The Experiment

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

Yesterday, I decided to go "off base"

 

I, having researched the Alt-Right Playbook, decided to employ those tactics. 

 

There are more.

 

And, to be blunt, I was an insufferable (censored term that refers to female genitalia)

 

Here is the thing: It was effective. I used the stupid lingo that I've seen here (C uck, NPC, triggered, snowflake), and while they were non-sensical, they fared better than the reasoned debate I had been trying.

 

Out of all the people, only one critic had anything resembling a cogent response.

 

DC Tom, this is probably a dubious honor, but you hit me good, well, and with a clean an concise point even I on "be as Fox News as possible" could not shrug off. I honestly have to give you kudos for that.

[DC Tom]

You might want to consider that the results of your experiment could just as easily conclude that your reasoned debate is even less reasoned than the alt-right playbook no one here's ever heard of.  

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

You might want to consider that the results of your experiment could just as easily conclude that your reasoned debate is even less reasoned than the alt-right playbook no one here's ever heard of.  

 

Correct. NPCinPhilly believes anyone who isn't suffering from the same level of crippling TDS as he is must be alt-right. Nevermind he can't define alt-right or what it means, he knows their playbook! 

 

 

Here I thought his spiral into intellectual irrelevancy couldn't get better than his trump/Russia conclusions - but I was wrong! 

[TakeYouToTasker]

10 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Yesterday, I decided to go "off base"

 

I, having researched the Alt-Right Playbook, decided to employ those tactics. 

 

There are more.

 

And, to be blunt, I was an insufferable (censored term that refers to female genitalia)

 

Here is the thing: It was effective. I used the stupid lingo that I've seen here (C uck, NPC, triggered, snowflake), and while they were non-sensical, they fared better than the reasoned debate I had been trying.

 

Out of all the people, only one critic had anything resembling a cogent response.

 

DC Tom, this is probably a dubious honor, but you hit me good, well, and with a clean an concise point even I on "be as Fox News as possible" could not shrug off. I honestly have to give you kudos for that.

 

It would be helpful for you to understand a few things:

 

1)  The Alt-Right is actually comprised, largely, of disaffected blue collar former Democrats who left their party when the Democratic platform stopped being representative of them.  They embrace the identity politics of the left, and apply it to themselves.  They are pro-union/pro-labor, pro-universal healthcare, pro progressive taxation, etc.

 

2)  Libertarians, conservatives, Republicans, social conservatives, the religious right, classical liberals, etc. are not synonymous with the Alt-Right, and have nearly nothing in common with their belief systems; which is the reason the Alt-Right came to exist:  those other prior listed groupings of political and philosophical thought don't represent them.

 

3)  I don't think you understand what "reasoned debate" is.  I've yet to see you make a coherent logical argument on this sub-forum, which isn't to say that I wouldn't like to see it, it's just that you haven't done it yet.  You haven't bothered to actually understand the positions of those you disagree with, which is the first step of reasoned debate; but rather you have erected strawmen to do battle with at every turn.  I know this to be true because you actually think you're "arguing" with people who identify with the Alt-Right, and your stated views on Christians.

 

You're a man who could stand to be several multitudes more introspective.

[4merper4mer]

4 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

It would be helpful for you to understand a few things:

 

1)  The Alt-Right is actually comprised, largely, of disaffected blue collar former Democrats who left their party when the Democratic platform stopped being representative of them.  They embrace the identity politics of the left, and apply it to themselves.  They are pro-union/pro-labor, pro-universal healthcare, pro progressive taxation, etc.

 

2)  Libertarians, conservatives, Republicans, social conservatives, the religious right, classical liberals, etc. are not synonymous with the Alt-Right, and have nearly nothing in common with their belief systems; which is the reason the Alt-Right came to exist:  those other prior listed groupings of political and philosophical thought don't represent them.

