Perhaps the key to defeating the Rediots is to play along with their statements by agreeing with them, then logically advance their statements to the point of outright absurdity. It would be fun to see how long you could keep them agreeing with you.
Exactly. This is the easiest way to refute ANY and ALL climate change stupidity. Lefty logic is almost ALWAYS circular and/or linear. Their inability to understand even the most basic concept of temporal oscillation makes them both dangerous and hyper-vulnerable at the exact same time. We will call it Retardio ad Droolium (retarded to the point of drooling). That is why they have had no choice but to master the non-cerebral fallacious defense Appeal to Emotion. They have ZERO evidence of anything, so they have to scare the shit out of you.
Wear that mask OR you'll kill Me-Maw!!!
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!
HOW CAN YOU BE SO CALOUS, HEARTLESS AND NARROW MINDED!!!
THE WHITE MAN STOLE THE LAND FROM THE INDIANS ... THIS COUNTRY IS EVIL AND ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE!!!
...
AND the Sleepy Joe pimpin' the dead son tactic:
Citizen: "You voted for the endless wars"
SJ: "My son was a soldier and he died ... you don't come after my family Jack .."
Citizen: "What? No one said anything about your son ... I'm sorry that happened to you, BUT ..."
SJ: "Don't you dare talk about my dead son ... ***drool ***"
That's how to talk to normies. Push the envelope into absurdity with every one of their assumptions.
"I got the vaccine!"
"Cool, is it FDA approved now?"
"No."
"Oh, did you get paid for that?"
"No."
"Weird, I thought experimental treatments pay. Well, at least now you don't have to wear a mask or worry about unmasked, unvaxxed people -- you're immune right?"
"No."
"Hmmm, what's the benefit then?"
"I can travel now."
"Nice, but that's weird. Why are they pushing the vax so hard? It's hard to trust something being crammed down our throats. Don't ya think?"
The fact that they banned "red pilling" is hilarious to me. They think red = republican, so therefore it's banned. What is the Matrix? Take the blue pill! Go to sleep.
e. The original thread is literally just them throwing strawmen arguments and ad hominem at you in long drawn out paragraphs. lmfao. Top post is "le nazi" strawman, but last I checked the brown shirts didn't sit and do nothing. "I used to be conservative " is a very common lie on Reddit.
Their whole basis and justification of the censorship happening is that it is clear that the public is too dumb to figure out what is happening by getting both sides of the argument and must be restricted to the watered down and oversimplified explanations of the so called "experts". When I grew up noone would have carried such an authoritarian notion in their head but here we are. That's how successful they have been at this braimwashing. Thankfully, I believe not succesful enoughm
Lolol, that subreddit is always complaining about how we at GA.win ban any wrong-thought and refuse to allow anyone with opposing views express their opinion.
Who woulda thought, libs accusing us of what they are guilty of. Seems to be a sort of trend...
Got an old account, I'm going to grey-pill them. Just coined that term, it means I'll drop tidbits off info while agreeing with them, but I'm sure it'll shoosh pass their hollow brain. And see how quickly I get ban or when I get bored.
There is a subtle difference between joining in a conversation and offering up your opinions whether they agree/disagree with the prevailing opinion versus entering a conversation with an attitude of 'I am going to tell all of you idiots exactly why you are wrong.'
With all due respect, that does not look like the Socratic Method to me.
If I am reading it right, you came out of the gate with an insult with, "You guys seem to get a lot of stuff incorrect."
Socrates would have never done that. The Socratic Method is to first agree, and then ask questions to drill down to their core beliefs.
When 2 (or more) people disagree on a topic, it usually is not that topic where they disagree. It is ususally in their unstated premises -- things they fundamentally believe in, but do not specifically state. We all have these premises, and we use those to arrive at conclusions.
Premise: Some fruits are apples.
Premise: Some apples are red.
Conclusion: Some fruits are red.
Premise: All A's are also B's.
Premise: All B's are also C's.
Conclusion: All A's are also C's.
Premise: All apples are fruits.
Premise: All apples are red. <--- false premise
Conclusion: All fruits are red. <--- false conclusion
Socrates would drill down past the surface topic (the conclusion) and find out what the person's premises were, which always had some sort of flaw, and once he focused on that, the people would get horribly irate.
