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 ?
This is what makes everyone's red pill unique.