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.
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 ?