I have had enough, I give up!

[PrincepsLupus]

Today I debated my last feminists, social justice warriors, liberal leftists or whatever you want to call them. I've realized now that you cant properly debate with these kinds of people. I was once again left hanging with the racist/sexist label.

 

Most of the debates with these kinds of people (I would say all, but I have had 2 exceptions in my whole life) have ended in the counter-party calling me a racist privilleged white male and that I should be ashamed of myself. This is said after they refuse to counter my arguments, and they make sure to leave quickly before I have the chance to respond. 

 

In the debate I engaged with today, I eventually asked a feminist if she was in favor of a system similar to the one used for "witch hunting", in rape cases. Essentially meaning that a woman could sentence a man to jail based on only her words. She said yes, and called me a rapist for not wanting to help women. Then she left.

 

This happens all too often. If I bring the point about women earning less on average due to different proffesions desired by women and men, I am called a sexist. If I oppose the immigration policies many European (including my own) countries are pursuing right now, I am called a racist. 

 

It seems that no matter what I do, If I am seen as their opposition, they just put a label on me and leave.

 

I will not bother trying to use logic on them anymore, for it seems to have little effect. Their main weapon is emotions, it is not possible to battle emotions with logic.

 

What can one do exactly? Just hope the damage they do in our society will go over quickly and hope for the best?

 

Politicians tend to use emotions as well. I cant really say that the economic stability in my country will be crushed by the huge influx of immigrants, when all they do is call me a racist and show some picture of struggling refugee children/women. 

 

This post seems like a rant by now, but I really have no clue on what to do with the issues in our society today. Adressing them using logic has failed, what else could work?

[Susana]

Hi, saw your post. I had a similar one a few months ago called "Socialism and Stef Bashing" and I’m not sure your background but I grew up surrounded by professional social justice warriors, i/e leftists, globalists and liberals.
But anyway a week after my post Stefan released a video/podcast which I can forward to you if you like where he point out:

"Why do you find yourself engaging with social justice warriors and communists" what is it about you? maybe like me you have an easy excuse to point to but that still does not answer the main dynamics. But for example what happened to these people in their childhood that they are feminists? Why dont people confront issues in their own life instead of starting charities or being collectivists, forcing other people to accept their point of view/mindset.

Also have you tried to keep it simple and exclusively stick to the "against me argument"

And I just read Real Time Relationships by Stefan and it was even better than I expected in terms of insight

[Alan C.]

People who ascribe to leftist worldviews (left-liberalism, progressivism, Marxism, socialism, communism) are as much of a threat to civilization as an asteroid impact or pandemic. If these people are not separated via social and economic ostracism, they will wreak economic devastation that will set back humanity by a century or more.

[PrincepsLupus]

Hi, saw your post. I had a similar one a few months ago called "Socialism and Stef Bashing" and I’m not sure your background but I grew up surrounded by professional social justice warriors, i/e leftists, globalists and liberals.

But anyway a week after my post Stefan released a video/podcast which I can forward to you if you like where he point out:

 

"Why do you find yourself engaging with social justice warriors and communists" what is it about you? maybe like me you have an easy excuse to point to but that still does not answer the main dynamics. But for example what happened to these people in their childhood that they are feminists? Why dont people confront issues in their own life instead of starting charities or being collectivists, forcing other people to accept their point of view/mindset.

 

Also have you tried to keep it simple and exclusively stick to the "against me argument"

And I just read Real Time Relationships by Stefan and it was even better than I expected in terms of insight

I also grew up in a very socialistic society, and still live in one today. I was told racism is bad, sexism is bad, globalism and equality is good, but all these things where taught without a context with it. So that when I grew up I would naturally have these words stick to me, and for many they would be terrified of having one of these words attached to themselves, no matter what reason the social justice warriors give.This really gives leftist liberals an edge when debating in an emotional state.

 

I dont like the "against me argument" as it makes it more personal, and eventually leads to an emotional debate instead of one based on logic.

 

I cant seem to find your old post, is "Socialism and Stef Bashing"  the title? I would be interested in the podcast as well if you can find it.

 

People who ascribe to leftist worldviews (left-liberalism, progressivism, Marxism, socialism, communism) are as much of a threat to civilization as an asteroid impact or pandemic. If these people are not separated via social and economic ostracism, they will wreak economic devastation that will set back humanity by a century or more.

 

You are correct, but we  cant really seperate them by force if we are to believe in pure capitalism. Instead, as we control our own bodies, we have the option to leave. This has the same outcome, we seperate ourselves from a community filled with socialists by leaving them in their own misery.

