm just defending it because i use it (but i actually go point by point).
[–] Splooge [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Ohhh, I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying.
It's for this reason I rarely (if ever) rattle off lists of anything if I talk to a normie of this sort. Single points, one at a time, laser-focused.
When they rattle shit off, it's to drive their point home and show how "valid" it is. When you or I do it, quantity actually dilutes the argument in their eyes.