Mental Illness

Does arguing even work anymore? It doesn't seem like you can convince someone to your side if they are already on the opposite. Best you can hope for is someone undecided hears your argument and joins your 'side'

White people have been conned into arguing with each other while the ones that know arguing doesn't work flood the country with shitskins.

Arguing is for the weak. Think about why you argue. When you teach, it is so someone who wants to listen hears it and finds some utility out of it. On the other hand, you argue with someone that explicitly disagrees with you when you believe that they should think differently. Why? Either because it brings harm to you or because you want it to benefit them. Somehow you believe you have a responsibility to bring them this knowledge. You don't. No one does. I say this because I want to, not because I care if any of you faggots listen to me. Truth is, you'd be a lot better off using colors and sounds and smells to get people on your side than egghead logic.

glowies be losing arguments then trying to run shitty psyops like this lmao

there is no common layer to settle

yes but never in a group, you can only talk to one person ot its a speech

I just defend myself if someone calls me a retard. I’m not here on this earth to change minds

doesn't seem to work on most, people just don't give a shit. you've seen people getting bribed to make their minds about a serious medical decision with fries and candy 4 years ago. "come to the dark side - we have cookies".

Trump could rape a baby on tv live and his supporters would laugh and say he owned the libs making them mad

MUH DEBATE

Gender Dysmorphia

Gender Dysphoria.

It's not that we've conned, per se.
It's that we subconsciously hope that whatever problematic matters that are being discussed are ones that can solved without escalation, or violence.

It's more hopefulness than it is wool being pulled over our eyes.

Rather sad, truth be told. People have become soft.

I suffer with that same mental illness through all of my teens and twenties. I also hallucinated that people were equally as rational as I was.

theres different dialogue types that mediate an argument. you have to identify which youre in. otherwise you are both wasting your time.

(i read smthing like this in a book for smart niggas)

trying to turn this thread into something about trannies

shut up

don't try to pigeon hole this discussion into gender bullshit, leave it open as it's clearly intended to be.

Emotional appeals are the correct way. People don't use logic to inform their worldview, its only used to justify it after the fact.

Typically, almost never used a logical argument that's changed anyones mind. I think it only happened once, and it's because I had a chart on hand on my phone to show I was right, but even then, it took awhile for him to even agree to look at the chart, and he instantly dismissed it when he first saw it, and only when he asked chatGPT on his phone about the subject in question, did it confirm to him that I was right.

It's insane the amount of work you have to go through to show that your logical argument is in fact, logically correct. Most of the time I just get accusations that I'm the one using confirmation bias while they tell me their personal anecdote is correct in retaliation to my data.

I figure only maybe 10% of the population can actually use critical thinking consistently when dealing with arguments that oppose their own headcannon.

There is no such thing as an "undecided". They are just a coward who pretends to be undecided so they don't have to advertise their beliefs and defend them

Yes if people are arguing in good faith. Usually they're just defending their "team"

Only on fellow enhanced rationality autists.

this guy gets it

I don't know about that, but he could kill someone on fifth avenue.

Retard. Show me watche got.

Does arguing even work anymore

1) the instant you position yourself as antagonist causes them to dig in further
2) its a battle of sand grains. rarely is there even an A-HA moment where you have a fact or logic so sound it can shatter a preconceived idea or feeling. instead it requires piece by piece building over time to convince someone, even if its not just from you, but from multiple vectors all adding up
this is why the elites hate the internet. you can access thousands of facts to counter the most carefully laid narratives and chip away at them day by day until they fall apart

Depends on the individual. Find out immediately if the other person is interested in challenging his ideas and perspectives to potentially find something better or otherwise receptive to the truth. If they aren't, they just want confirmation bias and don't care about right or wrong or truth.

500 billion dollars for 1984 mass surveillance data centers

and he still has supporters.

Understanding this is what made me slip into a schizoid delirium of derealisation and maladaptive daydreaming to not have to put up with the stress of either being misunderstood or ostracised.

tries to use logic arguments on Anon Babble indepedent of beinf correct or no

80% board post are

kike

nigger

libtard

tranny

faggot

leftist

race traito

Sure ok imagine even take this board serious.
I literaly was more centrist even close to libertarian , and end up becoming more leftist lmao

Of course not
The last fifteen years of conservative political theory has been

look, leftists are being hypocritical! Look, look everybody! There's a logical inconsistency! That means we win!

Meanwhile the country is in the fucking toilet
Retarded republican dicksuckers don't get off easy either they're the ones selling out working people to nigger loving billionaires

After getting btfo in the logic thread who got mad and made this thread?

As much as I hate to admit, the left is right about debate. It is not real. It’s word games you play to tie up your opponents time and energy and maneuver yourself into a position where you have him at gunpoint.