If you want to see this in action, with politicians, check out some of Jan Helfeld's interviews on YouTube. He has interviewed Pelosi, Biden, and many others. Most of them get angry. One guy threatened to throw him out a window.
Helfeld asked Pelosi about minimum wage. Of course, she said she supported minimum wage laws and they should be higher amounts. Then, he asked her about her interns. She told him about the interns. He asked her if the interns get paid minimum wage or more. Of course, they don't get paid anything or if they do it is less than minimum wage.
So then, he said, "Well, you just said you believe in minimum wage, but you don't pay your interns minimum wage." That's when she got PISSED!
You see, he did not disagree with her. He simply pointed out her own hypocracy, and that is what made her angry. She could not reconcile two conflicting ideas, even though they were both her own ideas. So, she got angry at the person asking the questions.
It is designed to make people think, but even more to point out their own flaws in thinking.
Most people do not think about WHY they believe in something. They have accepted premises without critical thought, and then arrived at conclusions based on it.
We see it with the maked people every day. They believe in the premise "masks will keep you and/or others safe from viruses" and they conclude they should wear a mask and you should, too. But their premise is false, which means their conclusion may also be false (technically, it is not a "false conclusion," but an "unsound argument" which might be false -- in this case, it is).
Here is that interview -- notice that Helfeld never disagrees with Pelosi. He never says she is wrong. He just asks her to explain her position, and she works herself in a pretzel trying to justify her own hypocracy:
Daniel Inoyue, senator from Hawaii, shows the mind of a true psychopath, proving he has no idea what the Constitution says or the proper role of government:
In all of these, Helfeld demonstrates the Socratic Method. People who are really interested in learning things will often have an "ahah!" moment when this method is directed at them. People who refuse to learn anything new will have a meltdown when their premises (that they might not even understand) are challenged by their own ideas.
This was an outstanding explanation on Socratic Method, Fren. Highly impressed, as you hit every hot button down the list required to hit. Well done....well done indeed.
This is infuriating. I'd like to see one of these pussies step out from behind their keyboard and explain to a victim of child sex trafficking why they need a trigger warning to talk about what that child actually experienced.
What I don't get is, these video testimonies of child sex slavery victims are all over the internet including Youtube. Do they just refuse to watch them or something? I saw several of Clinton's sex slaves... I once linked a video of ITNJ council to an angry guy on thedonald.win and he refused to watch it. Said "it's just a random woman talking."
I had to stop after a few replies. It truly is "pearls before swine"; they cycle from outrage and personal attacks to faux-concern and back again. No citations, no links to any genuine rebuttals (because there are none), just an endless stream of projection and misdirection.
That was a great analogy about Saddam, by the way. Really puts things in perspective.
Indeed, though they hardly ever kept up the narrative, they just ban those who question it so it looks like everyone agrees.
I'm genuinely curious what "They lost their biggest talking point and seem ready to fracture." means. It's probably similar to when a huge Q proof drops right on time like Myanmar or the many others over the years and the doomers and shills go "Qanon goes down in flames as Qtards realize the movement is bullshit." Desperate to make a proof look like the opposite so they go for the ad nauseum, confidently wrong assertions.
My favorite shill meme was back on Voat when the shills spammed Truman holding up the newspaper saying "QANON IS FUCKING BULLSHIT!" not realizing the irony of the meme, that its meant to mock the shills and not us Qtards/Qboomers/Qcumbers/Qanonsense folk
I was a little disappointed that he spent so much time talking about the 19,500 vote switch, would could be explained as an error in reporting, and then corrected (the audit might tell the full story there :) ). What did stand out is how the people on the opposite side are virtually slaves of MSM propaganda. I think they may still believe the MSM lies even if all the evidence is injected into them.
This was a calm and rational explanation as to why somebody would believe there is election fraud. There is no insulting, no arrogance, and no bad attitude shown here. And this discussion got banned anyways.
The attempt to hide information as it comes out is becoming harder and harder, and that Arizona adjudication DB deletion is a major redpill. This will not end here.