[Donnadogsoth]

Today I debated my last feminists, social justice warriors, liberal leftists or whatever you want to call them. I've realized now that you cant properly debate with these kinds of people. I was once again left hanging with the racist/sexist label.

 

Most of the debates with these kinds of people (I would say all, but I have had 2 exceptions in my whole life) have ended in the counter-party calling me a racist privilleged white male and that I should be ashamed of myself. This is said after they refuse to counter my arguments, and they make sure to leave quickly before I have the chance to respond. 

 

In the debate I engaged with today, I eventually asked a feminist if she was in favor of a system similar to the one used for "witch hunting", in rape cases. Essentially meaning that a woman could sentence a man to jail based on only her words. She said yes, and called me a rapist for not wanting to help women. Then she left.

 

This happens all too often. If I bring the point about women earning less on average due to different proffesions desired by women and men, I am called a sexist. If I oppose the immigration policies many European (including my own) countries are pursuing right now, I am called a racist. 

 

It seems that no matter what I do, If I am seen as their opposition, they just put a label on me and leave.

 

I will not bother trying to use logic on them anymore, for it seems to have little effect. Their main weapon is emotions, it is not possible to battle emotions with logic.

 

What can one do exactly? Just hope the damage they do in our society will go over quickly and hope for the best?

 

Politicians tend to use emotions as well. I cant really say that the economic stability in my country will be crushed by the huge influx of immigrants, when all they do is call me a racist and show some picture of struggling refugee children/women. 

 

This post seems like a rant by now, but I really have no clue on what to do with the issues in our society today. Adressing them using logic has failed, what else could work?

 

You're being confronted by stink-bugs.  When in doubt, a stink-bug sprays its stinky liquid in the direction of whatever caused it to doubt. 

 

In feminist terms, these are power-words that are similar a pheromone or primal marker.  They're attempting to smear their shit on you so that you will be ostracised and politically neutralised.

 

Aristotle:  logos, pathos, ethos.  They don't care about logos, all they are motivated by and use is pathos, and they are trying to destroy your ethos as viewed by wider society.  Or more correctly, they are using the feminine traits of intuition and guile, exploiting women's beauty in the eyes of men, and nurturing women and children in a honeypot to addict them to feminine presence.

 

The solution is to destroy their ethos.  As they are revealed for what they are, which is misandric, genocidal, homofascistic fanatics, their ethos in the eyes of the wider society will wane.

 

The main challenge today is not to engage the stink-bugs per se, but to understand the strategic situation.  That's why I talk about the femiblob:  we can't fight what we don't understand.  And you're on the right track in noticing that the problem is greater than feminists but encompasses everything, as I put it, eating at Western civ, including culture and traditions, and specifically trying to erase whites, men, heterosexuality, cisgenderism, and Christianity and the Christian heritage.  Understanding what exactly is attacking, and who exactly we imagine ourselves to be as counterattackers, will do wonders toward achieving actual social justice for our sovereign nation-states.

 

[Will Torbald]

If they have enough intelligence to understand logical arguments against them they just don't have enough integrity to change their mind. But there are only two options here. Either they can't understand logic, so you should just give up - or they can, and they have ulterior motives behind their position. In both cases it's impossible to persuade by argumentation. The only hope is to detect the motive, and target it directly. They will still want to insult you, but you'll actually hurt them back that way.

[A4E]

Trying to convince someone directly to disassociate with a tribe based on logical arguments is very unproductive. Not only are they 99.99999 % likely to stay in their tribe and attack you, but you wasted your time as well.

 

If it is public, and you refrain from ad hoc and other mudslinging. Then it has some value for other people even if it will not change the person you are talking to.

 

If it is a podcast, video, or article, then it has much more value, as people do not have to read or listen to the tribal member, and you have plenty of time to make your case as understandable as possible, to as many people as possible.

 

Having 'debates' with tribal members is the same as having a 'debate' with a fan of a soccer/football team. You want to cooperate with people to find the truth, while they want to make everyone else aware that their perspective of the world is the best, and right one. It is investigation VS conclusion. And those are incompatible.

 

Racism has been ostracized in society to the point where racists can typically only state their opinion in privacy. The same can be done to feminism.

[Coonage]

I think the only real solution here, is to win! Not against them mind you, not directly anyways. Just go out and: make more money, have a better career, a happier household, be in better shape, make that extra effort to be better than them in every way! 

