If you are too far removed from someone's views, then you not only do not persuade, you probably even push them in the wrong direction.
Even if you are removed, having the ability to understand their position well enough to emulate being far closer to it while in conversation is the biggest key.
As such, like I often preach to our Impy boy, I strive to have a deep understanding of not just feminist literature but the psychology and emotions that bring someone to that position, and even just women in general. Which, given my ideological crusade is mostly anti-feminist and misogynistic, puts me in the strongest place to reach people who believe such and slowly pull them closer to my side.
And once you are in their circle as "someone who gets it" and "likeable, maybe attractive even" then you can get away with convincing them of all sorts of things antithetical to their ideological bend. Its why "Right Wing Grifters" are such a big problem that I chimp out about constantly, because I can see that game being played in action on people who can't fathom someone like Rekeita or Peterson or Candace Owens might be playing them towards a long term division*.
Even if you are removed, having the ability to understand their position well enough to emulate being far closer to it while in conversation is the biggest key.
Yes, that is almost impossible when you are far removed. Though you don't even need to pretend to believe it. You can just ask a question that makes them think just a bit more.
I strive to have a deep understanding of not just feminist literature but the psychology and emotions that bring someone to that position
It certainly isn't feminist literature. Most women who call themselves feminists are just dupes. "Yeah, I like feminism because I want to be paid the same as a man." Imp would respond: "Yeah, you GENOCIDE PUSHING terrorist, that is what you WANT us to think! More feminine lies!" And the dupe would be like "? What are you on about?"
Which, given my ideological crusade is mostly anti-feminist and misogynistic
Other than wanting women to fulfill traditional roles, how are you 'misogynistic'?
And once you are in their circle as "someone who gets it" and "likeable, maybe attractive even" then you can get away with convincing them of all sorts of things antithetical to their ideological bend.
People underestimate how key being liked is to persuasion. Also how much you can accomplish if you can get someone to laugh. Unfortunately, a lot of the folks on the far-right are some of the most humorless people around, who think that "OY VEY IT'S ANUDDA SHOAH SIX GORILLION" is the height of comedy.
I can see that game being played in action on people who can't fathom someone like Rekeita or Peterson or Candace Owens might be playing them towards a long term goal.
Though you don't even need to pretend to believe it. You can just ask a question that makes them think just a bit more.
I find it more effective if you pretend to be in their corner to some extent before asking the unravelling question. It lowers their innate defenses and allows their mind to be far more willing to wander.
It certainly isn't feminist literature
You'd be surprised. Feministing as an ideology and political position thrives on selling the 100% position so that way reality settles them on the 77% position, which is still well within their success range. They never managed to completely destroy the institution of marriage and stop women from having husbands, but they managed to turn it into such a joke that it is still pretty worthless and the husband is more of a bank than a partner for many, for just one offhand example.
how are you 'misogynistic'?
Because my political/ideological position and my personal one are not perfectly congruent. I understand what roles and ideas are needed for a society to improve and flourish and that is what I try to preach, but my innate thoughts are far closer to the "smug bitch deserved correction, sucks to suck hoe" line.
Yeah, I doubt any long term goal.
That was a poor word to explain what I meant, and I even knew it at the time. I didn't mean they specifically had a long term goal they were deceiving people towards, as they are all clearly just riding the wave and many are just impulsively screaming what people want to hear.
Allow me to edit it to "long term division," which was more in line with what I was trying to get across. In that their fanbase will eventually be split along a line where some support them unconditionally and rewrite their own positions to allow for this clear violation of their ideology wherein they are forced into combat with their own side who can see the problem with the whole shebang.
I find it more effective if you pretend to be in their corner to some extent before asking the unravelling question. It lowers their innate defenses and allows their mind to be far more willing to wander.
Absolutely true. That said, I'm not comfortable with dissimulation for something like that.
Feministing as an ideology and political position thrives on selling the 100% position so that way reality settles them on the 77% position, which is still well within their success range.
What I mean is that no one even reads feminist literature. Not even feminists. They just absorb talking points from the culture. Rape culture, and if they have been groped by some inbred boy in high school, they have personal experience to back it up. Wage gap.
They never managed to completely destroy the institution of marriage and stop women from having husbands, but they managed to turn it into such a joke that it is still pretty worthless and the husband is more of a bank than a partner for many, for just one offhand example.
They haven't made marriage unattractive per se, as much as increased the viability and attractiveness of the alternative for men. Living together without marriage is great. Sure, but not so much for women, is it?
Because my political/ideological position and my personal one are not perfectly congruent. I understand what roles and ideas are needed for a society to improve and flourish and that is what I try to preach, but my innate thoughts are far closer to the "smug bitch deserved correction, sucks to suck hoe" line.
I wouldn't call that misogyny, but OK. You'd definitely lose a contest of The Greatest Misogynist to our friend here.
Allow me to edit it to "long term division," which was more in line with what I was trying to get across. In that their fanbase will eventually be split along a line where some support them unconditionally and rewrite their own positions to allow for this clear violation of their ideology wherein they are forced into combat with their own side who can see the problem with the whole shebang.
