You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 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?”

0
1

[–] philmchawk 0 points 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).

0
1

[–] Splooge [S] 0 points 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.