Just curious. I don't doubt we all do it to some degree, but I wonder where people draw the line, if at all.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
Most ideas can be put into a few select categories, and those categories are largely demographically traceable. The easiest red flags are appeal to emotion, pilpul, Ebonics, and nihilism/cynicism.
Appeal to emotion/ pathos is women logic, everything in their argument will eventually boil down to their emotional state or the emotional state they want you to “feel”. You will see this argument style ad nauseum with 90% of women from feminists to “conservatives”.
Pilpul is essentially Jewish pedantry. It’s the debate form of throwing the chessboard by arguing every semantic down to the finest detail in order to obfuscate the larger issue which the person does not want to argue.
Hoe_Math did a decent summary here:
Another example is the stonetoss meme with the libertarian saying “but if we use the government, how will we stop other people from using it against us?”
Ebonics is self explanatory, I’ll just post this for those who don’t understand, https://www.bbc.com/pidgin
Cynicism/ nihilism are society killers, they (shockingly) share similar argument structures to pilpul, one of the biggest and most recognizable ones are “how does this affect you?”. These are some of the most distrustful people on the planet, yet demand authoritarian state control of the economy, that should tell you just about all you need to know for their motives.
TL/DR: 80-90% of Women, Commies, Jews, Blacks, and Troons can, essentially, safely be ignored because they don’t know how to frame ideas outside of those categories.
Jews/Commies/Troons can be safely ignored because they are incapable of arguing in good faith, since their only desire is to manipulate you to further their goals. I can count on one hand the amount of jews I am even willing to listen to, let alone entertain their arguments, and that is solely because they have built a reputation of being reasonable, even if they have their own personal bias.
Women are mentally children when it comes to serious matters, and so should probably be ignored as a safety mechanism.
Blacks can be a bit of a mixed bag. There are great men like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, etc. who are black, but the modern aggregate black community is too anti social and greedy to really take seriously. For every Malcolm X there are dozens of ibram x kendi/charlemagne/talcum x/etc.
Ultimately, none of these groups are going to come to save you because they have their own in group preference that does not include you nor I.
That’s why I put Ebonics. The simple fact is about ~20% of black men/women don’t want to associate with “black culture”, these are your Thomas Sowells, Clarence Thomas’s, Larry Elders, Ben Carson’s, etc. if a Black person is talking like a normal person they’re usually worth hearing out.