On the Crowder show Jun 7th Steven Crowder played a clip of Ethan from h3h3, mocking him for his comment, and I quote Ethan: "The CDC is like this whole governmental body with scientists and shit that just tells us what to do, you don't have to think about it dude."
Crowder also extended an open invitation to Ethan for a debate, 'any time, any place, my show or yours'.
Clip: https://www.bitchute.com/video/vSly1ceQk2Pa/
Full Show on Crowder's Rumble channel (segment starts around the 24 min mark): https://rumble.com/vi6t55-your-move-ethan-final-rebuttal-to-h3h3.html
Ethan accepted the invitation and went on Crowder's show for a one on one debate. Crowder gave a respectful introduction and extended courtesy to Ethan for accepting the debate. When the debate began, Ethan ducked away, saying 'since I am a lay-up, here debate this other guy instead.' Crowder refused since this is not what was agreed to, and the debate that never happened ended.
Clip: https://www.bitchute.com/video/1MMevwZl5FfU/
Contrast this with the video Ethan uploaded (which I will not link here because he doesn't deserve it) where he does nothing but act condescending and berate Crowder, despite Ethan himself dodging the debate and lying about it.
In Ethan's eyes, this is a win and makes himself look good.
Pity. It's so rare we get to see an honest discussion between the right and the left and I was genuinely curious to see what that would look like. I guess now we know what that looks like and which side is willing to talk and which side isn't.
"discussion" is not what the left and the right think are the same thing.
The right wants a discussion.
The left operates on rhetorical warfare.
Never, and the Rock means never, engage with a Leftist from a neutral position. This is a mistake because the Left is only thinking tactically. They do not want a neutral conversation, and they will use your neutrality as a weapon against you by acting out of ambush.
If you know your enemy is operating out of an ambush, then you always put him at a disadvantage before interacting with him. You must always consider a situation tactically, before anything else, because they have already done the same twice over.
This is good advice. What are some strategies for doing what you said “you always put them at a disadvantage; always consider a situation tactically”?
It's going to have to be very contextual, both in the environment and in relationship to who you are talking to.
If it's an activist, I recommend looking at it only from a battlefield perspective: Fix their position, flank their position, encircle their position, close on their position, and never ever give up the initiative. Don't even waste your time on defense.
Say someone wants to defund the police and is an activist. Fix, Flank, Encircle, Close-with, Destroy.
Fix their position: define their argument. Do not let them re-define their argument or walk-back from the position they initially took. Hold them to that position. If they try and squirm out of it, tell them they are not defending their own beliefs, or they are changing definitions/arguments. Leftists will always withdraw from a position if it's not tactically advantageous. Never let them off a position that they've taken. Always keep going back to it. Don't let them say they just want to reform the police, or that they want to add civilian oversight. Don't let them say that "no one" said to abolish the police. Have this stuff lined up ahead of time, because this first move is critical for them to get away from a bad position, and key to breaking them.
Flank their argument: from multiple angles: If it's defunding the police, explain why it hurts women, how it hurts blacks, how it hurts the poor, how it will create racist blowback, how it will support the established system, etc. Don't stay in predictable directions, like "we need cops". Hit them with arguments you know you haven't heard anyone defend before: "defunding cops supports rape culture because it keeps women from reporting sex crimes". By having them defend a position from different vectors, you'll find an inconsistency that you can exploit: "you're trying to defund cops to protect black men, but black women are being forced to not report on their rapists". Then tell them what Jacob Blake did.
Encircle their argument: once you've got them defending a whole slew of different attacks from angles they aren't prepared for, cut off any lines of withdraw. Give them a fake line of retreat that they know is an ambush: "so women should lie about their rapes to protect their rapists". Dictate their argument for them. Tell them their position, keep it focused on the definition you set in the first place, use their own counter arguments to explain why this is their position. This isn't a strawman, not really. You're not making a weak argument, you're forcing them to acknowledge their own argument. If they were genuinely honest, they'd have to say something very uncomfortable like: "black women should protect black men who are rapists because getting shot by the police isn't justice". You must require that they hold to the definition of their position, and the implications that position will lead to.
