Posted on 05/30/2018 9:17:20 PM PDT by Kaslin
I don’t argue with liberals for several reasons, including the fact that as a trial lawyer I argue for a living so I expect to be paid for it, and the fact that I really don’t care what liberals think enough to try to change their minds. When I deal with them on Twitter and other social media, I just want to defeat them as I demonstrate to fellow conservatives that it’s okay to fight back. But some of you do argue with liberals, though I don’t get why. See, liberals don’t argue either, mostly because they know no one else will buy the ideological garbage they are peddling. Instead of a reasoned position, they will inevitably offer a cheesy simulacrum of an argument that consists of the kind of hack ploys that would embarrass a shyster in a polyester leisure suit doing shaky rear-ender cases out of his 1992 Corolla parked down by the dump because he can’t afford a van down by the river.
Liberals don’t argue in good faith because they can’t, and Normal people who don’t argue every day as part of their job often don’t see the argument grifts they are being side-swiped by. Normals are direct and honest folks, and often (though much less frequently than they used to since Normals began to get militant) they labor under the illusion that debates with liberals involve honest exchanges of facts and evidence that can lead people to change their minds. No. Liberal “argument’ is a bludgeon designed to beat you into submission with distraction and deception.
Let’s look as some of liberals’ favorite cheats, and how you can defeat them.
The Cheat: “Jesusplain Those Rubes!”
When in doubt, play the messiah card! It’s always a pleasure to have some atheist hipster explain to you how Christ was a socialist SJW who was ultra-open-minded about what bathroom people should use and who demands you give the government money so it can hand your cash over to deadbeats. I often wonder if this gambit ever works, if anyone ever thinks, “Gosh, I guess if @ImpeachTrumpHillarysHot says my Savior hates AR15s, then I better disarm myself in the face of liberal-enabled crime and liberal-supported tyranny.”
How to Beat It: You could explain the whole Christianity thing, but it’s easier to just tell the liberals to go pound sand.
The Cheat: “You are [Something Terrible] for thinking that!”
Racist, sexist, homophobic, Nickelback-loving – there’s not a slur or slander you won’t be called for standing up for the principles that made America great. But somewhere along the line, certain conservatives – let’s just say they tend to try to sell you cruises where you can mingle with the who’s who of the Fredocon elite – started trying to please liberals, seeking to prove that, “No, I’m not that horrible thing you just called me!” Big mistake. Of course, that never works. Liberals themselves are all of the things they call you, and they know it, and they don’t care, because their caring and concern and compassion for all the groups they accuse you of oppressing is just a pose. Watch how quickly they go from claiming you hate gay people to accusing you of being gay because calling a conservative gay is an insult that is supposed to blow our button-down bourgeois minds.
Let’s look as some of liberals’ favorite cheats, and how you can defeat them.
The Cheat: “Jesusplain Those Rubes!”
When in doubt, play the messiah card! It’s always a pleasure to have some atheist hipster explain to you how Christ was a socialist SJW who was ultra-open-minded about what bathroom people should use and who demands you give the government money so it can hand your cash over to deadbeats. I often wonder if this gambit ever works, if anyone ever thinks, “Gosh, I guess if @ImpeachTrumpHillarysHot says my Savior hates AR15s, then I better disarm myself in the face of liberal-enabled crime and liberal-supported tyranny.”
How to Beat It: You could explain the whole Christianity thing, but it’s easier to just tell the liberals to go pound sand.
The Cheat: “You are [Something Terrible] for thinking that!”
Racist, sexist, homophobic, Nickelback-loving – there’s not a slur or slander you won’t be called for standing up for the principles that made America great. But somewhere along the line, certain conservatives – let’s just say they tend to try to sell you cruises where you can mingle with the who’s who of the Fredocon elite – started trying to please liberals, seeking to prove that, “No, I’m not that horrible thing you just called me!” Big mistake. Of course, that never works. Liberals themselves are all of the things they call you, and they know it, and they don’t care, because their caring and concern and compassion for all the groups they accuse you of oppressing is just a pose. Watch how quickly they go from claiming you hate gay people to accusing you of being gay because calling a conservative gay is an insult that is supposed to blow our button-down bourgeois minds.
How to Beat It: You could explain that this is America and not some dwindling nation made up of emasculated Euroweenies with a flatlining birthrate, but it’s easier to just tell the liberals to go pound sand.
The Cheat: “Well, [Insert Huge Shameless Lie Here]!”
Facts are, apparently, for suckers. When in doubt, liberals lie, and then they lie again. Like on guns. Prominent liberals announce they want to repeal the Second Amendment and then huffy libs leap up to assert that, “No one wants to take your guns.” Gaslight better, people! At least try.
