That's a good point. We should always seek to demoralize ourselves and shit all over any attempt to counter Leftist rhetorical warfare so that we can sodomize ourselves with black-pills.
Remember, we can only win the culture war by defeating ourselves, and ignoring any potential positive outcome.
Schizo take. Platforming a propagandist - even for the purpose of "debating" her - is not countering their rhetoric. There is no rhetoric. It's all phantoms who will be gone before you finish destroying them with facts and logic.
This is what almost nobody understands. THE LEFT HAVE NO BELIEFS. You can "counter" all you want, but you will achieve nothing. This woman doesn't believe a single thing she's saying. It's all noises being fed through her lizard brain by whoever's paying her. She is not capable of having beliefs. She is a soulless golem animated by avarice. By the time you get done formulating the perfect response, her "belief system" has changed entirely and now you have to start over. Her existence serves only one purpose: to waste your time arguing with someone who does not exist.
The only appropriate thing to say to a propagandist is "kill yourself". Anything beyond that and you're playing their game on their terms.
This is not about convincing the opposition.
You can say "anyone who is not an idiot already knows this reeee", but then you are ignoring the fact that developing your political opinion is a process AND not everyone is 45 years old.
Hands up everybody, who among us was at least somewhat of a naive and retarded semi-lib-ish moron at one point.
I know for a fact I wasn't born knowing about a lot of things that are facts informing my current political views. And I didn't grow up in a heavily liberal envorinment either.
What new facts or information are being shared here that couldn't be shared in a much more efficient and effective way by simply stating them? Virtually everyone knows about these books because the left won't shut the fuck up about them, and if someone somehow doesn't know about them, this is a terrible way to introduce them to the topic.
If someone is capable of being moral, simply learning that there are books with gay porn, masturbation, and instructions on how to join a hookup app in schools will suffice to immediately inspire them to hate leftism. However, they may require proof for such a frankly extraordinary claim. Some guy wearing a beanie saying "trust me bro" is not proof. Screenshots are proof. Scans are proof. Show them the facts. Let them decide for themselves. That's what worked for me.
I personally credit zero percent of my current political awareness to internet cat fights, and I'd bet that almost everyone else would do the same if they really thought about it.
I think what he is saying is that not everyone is you. Or us. There is an endless series of young people that 'come of age' mentally every single day, and THOSE people WILL learn from this sort of exhibition. We want them to learn the correct thing, and Tim does a decent job presenting this to people who are not already adults with an understanding of what is happening.
Virtually everyone knows about these books because the left won't shut the fuck up about them
No, I'd say the majority of America either still doesn't know about the existence of these books or thinks they're a myth. Media saturation takes a really long time.
This is what almost nobody understands. THE LEFT HAVE NO BELIEFS. You can "counter" all you want, but you will achieve nothing. This woman doesn't believe a single thing she's saying. It's all noises being fed through her lizard brain by whoever's paying her.
As with all debates, you are not trying to make your opponent recant.......... Instead, you are showing the audience that you are right and she is wrong.
Careful. Deploying this leftist trope suggests that you actually believe in this "deplatforming" nonsense as a political tactic (denying someone an opportunity to speak publicly because of his political position). The left uses this method because their positions are morally indefensible and frequently irrational, as the Pool podcast discussion shows in no uncertain terms.
Also, debates between woke Marxists and non-revolutionaries can inform a larger section of the public about critical Marxist nonsense and the danger it poses. The more people see the way the left lies and obfuscates reality and truth, the better.
The Left is also known for their projection; they attack the "platforming" of ideologues because they platform ideologues. See CNN, New York Times, or Guardian editorials for examples.
I agree that sunlight is the best disinfectant, but for that to work, you have to let them run, not shut them down.
Leftism is a Philosophy of War. They have beliefs, but you are dealing with someone who's beliefs are around the conquest of power. Yes, actually, there is rhetoric. In fact, it's all rhetorical warfare.
You are mistakenly accepting Leftist Sophistry as it's framework. That's not the case. The sophistry is merely a tactic; a means to an end. Yes, she does exist, and yes she is dangerous. No, the purpose is not to debate them, but to defeat her in front of others so that they know how to defeat Leftists as they arrive.
He only defeated her in the eyes of people already on his side though. She's been using this interview as proof that she defeated him and using it to advertise her propaganda show, and her boasting has a lot more reach because it has DNC money behind it. It's a net negative outcome for the side of truth.
If he had definitively proven her wrong about something, I could see where you're coming from. But he didn't. He asked her "do you hold these reprehensible beliefs?", she proudly replied "yes, I am an evil pedophile", he said "that's bad", and she said "nuh uh". A zero information exchange. As I said in another comment, reasonable humans don't need to be convinced that pedophilia is bad. They know it instinctively. So repeating "this woman is a pedophile, and that's bad" is just preaching to the choir.
There is no "neutral side" in this debate. You don't convince a child-fucker to become a good person by pointing out flaws in their logic.
She's been using this interview as proof that she defeated him and using it to advertise her propaganda show, and her boasting has a lot more reach because it has DNC money behind it. It's a net negative outcome for the side of truth.