Close-with the enemy: this is the uncomfortable part, the nasty part that doesn't look good to observers unless you are going after a proper activist. Hit them with an absolutely uncomfortable truth, make them hold that position as a moral imperative, and attack their character on it. "When it comes down to it, you'd rather make a raped black woman make her attacker go free, then let a rapist get shot by the cops. All because you think it makes you a good person." Make that moral imperative the core of their whole argument and position. The Left operates almost entirely on emotional conditioning, and you need to use an emotional weapon like shame and guilt hard enough to make them finally feel a need to 2nd guess their position. This is a fallacy. This is ad hominem. But you are talking to someone who probably started this argument by calling you a Nazi. Don't play nice, they aren't. Some of these people want you dead. It's okay to make them cry a little.
You only give them a way out of the discomfort by giving them a way out that relents to your point. "You think cops need reform, but we can't abolish the police because black women still need protecting."
Now, if you're talking to a useful idiot. Don't do this because you might genuinely hurt someone who's only "just following orders". They don't really even know it's wrong.
If they are stubborn, do what I said but go much lighter. Make them defend a position, attack the position from different directions, but keep giving them ways out of the position to come to a new one. Eventually, they'll realize that the position they took was bad or silly, and moderate it.
If they are a normal useful idiot, do a teaching method instead. Walk them through the logic of it. Make them put themselves in the shoes of someone living under Leftist policy. "What if your crazy ex-boyfriend came to your house? What would you do?" You actually have to literally walk them through a thought experiment involving the topic. Make them reason what the consequences of each action are going to be. "Okay, you called the police, but they said they won't come because it's 'not an emergency'?" Then cite cities that have slower or no responses to some calls. Offer them a different position: "what if the police had more people, couldn't they respond faster?". Let them moderate their positions from where they started, and walk through it with them each time until they see that all the Leftist policies have bad implications.
That's tactical thinking, what about "disadvantageous" positioning? Well, activists are always going to ambush you, so you're effectively giving up the initiative at first. So, you want to see an ambush coming a mile away before it happens. Think about why Crowder had this happen to him, but Tim Pool doesn't. What does he do? Tim Pool makes people come to his fucking house and say shit to his face. Frankly, he preps them a bit by having them come over 2 hours early and chill in his fucking mansion. He gussy's them up. It gets really tough to talk shit to his face when he's been very nice to you, paid for your travel, and been talking with you for 2 hours.
Tim's alright, but the dude is an emotional manipulator, for sure. He's a social engineering expert. Don't trust journalists for reasons exactly like this.
In any case, Tim's not meeting anyone on neutral ground. He's meeting them on a field that is a huge advantage for him. You need to do the same if you are talking to a Leftist. Never accept a neutral environment because it's an environment where you have the disadvantage... because you're not going to launch the ambush first. If you won't ambush them, then a position of advantage is a much better idea when dealing with someone you know is going to ambush you.
Make sense?
This is great; thank you for the response.
Are there any videos or audios of this being done in a live circumstance that I could watch/listen to?
Unfortunately no. I've been working on this idea on my own.
Let's be honest, it depends on the creator as well. Remember IBS? There was no intelligent discussion there - it was the same childish millennial bullshit. And I know a bunch of you fucks watched that shit, so did I. It's ok, but let's not pretend we're on a pedestal.
The only good thing about IBS is most people knew what they're getting into. They didn't "ambush" people like immature cheating fucks like Ethan tried to do.
Sure. There's obviously more nuance than this, but I'm talking in sweeping generalities. My issue is that Leftist ideology exists operating under a philosophy of war, so there is no discussion, only rhetorical warfare.
On the other hand, most of the time, the right basically just wants to be heard since they don't have much of a voice in the mainstream culture. There are plenty of people on the right, and otherwise, that want rhetorical warfare, but it's going to be relatively rare for the Left to want an honest discussion with the right.