 

3)  I don't think you understand what "reasoned debate" is.  I've yet to see you make a coherent logical argument on this sub-forum, which isn't to say that I wouldn't like to see it, it's just that you haven't done it yet.  You haven't bothered to actually understand the positions of those you disagree with, which is the first step of reasoned debate; but rather you have erected strawmen to do battle with at every turn.  I know this to be true because you actually think you're "arguing" with people who identify with the Alt-Right, and your stated views on Christians.

 

You're a man who could stand to be several multitudes more introspective.

Although you make some valid points, you also fall into some traps here.  By lumping people into groups to which only some belong, then calling others out for similar you fall into the Imarubbayouaglu fallacy.  Your tone also borders on use of the classic authoratum viadouchey fallacy.  You are better than this.

[Wacka]

Just more typical lefty projection. Blame the consertaves for exactly what you do. (see anitra).

Edited December 7, 2018 by Wacka

[Warren Zevon]

6 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Just more typical lefty projection. Blame the consertaves for exactly what you do. (see anitra).

 

Peer Gynt?

[Benjamin Franklin]

2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

 You are better than this.

 

 

Link?

[4merper4mer]

4 minutes ago, Benjamin Franklin said:

 

Link?

He has told many many many times of his greatness.  Even if it is only 1% true.......

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

17 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Yesterday, I decided to go "off base"

 

I, having researched the Alt-Right Playbook, decided to employ those tactics. 

 

There are more.

 

And, to be blunt, I was an insufferable (censored term that refers to female genitalia)

 

Here is the thing: It was effective. I used the stupid lingo that I've seen here (C uck, NPC, triggered, snowflake), and while they were non-sensical, they fared better than the reasoned debate I had been trying.

 

Out of all the people, only one critic had anything resembling a cogent response.

 

DC Tom, this is probably a dubious honor, but you hit me good, well, and with a clean an concise point even I on "be as Fox News as possible" could not shrug off. I honestly have to give you kudos for that.

****.

[TPS]

6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

It would be helpful for you to understand a few things:

 

1)  The Alt-Right is actually comprised, largely, of disaffected blue collar former Democrats who left their party when the Democratic platform stopped being representative of them.  They embrace the identity politics of the left, and apply it to themselves.  They are pro-union/pro-labor, pro-universal healthcare, pro progressive taxation, etc.

 

2)  Libertarians, conservatives, Republicans, social conservatives, the religious right, classical liberals, etc. are not synonymous with the Alt-Right, and have nearly nothing in common with their belief systems; which is the reason the Alt-Right came to exist:  those other prior listed groupings of political and philosophical thought don't represent them.

 

3)  I don't think you understand what "reasoned debate" is.  I've yet to see you make a coherent logical argument on this sub-forum, which isn't to say that I wouldn't like to see it, it's just that you haven't done it yet.  You haven't bothered to actually understand the positions of those you disagree with, which is the first step of reasoned debate; but rather you have erected strawmen to do battle with at every turn.  I know this to be true because you actually think you're "arguing" with people who identify with the Alt-Right, and your stated views on Christians.

 

You're a man who could stand to be several multitudes more introspective.

I'm sure you have some survey data to back this up.....

[RochesterRob]

  Before I opened this thread I thought this might pertain to some kind of brain exchange such as putting peace out's brain in Tibs skull.  Oh, well that's what I get for seeing a clip of Abbott and Costello meets Frankenstein just prior.

[3rdnlng]

51 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Before I opened this thread I thought this might pertain to some kind of Abby Normal brain exchange such as putting peace out's brain in Tibs skull.  Oh, well that's what I get for seeing a clip of Abbott and Costello meets Frankenstein just prior.

Fixed for you.

[Wacka]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  Before I opened this thread I thought this might pertain to some kind of brain exchange such as putting peace out's brain in Tibs skull.  Oh, well that's what I get for seeing a clip of Abbott and Costello meets Frankenstein just prior.

 Nothing from nothing leaves nothinG. 