"It ends up giving them a platform to steer people their way"
Ahh, so in other words mods believe they should be able to dictate how people think, and not allow them to make their own decisions based on arguments opposing their views.
can you please explain the reaosn they would have for nuking this? What the comment in red says is perfectly cordial and pleasant and simply outlines sensibly his worldview. How can this be triggering or dangerous? It's just insane they would nuke it.
It's just beyond belief. If the roles were reversed and the left kept banging on about how HRC's win was stolen via massive fraud, and someone posted calmly the reasons they believe it to be so in an AMA, I would genuinely like to listen and see why they think this, even if I think it's silly.
But they cannot so the same with Q? Even if they think its a giant LARP? Just proves the brainwashing, non-critically thinking MK ULtra stuff has really screwed these people up beyond all imagining.
The movie THANK YOU FOR SMOKING had a great moment like this: a good debater doesn't try to win over their debate partner (because they're automatically guarded, on the defensive), but rather tries to win over the debate audience instead.
Perhaps the key to defeating the Rediots is to play along with their statements by agreeing with them, then logically advance their statements to the point of outright absurdity. It would be fun to see how long you could keep them agreeing with you.
Karma got that cunt, now she's banned from the free world.
Probably gonna be banned from life here soon.
Thank you digital soldier.
I got banned from my local city sub for posting interviews I did with people on the topic of masks.
The Socratic method, basically.
You can lead a leftist to logic but you can’t make xir think
Reductio ad absurdum
Exactly. This is the easiest way to refute ANY and ALL climate change stupidity. Lefty logic is almost ALWAYS circular and/or linear. Their inability to understand even the most basic concept of temporal oscillation makes them both dangerous and hyper-vulnerable at the exact same time. We will call it Retardio ad Droolium (retarded to the point of drooling). That is why they have had no choice but to master the non-cerebral fallacious defense Appeal to Emotion. They have ZERO evidence of anything, so they have to scare the shit out of you.
Wear that mask OR you'll kill Me-Maw!!!
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!
HOW CAN YOU BE SO CALOUS, HEARTLESS AND NARROW MINDED!!!
THE WHITE MAN STOLE THE LAND FROM THE INDIANS ... THIS COUNTRY IS EVIL AND ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE!!!
... AND the Sleepy Joe pimpin' the dead son tactic: Citizen: "You voted for the endless wars" SJ: "My son was a soldier and he died ... you don't come after my family Jack .." Citizen: "What? No one said anything about your son ... I'm sorry that happened to you, BUT ..." SJ: "Don't you dare talk about my dead son ... ***drool ***"
Sorry 1Markseeker...Great minds apparently.
<thumb up>
Reductio ad absurdum.
That's how to talk to normies. Push the envelope into absurdity with every one of their assumptions.
"I got the vaccine!"
"Cool, is it FDA approved now?"
"No."
"Oh, did you get paid for that?"
"No."
"Weird, I thought experimental treatments pay. Well, at least now you don't have to wear a mask or worry about unmasked, unvaxxed people -- you're immune right?"
"No."
"Hmmm, what's the benefit then?"
"I can travel now."
"Nice, but that's weird. Why are they pushing the vax so hard? It's hard to trust something being crammed down our throats. Don't ya think?"
The fact that they banned "red pilling" is hilarious to me. They think red = republican, so therefore it's banned. What is the Matrix? Take the blue pill! Go to sleep.
e. The original thread is literally just them throwing strawmen arguments and ad hominem at you in long drawn out paragraphs. lmfao. Top post is "le nazi" strawman, but last I checked the brown shirts didn't sit and do nothing. "I used to be conservative " is a very common lie on Reddit.
"Then I became a woman.."
LOL all they want is an echo chamber to protect their precious confirmation bias.
What a bunch of pussy ass bitches.
Good work, fren!
At this point I suspect a lot of it is CCP shills and bots howling into the wind. Astroturfing.
Streisand Effect.
Have you ever posted anything contrarian on this site? AFAF
Of course, I'm a non-believer amongst what appears to be mostly Christians here.
Perhaps they don't really want to find out what's going on.
If the normies were smart ...and I say “if” then they would question their Qult Headquarters censorship.
The narrative that “any” posts that try to red-pill will be banned is just pure censorship.
