^

@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)

@TIDE The same way as what?

normies

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.

👍

im comfy

It is real /comfy hours/

You really are reddit, aren't you?

Like if you're just gonna say "but Kate Steinle" then they're just gonna counter that immigrants have lower crime rates and you're gonna be sitting there awkwardly

was gonna watch Planet of the Apes but its too late

😂 😂 😂

yeah I am *squints* Pardner Pizzagate

🤠 🍕

ones demeanor in argumentation is more important I think

if Kingfish is reddit, Ian is Voat

how things are said and how you look while saying them is almost more effective than the words themselves

@VinceChaos I'd prefer to think of myself as 2010 4chan /x/ cross /pol/, but I appreciate the compliment.

literally unheard of ? :^) :^)

I got bantzed on [dating app] by a blue eyed Amerindian who said I looked more native than her.

I think of you as a NERD