To answer OPs question, it feels like we’re in the limbo period between reason and violence, in the context of “human beings have 2 ways of dealing with other: reason and violence”. Not only are Both sides firmly entrenched in their respective positions and will not budge, but there is now the added force of tribalism that keeps one entrenched. I don’t see the political conflict in the US ending without either violence or the total subjugation of one side by the other. Maybe if we got invaded or something and had to tribe up as one america, yeah maybe we might put all this behind this, but failing that, our politics will either turn into a bloodsport (kinda already is becoming one) or authoritarianism. And I’m starting to think authoritarianism isn’t a preference as much as it’s a natural consequence of a political divide of this magnitude.

But anyway, words don’t mean things anymore, debate isn’t real, and leftists really just want you dead. Good-faith debate ought to be reserved for your in-group, where you can be sure your debate partner shares values, goals, and first principles with you, can be reasoned with, and does not want you dead. This probably fits the template of the midwit meme lol.

There’s nothing left to debate.

glowies take another L to their ass

When you're arguing you're not trying to convince the other party. You're trying to convince the observing third party.
It works at least in my case.
The entire world has essentially flipped over to my worldview.

You can't convince the opponent, the people you convince are those who hear the conversation. Why isn't this just common knowledge?

I'm pretty sure this is how voting in american politics works too, you've got:
- All the democrats who never change their mind
- All the republicans who never change their mind
- Independent voters who decide the election after hearing the more logical argument

That's because almost everyone maintains a fake persona and you argue with that fake persona, not the real person. If you where to discuss with a real person, most of the time it would be more like "if you do this and this, people will take revenge on you" then you repeat it over and over, until it clicks.

I’ll add the caveat that when this debate takes place publicly, with spectators, the objective becomes to appeal to the spectators and change their minds. But even then, it’s not so much reason that wins anyone over, more like a game of optics, wit, dominance, sneaky fallacies, appeals to the audience’s sense of morality, etc.

don't care about right or wrong or truth.

Is this wrong? I've had sperg atheists screech about this when I told them straight up I didn't care and wouldn't want to know if Christianity was fake. I don't think it is but I wouldn't give up my cultural beliefs, religious community, family, my family's religion just to be "correct" on life not actually mattering. It wouldn't change my life for the better so why worry about it was my point of view.

Another good one, whenever I find myself slipping into a debate, usually online, sometimes offlines, I always ask them straightforward.

DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE MY OPINION?

Do you know a common response I get?

I DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK!

So argument is not a serious attempt to convert, or convince you, it's just an attack and you can find out very easily, just ask them straightforward if they are trying to convince you,

I've engaged with people knowing this to be true and still come away befuddled. I realize people are retarded, so instead of arguing with maga dude I try to future proof him. Get him to tell me something Trump could do that would make him lose support. His response is nothing at all. Trump is the hero of the Republic and he totally trusts him.

I realized arguing to convince an individual is pointless. The real purpose of arguing now is to convince neutral parties who might be listening to your side.

Bro who the fuck are these independent voters? What is their worldview? I want to slip into their mind and understand how they can vote blue one election, and red the next, when the two could not possibly be more diametrically opposed ideologically. It’s incredible. Are we sure they exist? Has one been spotted in the wild? Or are the conjectured/assumed to exist, like the ether, so the math of political/election models can make sense?

It must be the case that every election cycle we get a new crop of naive, virgin, wide-eyed independents who have just come of political age, while other independents differentiate permanently into left or right.

Yes, thats what I voted for. I hope Trump takes 40 muslim babies, and smashes their heads with a sledgehammer on live tv in front of Netanyahu

I'm technically independent as I hate republicans and democrats.

they're usually single-issue voters. they'll ignore everything else as long as a candidate gives them their ONE thing they want.

usually very self-absorbed and prone to impulsive actions.

Arguing is for cucks. People think what they see fit for them based on their own personal prejudices experiences ego and bias. The desire to get people on your side and agree with you is weak. It is nothing more than validation seeking. I have given up caring what other people think completelyand I no longer care if anybody agrees with me or not and I don't want to change anyone's mind about anything.

Can you give me an example of a single-issue voter’s issue of concern, where it’s conceivable he could vote blue one election, and red the next? Is there any overlap between parties on these issues, and have they ever flip flopped on them? If my issue is guns, for example, the republicans will always be far better on that than the left, and I’d vote straight red all the way down.

I’m guessing what issues fit the criteria above are not gonna be the main, popular things, but very niche concerns.

”technically”

Might you be an admirer of uncle mustache? That kind who “hates both parties?”

(((Arguing)))

It depends on the person and how open they are to being persuaded. There are people who will be willing to reform their deepest-held beliefs if someone presents an irrefutable argument, and there are people you could talk to until you're blue in the face who will continue to insist that 2 + 2 = 5.

Some good points. "Debate" started out as sophistry and more or less remained that throughout history. That is, knowing and using the tricks to make one's opponent look retarded. The best "debate" happens when people working on a common project that needs immediate results try to figure shit out, and then it's really another genre.
In reality, some conflicts just are existential, and no amount of word juggling will solve them. Like the jews and arabs, they will never have a compromise peace, this will only end when one side is crushed completely. Or it won't end. Reason is the slave of the passions. Only reddit cucks believe throwing logical statements back and forth changes this reality.