What happened to debate? Since when are non threatening ideas censored in our countries?
If the normies fall for this...they deserve the fallout. They will be agreeing with their Furhers all the way to the rail cars.
It happened before it can happen again.
Reddit is cancer.
Basically they are saying that redpilling attempts work and they are terrified of that.
Their whole basis and justification of the censorship happening is that it is clear that the public is too dumb to figure out what is happening by getting both sides of the argument and must be restricted to the watered down and oversimplified explanations of the so called "experts". When I grew up noone would have carried such an authoritarian notion in their head but here we are. That's how successful they have been at this braimwashing. Thankfully, I believe not succesful enoughm
The truth must terrify them.
Lolol, that subreddit is always complaining about how we at GA.win ban any wrong-thought and refuse to allow anyone with opposing views express their opinion.
Who woulda thought, libs accusing us of what they are guilty of. Seems to be a sort of trend...
Get a basic education on what you're talking about before you start spewing nonsense? No, no, that too, is threatening to their entire worldview.
Got an old account, I'm going to grey-pill them. Just coined that term, it means I'll drop tidbits off info while agreeing with them, but I'm sure it'll shoosh pass their hollow brain. And see how quickly I get ban or when I get bored.
Thanq for the tip fren
There is a subtle difference between joining in a conversation and offering up your opinions whether they agree/disagree with the prevailing opinion versus entering a conversation with an attitude of 'I am going to tell all of you idiots exactly why you are wrong.'
With all due respect, that does not look like the Socratic Method to me.
If I am reading it right, you came out of the gate with an insult with, "You guys seem to get a lot of stuff incorrect."
Socrates would have never done that. The Socratic Method is to first agree, and then ask questions to drill down to their core beliefs.
When 2 (or more) people disagree on a topic, it usually is not that topic where they disagree. It is ususally in their unstated premises -- things they fundamentally believe in, but do not specifically state. We all have these premises, and we use those to arrive at conclusions.
Premise: Some fruits are apples.
Premise: Some apples are red.
Conclusion: Some fruits are red.
Premise: All A's are also B's.
Premise: All B's are also C's.
Conclusion: All A's are also C's.
Premise: All apples are fruits.
Premise: All apples are red. <--- false premise
Conclusion: All fruits are red. <--- false conclusion
Socrates would drill down past the surface topic (the conclusion) and find out what the person's premises were, which always had some sort of flaw, and once he focused on that, the people would get horribly irate.
If you want to see this in action, with politicians, check out some of Jan Helfeld's interviews on YouTube. He has interviewed Pelosi, Biden, and many others. Most of them get angry. One guy threatened to throw him out a window.
Helfeld asked Pelosi about minimum wage. Of course, she said she supported minimum wage laws and they should be higher amounts. Then, he asked her about her interns. She told him about the interns. He asked her if the interns get paid minimum wage or more. Of course, they don't get paid anything or if they do it is less than minimum wage.
So then, he said, "Well, you just said you believe in minimum wage, but you don't pay your interns minimum wage." That's when she got PISSED!
You see, he did not disagree with her. He simply pointed out her own hypocracy, and that is what made her angry. She could not reconcile two conflicting ideas, even though they were both her own ideas. So, she got angry at the person asking the questions.
It is designed to make people think, but even more to point out their own flaws in thinking.
Most people do not think about WHY they believe in something. They have accepted premises without critical thought, and then arrived at conclusions based on it.
We see it with the maked people every day. They believe in the premise "masks will keep you and/or others safe from viruses" and they conclude they should wear a mask and you should, too. But their premise is false, which means their conclusion may also be false (technically, it is not a "false conclusion," but an "unsound argument" which might be false -- in this case, it is).
Here is that interview -- notice that Helfeld never disagrees with Pelosi. He never says she is wrong. He just asks her to explain her position, and she works herself in a pretzel trying to justify her own hypocracy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pFC3LKMIQo
George Stephanopolos's hypcracy on race issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdkf2ySoFc8
Pete Stark wants to throw him out the window when he can't justify his viewpoints:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0
Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico, proves to be one of the stupidest humans on Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAY_hHGKL4M
Daniel Inoyue, senator from Hawaii, shows the mind of a true psychopath, proving he has no idea what the Constitution says or the proper role of government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZxrYEuY-Pw
Surprisingly, Joe Biden was one of the smartest politicians he ever interviewed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HcJJE2Sp28
In all of these, Helfeld demonstrates the Socratic Method. People who are really interested in learning things will often have an "ahah!" moment when this method is directed at them. People who refuse to learn anything new will have a meltdown when their premises (that they might not even understand) are challenged by their own ideas.
