Chaoticoli Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 Do any of you guys use Facebook? I am still working on my arguing abilities since I've become an anarchist about three or four months ago and they still need some sharpening. I am on Facebook often with a lot of Minarchists and other statists of the like who I have a hard time arguing sometimes and I was wondering if anyone in the FDR community would like to friend me on Facebook and possibly gimme some pointers and/or comment back on some of the discussions I have with Statists. Any who, if so, please comment! https://www.facebook.com/chaoticoli is my Facebook.
Chaoticoli Posted April 12, 2013 Author Posted April 12, 2013 I am not trying to drag FDR people away from this site and into Facebook, but SO MUCH of my discussions happen with people of opposing views and I agree with most of you guys on most issues already. I would really appreciate any assistance one could provide though. I really want to be the best arguer and most logical person I can possibly be. If I don't follow up with my potential, I will not attain as much truth as I could, which is strongly antipodal to the goals of my superego :3
nathanm Posted April 12, 2013 Posted April 12, 2013 I stopped using Facebook because of the character limit. I have no idea if it's different now, but I have no intention of returning. Google+ is much nicer. I will occasionally plant some anarchist seeds in the 'popular' public threads if they are of a politcal nature. But it causes me a lot of anxiety when I choose to do so because I know I am going to be flamed. So far I've been called ignorant, stupid, competely clueless, living in a fantasy world etc. but no real argument to anything I've said. I try to remain calm and keep it upbeat and positive and let the statist apologist get bent out of shape. I'm sure it's all 99% useless, but all you can do is plant seeds and hope something grows in someone's mind. Every topic I've seen devolves into a binary Democrat\Republican echo chamber, so you need to install the acoustic panels of anarchy to try and tame the noise.
Chaoticoli Posted April 12, 2013 Author Posted April 12, 2013 The most recent response from a Statist: "In the context of financial of social parameters. Being an anarchist is a lifestyle choice that has zero space for governmental bodies (no government is not a political opinion, just as being an atheist is not a religious preference), and is designed around the concept that either "I make all of my own decisions, everyone else be damned", or being governed by a complex set of ethical concepts that cannot be enforced by any person or organization that claims higher authority.[/font] .[1][3][1]{comment505287479536134_4660381}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3]]Either way, if you're stating that my opinion is inferior you're not a social anarchist, and if you're an individual anarchist you would still just have to accept the fact that I don't have to care about your opinion. Anarchy is loaded with thousands of logical fallacies, predominately paradoxes."Made me want to vomit.
Lowe D Posted April 13, 2013 Posted April 13, 2013 Vomiting feels pretty bad when you're doing it, but then it feels good, when it's finished. Is that why you're doing this?
Guest darkskyabove Posted April 13, 2013 Posted April 13, 2013 Never argue with an idiot; other people can't tell which is which.
Chaoticoli Posted April 14, 2013 Author Posted April 14, 2013 I'm doing this because I want to feel like people aren't insane. I want some verification that I am not crazy because I am the one calling the other 99.999% crazy lol. I also want to have people to talk to through Facebook about politics because I use it often and sometimes don't have people to "have my back" in posts. I was posting on that thread for a couple days and it just became a waste of time. They are convinced that anarchy = mob rule. I got tired of their bad comparisons and stopped commenting back. They had such a mentality of agreeing with each other rather than finding truth. After every post, each comment of theirs was liked by everyone who agreed with the original poster (about 5 or 6 people). It felt like a ganging up-on mentality instead of a mentality driven to arrive at truth.
Guest darkskyabove Posted April 14, 2013 Posted April 14, 2013 I applaud your enthusiasm. The hard part might be to keep the emotion at bay. It can be frustrating to debate with a rational person, but at least it's not arguing with a jellyfish. Remember that nothing said by anyone can affect you, unless you allow it. Hell, I get pissed at some of the stuff I read here. (As I'm sure I've pissed a few people off) I can only imagine what you've opened yourself up to. Social media has a dark side. I picture it as a school of sharks with a slab of meat thrown into their midst. On the bright side, you never know how, or when, your words might have a positive impact on someone. If you have the stamina, I say "put the smash down".[]
Chaoticoli Posted April 14, 2013 Author Posted April 14, 2013 THanks :)I wouldn't claim that they are rational, though. They have yet to make for anarchy being mob rule. They just keep posting historical articles and then saying condescending things like "Should I assume you know middle school-level history facts" ? Just a bunch of douches, honestly. Pretty happy I withdrew from posting again.