[Swill Merchant]

This cuts to the heart of the matter. The article should be read in it's entirety, but the quoted portion explains a lot.

 

https://quillette.com/2018/03/10/psychology-progressive-hostility/

 

[Jonathan Haidt] and his colleagues Brian Nosek and Jesse Graham sought to discover how well conservative and what Haidt terms ‘liberal’ (ie: progressive) students understood one another by having them answer moral questions as they thought their political opponents would answer them. “The results were clear and consistent,” remarks Haidt. “In all analyses, conservatives were more accurate than liberals.” Asked to think the way a liberal thinks, conservatives answered moral questions just as the liberal would answer them, but liberal students were unable to do the reverse. Rather, they seemed to put moral ideas into the mouths of conservatives that they don’t hold. To put it bluntly, Haidt and his colleagues found that progressives don’t understand conservatives the way conservatives understand progressives. 

[snafu]

1 hour ago, Swill Merchant said:

This cuts to the heart of the matter. The article should be read in it's entirety, but the quoted portion explains a lot.

 

https://quillette.com/2018/03/10/psychology-progressive-hostility/

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying I'm wrong or right (and I'm oversimplifying it a lot), but it seems to me as though this can be explained by looking at what's happened with primary, high school, and college curriculum over the years.  I'd wager that liberals buy in to what they're taught and so they don't have to come up with a counterpoint, ever.  I'm not saying that liberals are smart or dumb because of it, just probably prone to accepting what their schools have taught them.

 

If someone doesn't accept the curriculum, they know it, and understand it, but they've formed a different viewpoint.  Therefore, they can explain both sides pretty well.

 

Now I will go read the whole article.

 

 

 

 

[Swill Merchant]

25 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I'm not saying I'm wrong or right (and I'm oversimplifying it a lot), but it seems to me as though this can be explained by looking at what's happened with primary, high school, and college curriculum over the years.  I'd wager that liberals buy in to what they're taught and so they don't have to come up with a counterpoint, ever.  I'm not saying that liberals are smart or dumb because of it, just probably prone to accepting what their schools have taught them.

 

If someone doesn't accept the curriculum, they know it, and understand it, but they've formed a different viewpoint.  Therefore, they can explain both sides pretty well.

 

Now I will go read the whole article.

 

 

 

 

That may well play a role. More broadly, I think it comes down to exposure. It is very easy to live in a liberal bubble without being substantially exposed to conservative ideas, and/or being exposed primarily to liberal caricatures of them.

 

It is very difficult to live in a conservative bubble because liberal viewpoints are disseminated so pervasively throughout media, academia, & pop culture. Even if you were to insulate yourself in an echo chamber you would still be exposed to liberal ideology growing up unless you're home-schooled with no TV, or Amish.

[3rdnlng]

13 minutes ago, Swill Merchant said:

That may well play a role. More broadly, I think it comes down to exposure. It is very easy to live in a liberal bubble without being substantially exposed to conservative ideas, and/or being exposed primarily to liberal caricatures of them.

 

It is very difficult to live in a conservative bubble because liberal viewpoints are disseminated so pervasively throughout media, academia, & pop culture. Even if you were to insulate yourself in an echo chamber you would still be exposed to liberal ideology growing up unless you're home-schooled with no TV, or Amish.

I think you both have a point. I grew up in a time when not every teacher was a liberal. The ones that I had that were liberal wouldn't have dared to penalize me for my opinions when I spoke up. Any teacher opposed to candy canes would have been run out of school by the kindergarteners.

[Swill Merchant]

14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I think you both have a point. I grew up in a time when not every teacher was a liberal. The ones that I had that were liberal wouldn't have dared to penalize me for my opinions when I spoke up. Any teacher opposed to candy canes would have been run out of school by the kindergarteners.

I'm so old I remember having Christmas parties at school.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Swill Merchant said:

I'm so old I remember having Christmas parties at school.

But did you have them in a manger with three strangers on camels?