Don't do this as a way "To show them up" rather, do these things in an effort to win this rat race we call life. "We" are competing against "them" for resources/space/life, and all you need to do to "beat them" is to be the better man, that they cannot.  Game on, eh!

[ClearConscience]

Today I debated my last feminists, social justice warriors, liberal leftists or whatever you want to call them. I've realized now that you cant properly debate with these kinds of people. I was once again left hanging with the racist/sexist label.

 

It's often best to try and reiterate their position back to them before you propose an alternative way of thinking. If you can show that you fully understand their previously held beliefs, in full detail, then you have demonstrated that you're not blindly following some emotional, hate filled, racist, sexist, anti-religion, ideology. The primary reason why people would form these types of judgments about your character is because they don't feel as though their position was heard. They think you rejected all of their ideas based on previously held prejudices. By reiterating their thoughts back to them, you can remove all doubt that this is the case.

 

Most of the debates with these kinds of people (I would say all, but I have had 2 exceptions in my whole life) have ended in the counter-party calling me a racist privilleged white male and that I should be ashamed of myself. This is said after they refuse to counter my arguments, and they make sure to leave quickly before I have the chance to respond. 

 

When people are introduced to ideas that challenge their previously held beliefs, they feel as though they are being attacked. A typical response to an attacker is to fight back or flee. You've just described both responses. They attacked your character, ad hominem, and then fled the situation. If you're actually interested in helping people, rather than simply winning, instead of establishing a "me vs. you" dichotomy within an argumentative structure, I would suggest trying to establish a conversation structure where you are taking their ideas as the foundation of a line of reasoning and showing where it goes wrong. Does it lead to a contradiction? Does it have a false premise? Or does their solution to a particular problem have unintended consequences that create additional problems? Then make a generic statement like, "Through my research, I found this to not be the case." or "I don't want to have contradicting beliefs." or "I want to ensure that our resolution benefits the most concerned." and then offer an alternative way of thinking that resolves these problems.

 

In the debate I engaged with today, I eventually asked a feminist if she was in favor of a system similar to the one used for "witch hunting", in rape cases. Essentially meaning that a woman could sentence a man to jail based on only her words. She said yes, and called me a rapist for not wanting to help women. Then she left.

 

This is a perfect opportunity to try to connect with her empathy. Demonstrate to her that you are very concerned with women being protected from dangerous rapists. You understand that some women live in fear of being attacked by men who have little to no concern for their well-being, and these men see women as objects to be conquered and trophies to be won. Tell her that living in this kind of fear is a terrible existence and we, as a society, need to work together to alleviate such fears. But then you ask her to see this from a well-intentioned man's perspective. If a woman is ashamed of her choices, feels criticized by her peers or family because of her sexual decisions, or feels resentment toward a man that she has slept with in the past, some very evil women, just like the evil men we discussed earlier, will use these rape laws to attack innocent men. And you believe that these innocent men matter just as much as the innocent women. And any policy that we make, as a society, should work toward the benefit of both men and women, and minimize the harm towards the innocent of both.

 

It seems that no matter what I do, If I am seen as their opposition, they just put a label on me and leave.

 

That's right, and this is true of most people, not just feminists, not just liberals. If you actually care about the people you're talking to, and care about their beliefs, then you're obligated to do your best to ensure they can't jump to the conclusion that you're an ideologue who hasn't carefully considered both sides. You need to demonstrate to them that you have.

[ClearConscience]

Today I debated my last feminists, social justice warriors, liberal leftists or whatever you want to call them. I've realized now that you cant properly debate with these kinds of people. I was once again left hanging with the racist/sexist label.

 

Most of the debates with these kinds of people (I would say all, but I have had 2 exceptions in my whole life) have ended in the counter-party calling me a racist privilleged white male and that I should be ashamed of myself. This is said after they refuse to counter my arguments, and they make sure to leave quickly before I have the chance to respond. 

 

In the debate I engaged with today, I eventually asked a feminist if she was in favor of a system similar to the one used for "witch hunting", in rape cases. Essentially meaning that a woman could sentence a man to jail based on only her words. She said yes, and called me a rapist for not wanting to help women. Then she left.

 

This happens all too often. If I bring the point about women earning less on average due to different proffesions desired by women and men, I am called a sexist. If I oppose the immigration policies many European (including my own) countries are pursuing right now, I am called a racist. 

 

It seems that no matter what I do, If I am seen as their opposition, they just put a label on me and leave.

 

I will not bother trying to use logic on them anymore, for it seems to have little effect. Their main weapon is emotions, it is not possible to battle emotions with logic.

