carolinqua Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 I live in Sweden, which is a country where you are so drilled in to learn to love statism when you are in school (and school is the only option for education as homeschooling is banned so everyone must do this) It has been EU election this Sunday, so I posted something in facebook and a couple of forums about why not to vote and referred to the youtube video about the truth of voting. I got very bad feed back on it, which i sort of expected, but i was hoping to get people to think, i think i failed completely. I very negative comments from both people I know well and people i think i should remove from my friends list, even when I layed out the facts in a contructive way. Its like these people have already decided there is only one way and suggesting otherwise is evil and crazy. I only know one single person in reality that is not agreeing with statism and taxes, and that is my husband, which feels kind of lonely. How do you deal with people like that?
meta Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 I live in France, the level of ridiculous statism and collectivism is comparable to yours i think. First I would recommend you to avoid facebook if you want to have serious talks.It is a fun platform but you will be flooded with troll and idiots typing fatser than you, because they often don't argument.You will probably find (I noticed it) that a lot of people have an emotional point of view, and are just too formatted to be constructive and rational. Beware of those people (they might be your friends, your family) because they will suck the living juice out of you, the juice of reason.Because those who are emotional with politics cannot let you make sense rationally.I believe that those people cannot be convinced, all we can do is try to initiate an internal questioning that will lead to interest and constructive behaviours. Which is a demanding endeavour.From this point there is two strategies i believe: -cut the link, by interrupting interactions on this type of platforms.-understand that another type of interaction probably fits better those platform. I find that trolling is the best weapon against aggressive people (trolls).The "trolling defence" consist of no constructive argumentation with a statist troll who is so convinced of being right that he won't listen to logic, because it would question his/her very existence.I just throw sentences, sometimes an analogy, a metaphor, but that is it. Concerning voting.I deal with those people by telling that: "if they want to delegate moral responsibility it is their choice, but don't pretend to be free when you choose your masters. " "believing in the fact that a bunch of people know what is good for millions is ridiculous"
dsayers Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 How do you deal with people like that? If it's somebody you care about, ask them, "Would you steal from me to buy something for yourself?" If not, "Would you hire somebody to steal from me to buy something for you?" If not, "Would you hire somebody to injure or kidnap me for disagreeing with you?" If the answer to any of these questions is yes, I would recommend cutting that person out of your life.
jpahmad Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 If it's somebody you care about, ask them, "Would you steal from me to buy something for yourself?" If not, "Would you hire somebody to steal from me to buy something for you?" If not, "Would you hire somebody to injure or kidnap me for disagreeing with you?" If the answer to any of these questions is yes, I would recommend cutting that person out of your life. Has anyone said "yes" to those quesitons for you dsayers?
Wesley Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 Has anyone said "yes" to those quesitons for you dsayers? I have had people say yes to me when responding to similar questions, including my own mother.
jpahmad Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 I have had people say yes to me when responding to similar questions, including my own mother. Holy cow! Which one of the questions? Was it a conditional "yes" or just a straight up "yes?"
Wesley Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 In that particular instance, I asked if she would advocate violence against me for disagreeing with her. She said no. I then pointed out that if you think that the state can have laws and taxes and you advocate those things, then it is advocating use of violence. (Delay several moments with stupid arguments to let the point sink in). Then my mother decides that since I have the option to leave, then violence can be used against me. Nevermind that I would justly own my land, have family and friends and stuff. Since I decide to be in the country, then violence is acceptable. I tried to express my horror, but I could not and my mother did not understand. I then was horrified and went up to my room for I had no idea what to say. Silly me to assume that my mother would never have advocated such things against me.
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 Then my mother decides that since I have the option to leave, then violence can be used against me. Which option is that?
Wesley Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 Which option is that? It is the option of submission to violence. So if I enter someone's house and give them the option to leave the house or give me all their money or else I will shoot them, then it is ok because I can avoid the violence by leaving the house. At the time, I didn't exactly use the best argumentation because of my emotional reaction to what was going on and how disgusting it was to me.
stigskog Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 Hi Carolinqua is my wife - lucky me and i've followed her facebook discussion. The responses were ..... (get ready for a surprise) 1. but, I like free shit 2. Why don't you leave then? 3. but taxation isn't violence, you would need to really provoke the police first, and then you would probably deserve it. 4. but, if you don't vote, you don't have any influence.. 5. but, if the state won't do it then it wont happen.. edit: 6. somalia..........
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 So if I enter someone's house and give them the option to leave the house or give me all their money or else I will shoot them, then it is ok because I can avoid the violence by leaving the house. Right, but how is that analogous to leaving the country? Has she or have you ever tried to move to another country? It's a little more extensive than simply "an option to leave".
Kevin Beal Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 Just very generally I take the approach of starting with something like "I know this will probably sound crazy, but I've been thinking a lot about X" and make some brief case. And after they make some kind of snarky dismissive comment, I've already put forward that qualifier and the argument, so the onus is entirely on them, so you can challenge them with "I'm happy to hear counter argument or counter evidence". I might add something like "but, please, spare me the snarky dismissive bulshit" if it's relentless or really offensive.
dsayers Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Then my mother decides that since I have the option to leave, then violence can be used against me. This begs the question. While considering whether a behavior is moral, it assumes it is moral, placing the responsibility on the recipient. As I type, literally every human being on the planet is out of my arm's reach, but this wouldn't mean that punching somebody in the face is therefore moral. I am so sorry to hear that the person that brought you into this world is okay with other people harming you for disagreeing with them Right, but how is that analogous to leaving the country? Has she or have you ever tried to move to another country? It's a little more extensive than simply "an option to leave". Not to mention it's an outright fallacy. If you try to leave the country, they will detain you, steal from you, etc. According to the UN, everybody must belong to a country, so it's a distinction without a difference.
Wesley Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 @Dylan, I know the ideas are irrational and emotionally troubling to say the least, thus I have no particular desire to defend them against criticism. @dsayers, I appreciate the sympathy.
meta Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 @stigskog Beware of those people, if they troll your concerns with simplistic statements as you mentionned, I would reply with the same kind of simplistic statement, like i mentionned in my previous answer. Will it be my family or my friends, people have been throwing this kind of stuff to me for years.I don't respect those attitudes anymore, because they don't respect logic.And I realised that my constent effort to debate constructively was sometimes pointless.Don't waste your energy.I have been explaining my views for years to some people, who still reply with stupid stuff. I have grown to realise that you cannot convince some people, you can only initiate questionning within their views of the world. Hoping they will be intereted in understanding the world.Before I was always debating, now i just troll those people. There is no point giving arguments to someone who is emotionnal and doesn't use logic.
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Not to mention it's an outright fallacy. If you try to leave the country, they will detain you, steal from you, etc. According to the UN, everybody must belong to a country, so it's a distinction without a difference. I was actually referring more to entering another country. If you try to stay there, you can't work and will be forced to leave.
Recommended Posts