How many times have you heard how AR15s are “weapons of war” when no one ever uses them in wars? How many blue falcon Democrat vets have tried selling us on disarming by saying, “I carried a M16/M4 for a year and, for some reason, now I think I have the moral authority to tell you other Americans what self-defense tools you can and can’t have!” Okay, an AR15 is not a M16/M4. It just isn’t. Saying so means you are a liar, or too stupid to be talking about guns. And wait a minute – I was in 27 years. Shouldn’t I have even more moral authority to tell people that every citizen should have an AR15, or does this special “But I was in the Army!” moral authority only accrue to liberals?
Getting basic facts about guns wrong again and again is not a mistake – it’s a lie designed to mislead you. The same with TRUMP RUSSIA TREASON RUSSIA EMOLUMENTS RUSSIA TREASON STORMY TREASON. After almost two years of this hooey, they are still lying about evidence of collusion between Trump and Putin. There’s none about Trump but plenty showing the Obama/Clinton Cartel colluded with foreigners big time. But that’s apparently A-OK collusion. Facts, schmacts, it’s all about the narrative!
What does it say about an ideology that its proponents have to lie about what they really want? It says that if they know that if you know what they really want, you won’t have any of it.
How to Beat It: You could explain the truth, except we all know how that will go. It’s easier to get militant and tell the liberals to go pound sand.
you repeated it. Good maybe people will really read it.
” simulacrum “
—
Um. Is this simply an author, trying to show off, or is this article worth reading?
When the first paragraph contains a word like that, it makes me really, really wonder what the author is trying to do with the article.
simulacrum? Really?
[[I don’t argue with liberals for several reasons,]]
one- because in a battle of whits- it’s not nice to battle the unarmed
Although, upon reviewing the author a but, maybe he is aok.
But “Simulacrum”?
Really? :)
How about we stipulate that if you ever disagree with a conservative position on something, it must be due to racism or greed or some even more awful motive? Do you agree?
Question two:
How about we stipulate that all bad things that ever happened are the fault of people not following conservative principles, or not "doing it right" if they were trying to?
Question three:
How about we stipulate that the conservative point of view is the wave of the future, and disagreeing with it makes one behind the times, bigoted and/or ignorant?
Question four:
How about we stipulate that Science is always on the side of Conservative view points, no matter what the facts actually are if one investigates?
Question five:
How about we stipulate that any judgement made by a Judge that is inconstant with Conservative views is also Unconstitutional, and that Conservative principles supersede what the Constitution actually says and the intend of those that wrote it. Only the intent of Conservatives should count in what the Constitution means?
Question six:
So you refused to stipulate any of those things. I don't stipulate them either. Do you have any arguments you can make now?
“Jesusplanation” is a two edged sword. To get something, one has to give something too. A better answer might be on the order of well okay, the church isn’t close to being all it ought to be, and yet to try to get a secular government to do it, and that not even to the glory of God (that’s one they probably haven’t thought of), is to jump out of frying pan into fire.
Whatever you are debating a liberal on, know what their one debate point on the issue is and how to rebut it. Then when you've rebutted it and they try to change the subject without conceding the point, don't let them. Don't let them off the hook until they've conceded the point, burst into tears, or stomp off in a rage, at which point you've won the debate.
This succeeds because liberals have no intellectual depth. They have one talking point per issue that works on the uninformed or easily flustered. Once you crush that, they got nothing. Works every time.
i.e. do they really want the government in the churching business....
Best advice: do not argue with liberals.
The religious arguments are the hardest... but again, it’s a matter of the agent of the activities. And this is hard, because frankly I see so many CHURCHES saying “let the government do it.” That’s to throw in the towel on a God ordained means of gospel witness in exchange for saving the cost of a mess of soup kitchen pottage, or something like that. Literal good grief.
Libs and their ilk don’t really want debate. They want your unconditional surrender to their dictates. My response to their sneering idiocy is #SoWhat?
Completely disregard and reject their premises. It’s like whacking the thick papier mache piñatas they use for skulls and watching all the crazy spill out.
Here’s the problem — the centrists watching the debate. Rightists may successfully shut it out of their heads, but do it looking like a jerk, and you start losing others. Lose enough others and the political landscape goes where you do not want. We need better than this.
That is not a "$10 word." The author is thus not trying to "show off."
There are only so many different words for "counterfeit arguments."
Regards,
Excellent!
There IS such a thing as reusing a word that makes sense without trying to be all stylistic about it.
I don’t know about that.
I am not a sesquapedalian or anything, but I do ok when I’m trying.
I had (never), ever heard that word before reading him write that.
I swear. Anywhere.
I admit the guy has credentials to use it. But it’s confusing.
:)
I hadn't ever heard that word before today. Highlight and search. Now I've "heard" it and know what it means.
In my mind I'm now just a little bit better off than when I started the day. And it's early yet.
Tip'o'the hat to Mr Schlichter, I sez. d;^)
It is pointless. You can lead them down a step by step rational path with which they will nod their head and concur every step of the way and then 24 hours later they will pretend it never happened. I hear there was a book written decades ago that pointed this out so it isn’t a new thing.
That's what Solomon advised. If you argue with a fool, someone overhearing will not know which is which.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.