This is literally 1:1 "don't platform hate logic".
No, dragging them through the mud works. In fact, censoring them is far worse because the shit they are doing is already hidden from even their own supporters.
There is no "neutral side" in this debate
You're talking from a philosophical stance. The rest of us are trying to point out the pragmatic reality. "our side" and "their side" don't reflect a perfect dichotomous divide in the population. Most people are uninformed of these issues, unaware of these issues, or ignorant of these issues.
Yes, some Leftists will always say "yas queen slay". Others will also note that she preformed badly and will tell others not to go on. Most people will see the performance and cringe, realizing she did poorly, and pull back from certain arguments, or disassociate from The Majority Report.
He asked her "do you hold these reprehensible beliefs?", she proudly replied "yes, I am an evil pedophile", he said "that's bad", and she said "nuh uh". A zero information exchange. As I said in another comment, reasonable humans don't need to be convinced that pedophilia is bad. They know it instinctively. So repeating "this woman is a pedophile, and that's bad" is just preaching to the choir.
She didn't say that, and that's the point. A fuckton of what the Left does is entirely related to optics and aesthetics. This is because power is illusory, and requires specific optics and aesthetics to maintain itself. The very show name itself "Majority Report" requires the optics of "we are Leftists that represent the morally correct majority opinion, and are resisting the concentrated power of a few evil tyrants." Most "Useful Idiot" Leftists live entirely off this aesthetic. Damaging it causes serious damage to their moment and organization.
This is why when people were talking about CRT more, you hade the authors of CRT themselves claiming that they didn't even know what it was, or that it didn't even exist. They were making bold-faced lies about their own meta-narrative because (as they described in their own papers), the narrative was fundamentally unpalatable to most Americans, black or white. They can't come out and say, "It is a categorical moral imperative to racially discriminate and segregate whites in an effort to racially demoralize them, in order to create a balkanized racialist framework that destroys Capitalism." That's bananas. So, they had to paint the aesthetic that they are noble Civil Rights heroes fighting against evil Klansmen who want black kids dead, and that Critical Race Theory doesn't exist, "It's just history".
The Left operates on aesthetic. Embarrassing them and mocking them does quite a bit of damage.
And that is the weakness of her and those who believe like her. They walk away thinking they are victorious because to do otherwise is to accept that they were wrong. This is not an acceptable outcome, so they do the 3-monkey pose and willfully continue to believe the things they were already told to believe by their propaganda masters in the leftist media. People in the 3-monkey pose are susceptible to being defeated more easily when we knock down their leftist masters.
As soon as the tide turns, they are the ones who will eventually announce that they have always believed woke was stupid, and they never really supported leftists. They are THAT weak-minded and shallow. We just need to keep pushing, keep attacking the legacy globalist media, and keep rejecting neo-marxist garbage.
That's a good point. We should always seek to demoralize ourselves and shit all over any attempt to counter Leftist rhetorical warfare so that we can sodomize ourselves with black-pills.
Remember, we can only win the culture war by defeating ourselves, and ignoring any potential positive outcome.
Thank you for your contribution.
Schizo take. Platforming a propagandist - even for the purpose of "debating" her - is not countering their rhetoric. There is no rhetoric. It's all phantoms who will be gone before you finish destroying them with facts and logic.
This is what almost nobody understands. THE LEFT HAVE NO BELIEFS. You can "counter" all you want, but you will achieve nothing. This woman doesn't believe a single thing she's saying. It's all noises being fed through her lizard brain by whoever's paying her. She is not capable of having beliefs. She is a soulless golem animated by avarice. By the time you get done formulating the perfect response, her "belief system" has changed entirely and now you have to start over. Her existence serves only one purpose: to waste your time arguing with someone who does not exist.
The only appropriate thing to say to a propagandist is "kill yourself". Anything beyond that and you're playing their game on their terms.
This is not about convincing the opposition.
You can say "anyone who is not an idiot already knows this reeee", but then you are ignoring the fact that developing your political opinion is a process AND not everyone is 45 years old.
Hands up everybody, who among us was at least somewhat of a naive and retarded semi-lib-ish moron at one point.
I know for a fact I wasn't born knowing about a lot of things that are facts informing my current political views. And I didn't grow up in a heavily liberal envorinment either.
What new facts or information are being shared here that couldn't be shared in a much more efficient and effective way by simply stating them? Virtually everyone knows about these books because the left won't shut the fuck up about them, and if someone somehow doesn't know about them, this is a terrible way to introduce them to the topic.
If someone is capable of being moral, simply learning that there are books with gay porn, masturbation, and instructions on how to join a hookup app in schools will suffice to immediately inspire them to hate leftism. However, they may require proof for such a frankly extraordinary claim. Some guy wearing a beanie saying "trust me bro" is not proof. Screenshots are proof. Scans are proof. Show them the facts. Let them decide for themselves. That's what worked for me.
I personally credit zero percent of my current political awareness to internet cat fights, and I'd bet that almost everyone else would do the same if they really thought about it.
