Update: Debating SJWs

[plato85]

An update on my quest to bring SJWs to reason.

I haven't managed to bring any across yet but I am developing quite a knack of defeating their arguments quickly, so I'll share some basics.

 

• They see truth as relative, which means to them truth moves around from your point of view, which makes them very difficult to reason with.
• They use relativist language, including strange definitions for many words, which means you'll argue in circles for a long time until you figure out they're talking about something entirely different. It's very important to keep an eye out for these words and try to define your words early or use different words.
• They struggle with categories. For instance "you're against immigration, Hitler was against immigration, therefore you're in favour of genocide." They make these categorical errors all the time and they're really easy to pick up on, and back them into a corner.
• They value people over truth. They base their morals around people and then come up with truth later, as opposed basing their morals on truth. I suspect this is why defeating them in debate doesn't affect them much.
• They may be incredibly intelligent but that doesn't help them reason. They can turn all their intelligence against reason. It's almost like somebody has set their brain to work against them.
• "The ends justify the means" is a common phrase you'll find in socialist literature. We all tend to project our values onto other people, so while libertarians like to read our own values of honesty and liberty into other people, it may not be there. And SJWs tend to read deception and dishonesty into us. Truth and honesty is the best policy and a good weapon against all this nonsense. The means are the ends, and there's no point in winning the culture wars if we give this up.
• They are deeply authoritarian. They don't believe in liberal democracy and open debate. I have made a few of them openly admit it, and it horrifies me. They know full well that progressives are running society even though they'll argue it's the other way.
• The main goal of a SJW in debate is to make his opponent accept their sense of guilt, either for being alive, or for being successful. Refusing to accept their guilt turns them very nasty. Because they turn nasty, the vast majority will pay lip service to SJW guilt publicly. So in their mind SJWs are used to winning emotional arguments even though the vast majority people think they lost the debate on rational grounds. There may or may not be much use engaging an SJW on rational grounds, the emotional argument is more important. Merely refusing to accept SJW guilt and giving reason why not is not winning the emotional argument in SJW eyes. In their eyes it's like giving up and refusing to stand for morals at all. That is not to say that we should accept their sense of guilt as our own, we shouldn't. We need to find another way to appeal to their emotions to win the argument.
• If you can debate your way to underlying beliefs and get them to be honest about it, it is really abhorrent. It's a bit like the end of Atlas Shrugged when the bad characters are revealed for who they are. It is a lot like the way Stephen Hicks explains in this video:

 

 

 

[Pythias]

Thank you for sharing this information and video. It was very enlightening.  My son has succumbed to the post modernism philosophy, and as you mentioned is all about emotion. There is no debate. He reacts, then walks off in righteous indignation. No discussion end of conversation. 

The post modernists are getting violent (AntiFa) and we need a strategy to counter them. I believe the clock is ticking.

 

[plato85]

1 hour ago, Pythias said:

Thank you for sharing this information and video. It was very enlightening.  My son has succumbed to the post modernism philosophy, and as you mentioned is all about emotion. There is no debate. He reacts, then walks off in righteous indignation. No discussion end of conversation. 

The post modernists are getting violent (AntiFa) and we need a strategy to counter them. I believe the clock is ticking.

 

I completely agree the clock is ticking, and I haven't found a a successful strategy yet but I'll dedicate my life to finding one. Debating and arguing like adults doesn't seem to help.

My latest theory is, in simplest way of putting it the two mainstream outlooks:

Enlightenment outlook: Truth > Morals > Politics

Postmodern outlook: Identity > Morals > Truth > Politics

So discussing politics with someone with different morals that you is a waste of time, you need to address the different morals first. The post moderns see the world as 'us vs them' and their morals are based on their identity. i.e who they think they are.

So to bring someone post-modern across to reality, my theory is that we have to first challenge their 'identity', 'us vs them' outlook. I don't know how. I suspect they have assumed a 'group identity', in place of a weak sense of them self and who they are. So challenging their group identity might involve building up their self esteem first.

Good luck with your Son. Let me know how you go.

 

 

[Snafui]

You cannot reason with the irrational... you cannot change a belief, only an idea...

So, how do people change? Epigenetic alteration via nature: a change in environment from surplus to scarcity. Cut the freebies and they will have to focus on reality as it is and not their delusional what-if scenarios.

Part of the 'r-leaning' mentality is that things must change--it is a biological drive to try and change the world but what can one change when there is peace and prosperity? Reality itself must be wrong because something must change. They have been looking to change reality because their hobgoblins, nothing more than figments of their imagination, only exist when they alter data (lies), believe what is not true (delusions), and brand capital as sin (justification to cheat, rob, and steal). They are attempting to make their version of reality a reality to justify their existence--this is mass delusion. A mass delusion that is being supported by the MSM.

But when you build a house on sand it will eventually collapse... and when it does it will be brutal to watch--be prepared.

 

[plato85]

Don't expect reality to return anytime soon. Come the next crash they'll bring in helicopter money / universal basic income. That could keep the system going for another 20 years before John Galt takes over.