Let's hope they are not cultists like that. I like Peterson but I can also see where he is wrong, at least in my opinion.
What I mean is that no one even reads feminist literature. Not even feminists. They just absorb talking points from the culture.
They don't need to read it. Its become so ingrained in that culture that the broad strokes of it are simply given by everybody. Things that needed to be taught and written about 70 years ago are just how girls are raised now.
I wouldn't call that misogyny, but OK.
I try not to go full powerlevel on it in public, so its a bit difficult for me to expound upon. But I can assure you, he is simply what I was 10 years and a lot more sympathy for them ago. If our mutual target were Jews, he would be a stormfag living in New York screaming about his neighbors and I'd be Hitler sitting in a jailcell waiting.
Let's hope they are not cultists like that.
Peterson has the ones that are the most cultlike of all the examples I picked. While its hard for a lot of them to deny he is wrong at times, they will make 7 dozen excuses for him to not tarnish their deified prophet and you are clearly still wrong for holding him accountable at all.
Even if you are removed, having the ability to understand their position well enough to emulate being far closer to it while in conversation is the biggest key.
As such, like I often preach to our Impy boy, I strive to have a deep understanding of not just feminist literature but the psychology and emotions that bring someone to that position, and even just women in general. Which, given my ideological crusade is mostly anti-feminist and misogynistic, puts me in the strongest place to reach people who believe such and slowly pull them closer to my side.
And once you are in their circle as "someone who gets it" and "likeable, maybe attractive even" then you can get away with convincing them of all sorts of things antithetical to their ideological bend. Its why "Right Wing Grifters" are such a big problem that I chimp out about constantly, because I can see that game being played in action on people who can't fathom someone like Rekeita or Peterson or Candace Owens might be playing them towards a long term division*.
Yes, that is almost impossible when you are far removed. Though you don't even need to pretend to believe it. You can just ask a question that makes them think just a bit more.
It certainly isn't feminist literature. Most women who call themselves feminists are just dupes. "Yeah, I like feminism because I want to be paid the same as a man." Imp would respond: "Yeah, you GENOCIDE PUSHING terrorist, that is what you WANT us to think! More feminine lies!" And the dupe would be like "? What are you on about?"
Other than wanting women to fulfill traditional roles, how are you 'misogynistic'?
People underestimate how key being liked is to persuasion. Also how much you can accomplish if you can get someone to laugh. Unfortunately, a lot of the folks on the far-right are some of the most humorless people around, who think that "OY VEY IT'S ANUDDA SHOAH SIX GORILLION" is the height of comedy.
Yeah, I doubt any long term goal.
I find it more effective if you pretend to be in their corner to some extent before asking the unravelling question. It lowers their innate defenses and allows their mind to be far more willing to wander.
You'd be surprised. Feministing as an ideology and political position thrives on selling the 100% position so that way reality settles them on the 77% position, which is still well within their success range. They never managed to completely destroy the institution of marriage and stop women from having husbands, but they managed to turn it into such a joke that it is still pretty worthless and the husband is more of a bank than a partner for many, for just one offhand example.
Because my political/ideological position and my personal one are not perfectly congruent. I understand what roles and ideas are needed for a society to improve and flourish and that is what I try to preach, but my innate thoughts are far closer to the "smug bitch deserved correction, sucks to suck hoe" line.
That was a poor word to explain what I meant, and I even knew it at the time. I didn't mean they specifically had a long term goal they were deceiving people towards, as they are all clearly just riding the wave and many are just impulsively screaming what people want to hear.
Allow me to edit it to "long term division," which was more in line with what I was trying to get across. In that their fanbase will eventually be split along a line where some support them unconditionally and rewrite their own positions to allow for this clear violation of their ideology wherein they are forced into combat with their own side who can see the problem with the whole shebang.
Absolutely true. That said, I'm not comfortable with dissimulation for something like that.
What I mean is that no one even reads feminist literature. Not even feminists. They just absorb talking points from the culture. Rape culture, and if they have been groped by some inbred boy in high school, they have personal experience to back it up. Wage gap.
They haven't made marriage unattractive per se, as much as increased the viability and attractiveness of the alternative for men. Living together without marriage is great. Sure, but not so much for women, is it?
I wouldn't call that misogyny, but OK. You'd definitely lose a contest of The Greatest Misogynist to our friend here.
Let's hope they are not cultists like that. I like Peterson but I can also see where he is wrong, at least in my opinion.
They don't need to read it. Its become so ingrained in that culture that the broad strokes of it are simply given by everybody. Things that needed to be taught and written about 70 years ago are just how girls are raised now.
I try not to go full powerlevel on it in public, so its a bit difficult for me to expound upon. But I can assure you, he is simply what I was 10 years and a lot more sympathy for them ago. If our mutual target were Jews, he would be a stormfag living in New York screaming about his neighbors and I'd be Hitler sitting in a jailcell waiting.
Peterson has the ones that are the most cultlike of all the examples I picked. While its hard for a lot of them to deny he is wrong at times, they will make 7 dozen excuses for him to not tarnish their deified prophet and you are clearly still wrong for holding him accountable at all.