Message from @TIDE
Discord ID: 547282148131078144
Perhaps under different names and sentiments.
largely no-one cares if you have a well thought out argument tbh
I totally agree that these ideas can be mainstream. But there's also people like my parents who have a deep personal emotional barrier that just realistically cannot be crossed.
And I don't say that lightly. I think most people can be converted.
Then that is why you shouldn't keep repeating yourself if the endeavor is fruitless. 😀
"due ourselves and OUR POSTERITY"
in muh Constitution
by deep emotional barrier, do you just mean years of programming <:really:453005408064241674>
we're the exceptions
@TIDE No, that's not at all what I mean. My parents didn't even grow up with that programming.
And we need the exceptions because the exceptions are the smart ones.
Not denying that
@Jacob by your own definition most people are "brainlets", then - followers.
Like it or not, we won't win without "brainlets" tacit support.
brainlets rise up
it wasn't so long ago many of us were the same way too
There will become a critical mass where these values are held up by so many that the rest will simply accept them.
^
@Papa Pizzagate Oh I absolutely agree. I would never for a second claim that we don't need those people.
This is again why I prefer emotional arguments over logical ones. I see this as moral because we have the logical backing to our worldview. Your Coulters and Tuckers do this pretty well. Engage in emotional argumentation, but grounded in logic if you dig to the core.
Pathos > Logos
Feelings don't care about your ~~face~~ facts (lol)
we're winning the emotional battle and the logical battle
I was persuaded by facts, but I am... well... <:avtism:359037377919844352> <:avtism:359037377919844352>
@Papa Pizzagate Totally agree. At the same time it's great to know that we also have the facts on our side. They only have emotional arguments.
Feelings best for mass approach
argumentation at its core is really just attempting to make your opponent look dumb, which is supremely pathos
Okay here's the thing about the whole "emotions not facts" thing. Do a little experiment. Have a friend argue facts *and* emotions, while you argue emotions only. You're gonna end up sounding like an idiot tripping over basic questions.
I think this is a false dichotomy, that we need to choose facts OR emotions.
we weren't promising that you only go on baseless emotion lol
@Jacob well that kind of feeds into what I just said, it's good that we have both. The facts are on our side. If it comes to that we have them in our back pocket.
Claiming the moral high ground, and effectively convincing the watchers that you have the moral high ground, imo is how you get white normies on your side
You can start with an emotionally impactful argument and then follow it up with facts to back up the solution to the problem that you're positing.
@Wood-Ape - OK/MN As was I. I'd venture to say just about everyone here is neuro-atypical (not a bad thing). To arrive at the conclusions we have, one must have an inquisitive thirst for truth as well as process information very critically: IE - filter out propagandist bullshit - pardon my French, which has been fed to (many of) us since kindergarten.
match your opponent. use moral arguments when they do. counter their "facts" with your own
@TIDE Some people get that idea. If we keep pushing the idea that facts are dumb, *you* might understand that that's hyperbole, but not everyone does. Some people take it literally and they try to argue on emotions alone and end up making idiots of themselves when they can't respond to basic counters.
@Papa Pizzagate did you just call me an autist
id be curious to know how everyone scores on Big 5 personality traits
*avtist
Oh hey, fellas.
Having a nice night?
The thing about emotional arguments is that there's almost always a simple response to them. If you try arguing on emotion alone, you'll either go in an infinite circle, or you'll sound dumb when you can't answer a simple question.
👍