Would anyone be interested in learning how to make better arguments in support of Q?
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I believe it could really help in convincing normies.
To clarify, I'm not trying to criticize anyone or present myself as a great debater. I just see a need and believe this is the best way I can contribute to the group.
Objective: To help other Anons improve their arguments, which could assist in persuading skeptics.
How:
- Identify common logical fallacies and explain how to avoid them.
- Provide practice opportunities by role-playing as a skeptical normie.
Please let me know if you're interested and feel free to contribute your own tips and insights that you believe can help the community.
Here's the thing:
Republican arguments tend to be logical, while Democrat ones are emotional. (What about the children/immigrants/waamen).
So, a logical, reasoned approach seems anathema to those obsessed with appearances. A logical fallacy is just an irritation. (How dare you)
Even the 'saving lives' argument for the vaccine is fundamentally untrue, but there it is. They will stick with it.
And you don't see any way that communication between the two can be improved?
Is it not worth at least trying?
It's a bit like a mathematician arguing with an artist.
So then we should just not even try?
Ok, so you're not interested. Got it.
Did not say I was not interested, otherwise I would have not answered. Duh
I did not say we whould not try, just that it is very tricky.
I never took debate, don't know all the terminology, but I try my best to argue with facts.
These people don't care. You can be as polite and respectful as you can, but in 1-2 replies they devolve to name calling and hatefulness, and no matter what you write or how well-thought out it is, they don't even read it.
We shouldn't just give up, but it's one gigantic uphill climb, and you don't know who or what you're arguing with in the first place. Is it a person? Is it an American? Is it a bot? Were they hired for this?
I don't know. I've tried, but they are not at all open-minded enough for your argument, no matter how well presented, to matter.
One big big thing against our arguments is that they dislike our sources, but their trusted sources are the ones that lie. There's an excuse for everything. "That's a right wing site, so it's bullshit." "Wikipedia can be edited by whoever, so it's bullshit." "Snopes disproved this, so it's bullshit."
The amount of rabbit holes you'd have to send them down just to get them to a point of being willing to read what you write is unfathomable to them.
man. if only this were true. to some degree it is, but i see many on the right communicating very emotionally, and many on the left actually using their post secondary programming effectively, in terms of avoiding and recognizing logical fallacies. not enough to lead them to the truth of course, but enough to legitimately call patriots out when they make lazy arguments. i think we can all do better. or maybe just me lol.
if you personally have zero room to improve, that's great. but i think your misunderstanding of the value of recognizing logical fallacies demonstrates that's not quite true. the left appeals to authority all the time. it's not about being offended, it's about negating illogical arguments, and communicating effectively.
don't just say it's their fault for not knowing. it is our job to guide them.
Oh I am an avid student of logical fallacies, as I am of taking an argument to its extreme.
It always amuses me when someone starts an Appeal to Authority, for example. It is so easy to dismantle.
And I agree it is good exercise to list all the arguments. So even Wikipedia does that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms
And the fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
good stuff. you can contribute that to the discussion of how we can more effectively communicate what we know.
that's not all there is to it, though. another relevant concept would be 'intellectual humility' which is admitting what you don't know, in order to learn, and to communicate what you do know more effectively.
and you know. at least dozens of other concepts that would be worth discussing in relation to our mission here.
This was where I was thinking of starting. Taking some of the most common ones I've noticed being used (on both sides), showing examples of them, then discussing how we can avoid them ourselves and how we can prevent others from stumping us with them.
Well prolly the first one on the internetz these days is Ad Hominem. IMO. I could be wrong. But it is very common.
Maybe a series of threads, with the same overarching hashtag so that all the threads can be searched at once ?
I agree that ad hominem is the most common one I see. I like the idea of having searchable threads for the individual ones.
How about #AnonLogic or #LogiQ
This is what makes everyone's red pill unique.
Avoid subjects that don't matter much, like "Big Mike", except as jokes, or at most, mild speculating. Do not get invested in those, much less actually argue about them. Yes, I know I tend to kind of keep repeating that particular subject, but it's something everybody knows about, and yes, it's pretty meaningless in the big picture, and no, you don't have any solid enough evidence to convince anybody who isn't already ready to be convinced, so I think it makes a good example.
And stuff like that doesn't really matter. If it was proven without a doubt that she is a he, what would that really matter? You'd get maybe a few people to whom it would matter, most of the people not your side already would not care, a lot would just admire Barry and spouse more, and without a doubt the Obamas would get "proof" that Mike happens to be one of those rare true intersexuals and everybody who dares to disrespect her and her preferred gender because of it is a mean bully, and since most people dislike bullies you'd also lose some people.