Steinhauser Posted April 14, 2013 Posted April 14, 2013 I applaud you getting out there and engaging people like that. It's something I've recently tried and failed to do. A week or two ago I decided to take my philosophy on the road, and put it to the test. I started posting in the "philosophy, politics, religion" section of another forum, to see if what I've been learning since I started listening to FDR could stand up to the scrutiny of the most ardent statists, Christians, collectivists, feminists, etc. What I found was that arguing from the conviction of truth was rather trivial - the truth tells itself, after all. No one could catch me in a contradiction, or make a point I couldn't (immediately, or eventually) refute. But I also found out that it's very demoralizing. What statists and (especially) feminists lack in debate ammo, they make up for in sheer numbers. Both reasoned and irate replies piled up and it soon became impossible to address every wrong-headed thing I read. Every morning I would post replies to several topics, then go to work and spend the next 8 hours agonizing over the possible counter-arguments I might have to overturn later. I began to put off checking the replies for longer intervals, and eventually fear made me stop altogether. I had the know-how to defend my convicitons, but not the courage to keep going back and doing it. This has happened to me before, and could very well be a flaw in my character. I don't know if anyone has had similar experiences. But what you're doing is very difficult for me, so I guess I'm saying, way to go. Keep it up, and even if you don't change anyone's mind, you're reaffirming your commitment to truth and strengthening your own resolve.
Robert Stempien Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 its important that you do two things, stay calm and rational as the other person gets pissed off(and they will, statist arguments are all emotional) and make sure that you have the last post of the argument, keep argueing with them until they give up. when other people read it it will make you and your position look better.
DaisyAnarchist Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 The most recent response from a Statist: "In the context of financial of social parameters. Being an anarchist is a lifestyle choice that has zero space for governmental bodies (no government is not a political opinion, just as being an atheist is not a religious preference), and is designed around the concept that either "I make all of my own decisions, everyone else be damned", or being governed by a complex set of ethical concepts that cannot be enforced by any person or organization that claims higher authority. .[1][3][1]{comment505287479536134_4660381}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3]]Either way, if you're stating that my opinion is inferior you're not a social anarchist, and if you're an individual anarchist you would still just have to accept the fact that I don't have to care about your opinion. Anarchy is loaded with thousands of logical fallacies, predominately paradoxes."Made me want to vomit. I know this was two months ago, but what were you trying to argue, in this specific case? Do you remember? I have some thoughts about debating statists online. 1) Remain civil, and keep in mind that many anarchists started out as disillusioned statists. I say this because I have a tendency to forget that I used to be in the same boat as statists, and now I'm trying to draw lines that are too thick between myself and the person I'm having a discussion with. It's humbling to remember that government propaganda is everywhere, and that finding anarchy was quite a process. Don't respond to personal attacks, and if the person becomes repetitive either with such attacks or just repetitive in their arguing points, discontinue arguing. It's not worth it. I can usually tell when someone's genuinely interested in hearing what I have to say about anarchy, even if they don't agree with that philosophy. That person is worth talking to. They may ask things like, "but how will that work?" or make comments like, "well, that sounds nice, but..." etc. That's the person that potentially could change their minds down the road. I would know, I was the minarchist who used to think, "well, I like these anarchy principles, but..." Now I'm an anarchist. 2) Remember the point(s) you're trying to make. That's why I asked what point you were trying to make with that post on facebook. It is not clear to me what you were arguing, although it is evident that the person either became defensive ("if you're stating that my opinion is inferior") or you resorted to belittling them. I don't think you would, but I don't have the context of that conversation. 3) The person you're arguing with ultimately convinces themselves what they want to believe. Don't try too hard. You're there to transport the arguing points, not to change minds. It might help your case to say, "anarchy is the belief that how you live your life is none of my business. I can't impose my belief about government on you, because I don't believe in having government." People usually respond positively to that, even if they start saying things like, "yeah that's nice, but in reality, you have to do x because of y." They're the ones arguing to impose their beliefs onto you. Point out that flaw, and you might make some progress. Or people might get angry. But, yeah.
Recommended Posts