I think what he is saying is that not everyone is you. Or us. There is an endless series of young people that 'come of age' mentally every single day, and THOSE people WILL learn from this sort of exhibition. We want them to learn the correct thing, and Tim does a decent job presenting this to people who are not already adults with an understanding of what is happening.
No, I'd say the majority of America either still doesn't know about the existence of these books or thinks they're a myth. Media saturation takes a really long time.
raises hand
As with all debates, you are not trying to make your opponent recant.......... Instead, you are showing the audience that you are right and she is wrong.
Careful. Deploying this leftist trope suggests that you actually believe in this "deplatforming" nonsense as a political tactic (denying someone an opportunity to speak publicly because of his political position). The left uses this method because their positions are morally indefensible and frequently irrational, as the Pool podcast discussion shows in no uncertain terms.
Also, debates between woke Marxists and non-revolutionaries can inform a larger section of the public about critical Marxist nonsense and the danger it poses. The more people see the way the left lies and obfuscates reality and truth, the better.
The Left is also known for their projection; they attack the "platforming" of ideologues because they platform ideologues. See CNN, New York Times, or Guardian editorials for examples.
I agree that sunlight is the best disinfectant, but for that to work, you have to let them run, not shut them down.
Platforming is a real thing. Deplatforming is not. It's like how you can say words but you can't un-say them.
You're mixing up some things here.
Leftism is a Philosophy of War. They have beliefs, but you are dealing with someone who's beliefs are around the conquest of power. Yes, actually, there is rhetoric. In fact, it's all rhetorical warfare.
You are mistakenly accepting Leftist Sophistry as it's framework. That's not the case. The sophistry is merely a tactic; a means to an end. Yes, she does exist, and yes she is dangerous. No, the purpose is not to debate them, but to defeat her in front of others so that they know how to defeat Leftists as they arrive.
He only defeated her in the eyes of people already on his side though. She's been using this interview as proof that she defeated him and using it to advertise her propaganda show, and her boasting has a lot more reach because it has DNC money behind it. It's a net negative outcome for the side of truth.
If he had definitively proven her wrong about something, I could see where you're coming from. But he didn't. He asked her "do you hold these reprehensible beliefs?", she proudly replied "yes, I am an evil pedophile", he said "that's bad", and she said "nuh uh". A zero information exchange. As I said in another comment, reasonable humans don't need to be convinced that pedophilia is bad. They know it instinctively. So repeating "this woman is a pedophile, and that's bad" is just preaching to the choir.
There is no "neutral side" in this debate. You don't convince a child-fucker to become a good person by pointing out flaws in their logic.
This is literally 1:1 "don't platform hate logic".
No, dragging them through the mud works. In fact, censoring them is far worse because the shit they are doing is already hidden from even their own supporters.
You're talking from a philosophical stance. The rest of us are trying to point out the pragmatic reality. "our side" and "their side" don't reflect a perfect dichotomous divide in the population. Most people are uninformed of these issues, unaware of these issues, or ignorant of these issues.
Yes, some Leftists will always say "yas queen slay". Others will also note that she preformed badly and will tell others not to go on. Most people will see the performance and cringe, realizing she did poorly, and pull back from certain arguments, or disassociate from The Majority Report.
She didn't say that, and that's the point. A fuckton of what the Left does is entirely related to optics and aesthetics. This is because power is illusory, and requires specific optics and aesthetics to maintain itself. The very show name itself "Majority Report" requires the optics of "we are Leftists that represent the morally correct majority opinion, and are resisting the concentrated power of a few evil tyrants." Most "Useful Idiot" Leftists live entirely off this aesthetic. Damaging it causes serious damage to their moment and organization.
This is why when people were talking about CRT more, you hade the authors of CRT themselves claiming that they didn't even know what it was, or that it didn't even exist. They were making bold-faced lies about their own meta-narrative because (as they described in their own papers), the narrative was fundamentally unpalatable to most Americans, black or white. They can't come out and say, "It is a categorical moral imperative to racially discriminate and segregate whites in an effort to racially demoralize them, in order to create a balkanized racialist framework that destroys Capitalism." That's bananas. So, they had to paint the aesthetic that they are noble Civil Rights heroes fighting against evil Klansmen who want black kids dead, and that Critical Race Theory doesn't exist, "It's just history".
The Left operates on aesthetic. Embarrassing them and mocking them does quite a bit of damage.
But she's not defeated; she literally thinks she owned a bigot and her audience does to.
If it's all rhetorical, nothing is real, and words don't matter.
They're using rhetoric as a weapon. Their words don't matter to them. Words matter to everyone else.
And that is the weakness of her and those who believe like her. They walk away thinking they are victorious because to do otherwise is to accept that they were wrong. This is not an acceptable outcome, so they do the 3-monkey pose and willfully continue to believe the things they were already told to believe by their propaganda masters in the leftist media. People in the 3-monkey pose are susceptible to being defeated more easily when we knock down their leftist masters.
As soon as the tide turns, they are the ones who will eventually announce that they have always believed woke was stupid, and they never really supported leftists. They are THAT weak-minded and shallow. We just need to keep pushing, keep attacking the legacy globalist media, and keep rejecting neo-marxist garbage.