 

What can one do exactly? Just hope the damage they do in our society will go over quickly and hope for the best?

 

Politicians tend to use emotions as well. I cant really say that the economic stability in my country will be crushed by the huge influx of immigrants, when all they do is call me a racist and show some picture of struggling refugee children/women. 

 

This post seems like a rant by now, but I really have no clue on what to do with the issues in our society today. Adressing them using logic has failed, what else could work?

You need to show that you understand their point of view before you offer a new one.  Say something like, "I agree that women need to be protected from predatory men.  There are men that exist in this world that see women as objects to be conquered and trophies to be won.  These psychopaths don't recognize that you and other women should be seen as no different from themselves, and should be treated as independent, autonomous, respectable people who have all the same needs, insecurities, hopes, and dreams as they do.  And because these crazy, psychopathic men exist in the world, our society needs to establish laws to protect women.  I am fully on board, and these concerns are absolutely necessary for our society to thrive.

 

Now, just for the moment, I would like to consider some unintended consequences of being overly concerned with the protection of women, where it can seriously damage the lives of well-intention, loving, socially-conscious men.  Just as there are men in this world that will exploit and harm women for their own gain, there are women who will do the same to men.  If we stray too far down the road of protecting the innocent, just, well-intentioned women, we enable the parasitic, aggressive, harmful, psychopathic women to harm the innocent, just, well-intentioned men.  There are women, who exist in this world, who will feel ashamed by social standards, their peers, and most importantly their families, for having consensual sex with innocent men.  There are women who exist in this world who will use the law against innocent men for their own benefit.  My only wish is that you acknowledge that these women exist, just as I have acknowledged that evil men exist, so that we may help protect all that are concerned."

 

Do you see the difference between my approach and what you likely said?

 

The purpose is to erase the separation between you and your adversary.  If you genuinely care about the person you're talking to, then you're obligated to abolish this contrived divide between one another.  You need to assume that you're both here, talking about this topic, because you genuinely care about the world that you're living in.  That means you're on the same team.  Say that explicitly.  I recognize that most people on this forum are not Christian, but I am.  I am not Christian because I was told to be.  I am Christian because the New Testament is chock-full of amazing lessons that you can use in everyday life.  Please read this with an open mind, because it's actually relevant to the topic.

 

"Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by [satan]! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” ~Mark 3:20-34

 

The purpose of the passage is to recognize that you and "your enemies" may share the same aim.  The most important thing for you to do is to recognize what both of your aims are, and demonstrate that you recognize that you are friends in this aim.  The debate is not about differing aims, but which path is best for accomplishing that aim.  If both parties recognize this simple fact, then there can be no false judgments.

I think the only real solution here, is to win! Not against them mind you, not directly anyways. Just go out and: make more money, have a better career, a happier household, be in better shape, make that extra effort to be better than them in every way! 

Don't do this as a way "To show them up" rather, do these things in an effort to win this rat race we call life. "We" are competing against "them" for resources/space/life, and all you need to do to "beat them" is to be the better man, that they cannot.  Game on, eh!

You were more successful because the patriarchy enabled you to be more successful.  The end.  This approach will not work at all.  it will do nothing but confirm their previously held beliefs.

[labmath2]

I find one thing that works effectively is to show how one viepoint they hold contradict snother one. This usually help separate evil from unreason. In the case of the person that think someone should go to jail just because one person accused them of rape, ask if innocent people not going to jail is important to them. I think the unreasoning masses will pause before trying to reason out how those two positions are compatible. However, someone that is evil will simply dismiss you.

 

Simply put, actions have consequence.

[Alan C.]

You are correct, but we cant really seperate them by force if we are to believe in pure capitalism. Instead, as we control our own bodies, we have the option to leave. This has the same outcome, we seperate ourselves from a community filled with socialists by leaving them in their own misery.

 

Social and economic ostracism doesn't involve force. It simply means dissociation.

[Susana]

Here was my post, still have to look at my podcast. It says you cannot recieve messages?

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44088-socialism-liberals-democrats-and-stefbashing/

[PrincepsLupus]

I find one thing that works effectively is to show how one viepoint they hold contradict snother one. This usually help separate evil from unreason. In the case of the person that think someone should go to jail just because one person accused them of rape, ask if innocent people not going to jail is important to them. I think the unreasoning masses will pause before trying to reason out how those two positions are compatible. However, someone that is evil will simply dismiss you.

 

Simply put, actions have consequence.

I did this, I showed 3 real cases where a man had been charged of rape, and the woman had eventually (months or even years after making the accusation) admitted to lying. 