So, avoid subjects like those. Except as memes and for making jokes about.
Concentrate on things that might mean something to the normie you are talking with, or trying to reach. Lets say people who care a lot about environment. What might get to them? Most people know that windmills are a danger to birds and bats. So, tell them how worried you are about that, and give them numbers - ones they can check on sites that are not obviously political. Solar panel fields, stories like that how the environments vital for some endangered species have been sacrificed to get more of those solar panel fields put up. Desert tortoises, cut down old joshua trees... there are plenty enough examples if you look for them.
Human rights? How about child slaves in Africa, or political prisoners in China, used to dig for the rare earth metals necessary for electric car batteries or those windmills or solar panels?
Black communities in America? Historical examples might help a bit. How those communities, even without full rights, seemed to be doing better as groups before they started to get certain types of "help" from the Dems. Wonder it that, well-intentioned as it might have been, was maybe a mistake. Talk about Operation Paperclip or Gladio, how CIA seems to have used drug trade to finance its other black ops. Again, don't push, try to pique their curiosity about those so they might look into them themselves. And go through their feelings.
Wouldn't the idea that a lot of people who have used at least some drugs during their life - because they saw it as a rebellious act against organized society they were convinced was somehow bad - were actually fooled into that by some shadowy part of that same organized society, and were maybe actually supporting some organization like CIA through their actions, make those people at least somewhat pissed off?
Don't try to make them "turn" right away. Give them reasons to doubt what their preferred politicians are telling them, and how what they claim as good for the environment or good for human rights isn't necessarily so, or might even be worse for their favorite subject than what the "evil right wing" politicians like Trump is trying to push.
Start with things like that. Only then start to talk about something like Q. First just as how something like that was what made you personally first interested in looking at Q. Try to keep it light. NEVER tell them that they are wrong or stupid or anything, or argue about it, just tell them, mildly at that, how you feel - and yes, feel - that there is something to it. Or maybe something to it. Keep it light unless you are dealing with people you have already had arguments with, so that they already know for a fact that you are an anon.
Look at things that do or will affect their personal lives. Rising prices and such. Again, keep it mild. Don't push. Just talk or reminiscence or wonder how things at least seemed to be better during Trump's last term.
Ask questions from them. Try to get them to explain something. Do not push Q, just mention how something that seemed to fit what Q said seemed to later to happen, or be proven. Wonder if there is something to it (again, when you are dealing with people who don't know you are already fully into it yourself). Try to make them curious enough to look at things themselves.
When it comes to normies, you can convince only the ones who are already ready to be convinced.
The others - you can get at least some of them to that point, when they are finally ready to be convinced, but most times you can't argue them there.
You have to seduce them.
So try to make them curious. Give them questions they want to find out about. Show them that you maybe care about the same things they do - environment, human rights, whatever - but you aren't convinced the wokes are right about how to actually make things better, may even be doing things that while sounding good are doing more damage than good.
Wow, thank you for taking the time to write such a great post! This is really helpful. Several good ideas to go through and think about. Great high effort post.
I really appreciate what you are trying to do here and I do think good will come of it but...
My best Q arguments have been the ones where I don't mention Q. It just gives them an easy out to end the conversation unfortunately.
Discussions with people who would be open minded enough to mention Q we're had back in 2020. It wasn't very many in my circle....
My best 'conversions' are when I'm there to verify facts as people open their own eyes to things. It really is about letting people figure this out and verifying when they ask questions. Showing them where to dig for themselves when the curiosity finally strikes.
I understand what you're saying. I personally couldn't care less if Q was mentioned directly when trying to redpill others. I'm more concerned with getting the idea and viewpoints across than where it's coming from.
So yeah, a great tip could be to just read your audience and not mention Q if you think it would not help your cause.
yes!
even just a weekly post here on GAW with an easily searchable title would be great for this topic.
we could all stand to improve. i think we've all made those fallible arguments that end up undermining our position, or shared graphics that could have been more clear, or made other avoidable mistakes that have cost us allies. it's always a great loss to both us and the people we are trying to lead to the truth.
knowing the truth is one thing, but sharing it with others is definitely a whole other concept.
some of what i need to work on is just discipline to not use lazy arguments, but i'm sure there are strategies i haven't even considered. definitely would love to see more discussion around this on GAW.
Awesome! I'm so glad that you see what I'm seeing.