This was an outstanding explanation on Socratic Method, Fren. Highly impressed, as you hit every hot button down the list required to hit. Well done....well done indeed.
This is infuriating. I'd like to see one of these pussies step out from behind their keyboard and explain to a victim of child sex trafficking why they need a trigger warning to talk about what that child actually experienced.
What I don't get is, these video testimonies of child sex slavery victims are all over the internet including Youtube. Do they just refuse to watch them or something? I saw several of Clinton's sex slaves... I once linked a video of ITNJ council to an angry guy on thedonald.win and he refused to watch it. Said "it's just a random woman talking."
what a bunch of fags.
Archive link from the post: https://archive.is/LU5y2
I had to stop after a few replies. It truly is "pearls before swine"; they cycle from outrage and personal attacks to faux-concern and back again. No citations, no links to any genuine rebuttals (because there are none), just an endless stream of projection and misdirection.
That was a great analogy about Saddam, by the way. Really puts things in perspective.
Since we are talking about the top minds, is anyone actually losing their mind over the new CDC guidance or are the top minds desperate to have their worldview confirmed? https://www.reddit.com/r/Qult_Headquarters/comments/nc8xzs/the_q_people_dont_know_what_to_make_of_the_cdc/?sort=controversial
Indeed, though they hardly ever kept up the narrative, they just ban those who question it so it looks like everyone agrees.
I'm genuinely curious what "They lost their biggest talking point and seem ready to fracture." means. It's probably similar to when a huge Q proof drops right on time like Myanmar or the many others over the years and the doomers and shills go "Qanon goes down in flames as Qtards realize the movement is bullshit." Desperate to make a proof look like the opposite so they go for the ad nauseum, confidently wrong assertions.
My favorite shill meme was back on Voat when the shills spammed Truman holding up the newspaper saying "QANON IS FUCKING BULLSHIT!" not realizing the irony of the meme, that its meant to mock the shills and not us Qtards/Qboomers/Qcumbers/Qanonsense folk
They won't know what to do when the Q OP goes green.
I was a little disappointed that he spent so much time talking about the 19,500 vote switch, would could be explained as an error in reporting, and then corrected (the audit might tell the full story there :) ). What did stand out is how the people on the opposite side are virtually slaves of MSM propaganda. I think they may still believe the MSM lies even if all the evidence is injected into them.
This was a calm and rational explanation as to why somebody would believe there is election fraud. There is no insulting, no arrogance, and no bad attitude shown here. And this discussion got banned anyways.
The attempt to hide information as it comes out is becoming harder and harder, and that Arizona adjudication DB deletion is a major redpill. This will not end here.
Can we see the deleted comments? Was it something like removereddit?
The Reddit peeps are not worth saving. Many of them are too far gone.
"It ends up giving them a platform to steer people their way"
Ahh, so in other words mods believe they should be able to dictate how people think, and not allow them to make their own decisions based on arguments opposing their views.
I hope that person gets dragged by a horse.
can you please explain the reaosn they would have for nuking this? What the comment in red says is perfectly cordial and pleasant and simply outlines sensibly his worldview. How can this be triggering or dangerous? It's just insane they would nuke it.
It's just beyond belief. If the roles were reversed and the left kept banging on about how HRC's win was stolen via massive fraud, and someone posted calmly the reasons they believe it to be so in an AMA, I would genuinely like to listen and see why they think this, even if I think it's silly.
But they cannot so the same with Q? Even if they think its a giant LARP? Just proves the brainwashing, non-critically thinking MK ULtra stuff has really screwed these people up beyond all imagining.
The movie THANK YOU FOR SMOKING had a great moment like this: a good debater doesn't try to win over their debate partner (because they're automatically guarded, on the defensive), but rather tries to win over the debate audience instead.