 

When I did this she just said that being raped is worse so she would gladly accept a "few" men being wrongfully accused and imprisoned if rape victims got more power (this just sounds crazy, but it is the idea they tend to stick with). In one of the cases, the man even lost his right to see his children, even after the woman admitted to lying he had trouble getting his children back from child services.

 

I have tried the "I'm on your side" approach. Which consists of me pretending to support her/his viewpoint and intentionally making some absurd statements whilst still claiming to be on her/his side. An example would be me saying that the gender pay gap is a huge issue in todays world, and that we should fix it by restricting men's ability to get into certain careers that tend to give higher salaries. That men should only be allowed to work in low-pay jobs so that we can "balance" out the "uneven" gender pay scale. This often backfires though, and they actually follow me on the absurd "solutions". Another absurd solution would be creating extra taxes for white men, which I have recently discovered is being discussed in a serious manner by feminists. I actually feel that this approach does more harm than good based on my experiences.

 

Is there really a point in debating a mad cow? Should I just walk my own way (by that I am NOT reffering to mgtow) and let nature deal with it instead? We all know that social "paradises" collapses in predictable manners, as we have seen in previous historical societies. Should I just let this one fall?

[Will Torbald]

Is there really a point in debating a mad cow? Should I just walk my own way (by that I am NOT reffering to mgtow) and let nature deal with it instead? We all know that social "paradises" collapses in predictable manners, as we have seen in previous historical societies. Should I just let this one fall?

 

Have you asked yourself what are you gaining by arguing with these people? Do you know what do you seek to gain by winning? Have you showed them the benefits of rational thinking? These people aren't following arguments, they want benefits. Make the case for a better life without feminism.

[Sabras]

As a university student who's opinions stray away from those held by general public, I know exactly how you feel. I've been a part of such debates.

 

Starting my final year on the 25th, Although I'm nervous I am actually looking forward to the debates as I know they will involve some of the topics covered by FDR. I feel prepared and although I know I will end up being shouted at and labelled as a racist, misogynist bigot. My understanding is that once they start calling you names without any valid reason or justification, all it is, is mindless name calling and abuse.

[Donnadogsoth]

I did this, I showed 3 real cases where a man had been charged of rape, and the woman had eventually (months or even years after making the accusation) admitted to lying. 

 

When I did this she just said that being raped is worse so she would gladly accept a "few" men being wrongfully accused and imprisoned if rape victims got more power (this just sounds crazy, but it is the idea they tend to stick with). In one of the cases, the man even lost his right to see his children, even after the woman admitted to lying he had trouble getting his children back from child services.

 

I have tried the "I'm on your side" approach. Which consists of me pretending to support her/his viewpoint and intentionally making some absurd statements whilst still claiming to be on her/his side. An example would be me saying that the gender pay gap is a huge issue in todays world, and that we should fix it by restricting men's ability to get into certain careers that tend to give higher salaries. That men should only be allowed to work in low-pay jobs so that we can "balance" out the "uneven" gender pay scale. This often backfires though, and they actually follow me on the absurd "solutions". Another absurd solution would be creating extra taxes for white men, which I have recently discovered is being discussed in a serious manner by feminists. I actually feel that this approach does more harm than good based on my experiences.

 

Is there really a point in debating a mad cow? Should I just walk my own way (by that I am NOT reffering to mgtow) and let nature deal with it instead? We all know that social "paradises" collapses in predictable manners, as we have seen in previous historical societies. Should I just let this one fall?

 

You will never win over the mad cows, so why debate them?  As in any debate:  to appeal to the murky middle, the fence-sitters, the undecided, the neutral, the mildly-sympathetic or the mildly-unsympathetic observers.

[Sabras]

When I did this she just said that being raped is worse so she would gladly accept a "few" men being wrongfully accused and imprisoned if rape victims got more power (this just sounds crazy, but it is the idea they tend to stick with). In one of the cases, the man even lost his right to see his children, even after the woman admitted to lying he had trouble getting his children back from child services.

 

Quite of a predictable response from a person who most likely will believe their illusions no matter what. I'd say it's a waste of time to reason in attempt to persuade such people. However, even though you might not persuade or able to reason with this particular person, another person listening to such a debate may actually listen to reason and evidence. Also, I think it's a good practice to debate, even with the most annoying/ignorant people, you learn new ways of approaching the matter and prepare yourself for some of the arguments you might hear from the other side. It prepares you for debates with open-minded people who may not be a lost-cause.

 

Be strong my friend!