I like your idea about a weekly post. It could be something that's coming up in current events, or something that sticks out in conversations here that could be used as examples.
hey, whatever you want your lesson plan to look like. you're the one taking the initiative
I just had a message from someone who mentioned that many of the "people" you're debating/conversing with/arguing against/ whatever are actually bots.
I'd like to point out that the objective isn't merely to convince the person you're talking to, but anyone who is following that conversation as well.
Ok, see. This is an example of what I'm talking about.
I asked if anyone would be interested in learning tipsnin how to make better arguments, and the majority of responses so far are people listing reasons why they think it won't work.
Assuming that all normies behave/think the same way is a problem right there.
Defeatist attitudes don't help. Instead of finding positive ways to improve things, time and energy is being sucked up by all these arguments against it.
If you're not interested, then fine. It's not going to be forced on you. Why the need to try to squash anyone else's efforts, though?
LOL. Temper thy defensiveness.
We are interested enough to reply to your thread. Now there's something.
I fully admit that I need help as well. I know I'm far from great at this. Buy it's more frustration than defensiveness, just to be accurate.
OK. So let's Gooo.
The Psyop is complete at this point
The people aware of Q have either bought in to whatever degree suits the individual or bought the mainstream narrative that it’s all a big sad joke.
In the event of people changing their mind and waking from the psyop, a perfectly reasoned argument probably isn’t the optimal way
To your question, debate is the OPPOSITE of what Q has asked us to do.
Q repeatedly explained that only those with a desire to know can know.
The best thing anyone can do is find a way to make the bread crumbs interesting to look at.
Ok, got it. I'll put you in the "not interested" column.
You might consider what you’re suggesting in the “potentially harmful” to have people explore this topic.
If people want an adversarial topic, they’ll find one. This shouldn’t be one of them
I'm sorry, I don't understand what it is you're saying here.
I’m saying a bunch of librarians would be a billion times more valuable than well reasoned arguments.
The moment an individual wants do descend the rabbit hole, they need a librarian, a guide, a Virgil, to point them at something to discover within their own time and space. Not to put the idea in their head, but to simply say here are the pool of ideas related to the topic.
Theres zero chance a person newly introduced and interested in Q or converting from Qanon is fake disinformation would do anything in the way of a meaningful debate.
That said, you do you.
Well, that's an idea right there. I keep a folder with various sources that I've found helpful.
It would be interesting to see what we would have if we pooled our sources together.
One of the biggest hurdles I've found is finding sources that can't be easily dismissed.
I 100% understand the appeal to authority. On both sides. But there are some sources better than others.
If nothing else, cutting down on people using tweets as sources would be a huge help. That's one of the most common criticisms I see among normies.
I'm at the point where I no longer need to speak about Q unless someone who knew I posted on it on FB actually asks me specifically about it. The Q plans are exposing themselves regardless whether or not one ever followed Q. Those who needed to be awakened were already awakened. Those that needed to become digital soldiers have already done so. Now with X, Truth Social, Rumble the truth can come out.
I still believe in the Q plan and I will be there for everyone else who needs support after the SHTF in my neighborhood. But I don't need to expound on Q to do that any longer.
Some day maybe we will figure out who all the Q peeps are but for now I am comfy knowing the plan is proceeding to Trump taking over as our next POTUS once again.
This has quickly devolved from "What can we do to improve things?" to "Libs/normies suck because :insert reason here".
🤦♀️
LOL refer to my post regarding Ad Hominem.
It’s tough, I know. A tidbit: for women, look at 84 year old Nancy Pelosi on TV. She looks in her 30s. You have to pick and choose because there is a little older mask that is used sometimes. Maxine Waters has a big difference as well. Bidan with the brown eyes. Don’t push it. Let lie. You have formed the crack. Add in things like the Ukrainian in the body bag smoking a cigarette.
For guys start with Trump delivered on his promise of peace, prosperity and safety and will do so again. Who do you think would fight tooth and nail against that?
Once you have widened the cracks a little, then add some Q and the sauce to go with it.
Ok, noted. I'll put you in the "not interested" column.
kill the MSM and poof,we'll get our country back
🤦♀️
I dont convince people of Q,just red pill them.
Is that something that you see actually making a change in what they think, though?
What exactly are you doing to redpill them? Are you sending them screengrabs of some random Tweet?
Because that's a lot of what I'm seeing and is the reason why I think it's important for people to learn how to make arguments in support of Q.
What does that even mean?
Lovely. But perhaps we can try some less homicidal tactics before we run around murdering people who don't agree with us.
I see you've decided you're going to be providing examples of the logical fallacies we're talking about avoiding here.
I appreciate your help here on that. Thanks. 👍