I'm staying with some friends of my wife and was talking to her friend's husband who said he was on the left snd had a pretty normal discussion. He's a mid 20s white guy and was kinda undeveloped in his opinions so I explained some random stuff, and he seemed receptive and able to discuss normally.
Then I hit the topic of anti white discrimination, and he went off. He started raising his voice and shaking. It was kinda odd, but I wanted to hear him out as a white man. After dodging for a while, he finally conceded that not getting a small business loan because they exclude whites is discrimination. He said that pointing that out is glorifying (?) and started ranting about the KKK and white supremes and said it was neo naziism. It was really hard to pin it down to that. He was so agitated and weird, you know I just tripped his programming button and he lost it.
I finished by saying: idk if he was mentally abused in school or something that he was associating pointing out white men are discriminated against with the KKK, and he cut me off and said "fuck you!" and walked out of the room to go have a melt down or something. My wife was upset because it caused them all to wake up cause he was in the common area and it was late.
I am sad whites are so fucked up mentally. Yet happy i can at least come here to talk with natsoc boyos instead of limp dick soyos.
I might say sieg Heil to him tomorrow 🤔
Sounds like a person who believes it's not discrimination to discriminate against whites because it's really reparations or recrimination some other reframing.
The only thing you can do is try to get them to think for themselves.
What percentage would whites have to be for it to be discrimination? How many years later do whites have to pay reparations for slavery? How much total money has to be given out? The best answer they'll manage is "until they're equal" to which you can ask what happens if blacks just like the reparations and don't even try to study or work hard, they continue forever? Where's the cutoff?
They've never actually thought about any of this because if they actually tried to their narrative would implode. They'll only have trite dismissive answers, like then Kamala just scoffed to 'how many months should abortion be legal'? But just asking these questions will plant a bug in their head that eats away at the narrative. They'll be trying to sleep or in the shower and it'll pop into their head yeah but how much is enough?
If you really want to also piss them off, whatever answer they give just say well you agree they needed reparations but we've already given way more than enough. This will drive them crazy because if they can't say when it's enough then they can't say it's not already enough.
They're extremely happy to tell us that "by 2025, 2030, 2040..." etc. for all of their environmentalist programs, but these social ones are always just indefinite time frames. It seems like a very strong attack vector for argumentation.
I think directly attacking the idea of white guilt and shame is where I'm at. Idk I feel like they will always have weasel answers to those questions.
A weasel answer just means you have to ask more questions.
If you want to convince an audience, use reason and facts and don't accept their premise, sure.
If you want to convince that guy you have to understand that he's not a rational thinker. He is "raising his voice and shaking" - he's a cult member, he's indoctrinated, he has faith in globohomo. Reason is not going to work on him. It's like trying to force a horse to drink water.
He has to question his own faith and he'll never do that on his own. He'll refuse to answer your questions pretty quickly, but it'll start him down that road and give you a trump card to shut him up; when he realized he's going to get hit with uncomfortable questions every time he starts a rant he's going to stop bringing it up, whereas on some level he probably enjoys the adrenaline high of adversarial combat.