A friend and I concluded over dinner that if Liberals insist on acting from "feelings", we need to learn to manipulate their emotions in ways that advance freedom.
It's time to get them the way they can be 'got'...through their emotions...their 'feelings'.
My friend told me that he has a Liberal professional friend who told him, "I don't need to know all the facts, because I already know how I feel about it."
Yes...it was that blatant. My friend was astounded at the bald admission. You can't debate or convince such people with facts.
We have to reach them where they proudly live - in their emotions.
I admit it will be difficult; we have no practice thinking in those terms because it's not how we operate. But we have to learn. If the Elite can manipulate Liberals emotionally to love and defend the collective, surely we can do the same so that they love and defend liberty.
After all, they can't distinguish the logical differences. So our task is to make Liberty more emotionally attractive than Communism.
If we're so smart...we ought to be able to come up with what is essentially an advertising campaign.
Talking facts to Liberals is to get accused of "making them up"; or being brainwashed by Right Wing Media. The "facts" are not acknowledged. They are simply and emphatically denied.
That should be obvious to anyone who's every argued with one. They may get frustrated, they may go silent, they may become aggressive. But they are never convinced. Because facts don't carry the same weight as their feelings.
Conservatives and Republicans have been wasting their time trying to debate Liberals. It's not about facts or reason or logic or reality. It's about emotions, feelings, imagination and fantasy.
And until we understand that we won't change a single Liberal mind.
The Gunslinger
It's a shame we can't just shoot the bastards
Joebama American citizens 2024 print
2 months ago
I've been getting some visibly disturbed and confused reactions from lefties by putting their position in to that which they're knee-jerked against.
ReplyDeleteOn healthcontrol, I point out that they're violating my right to choose, or that with healthcare I'm pro-choice and they are violating my right to privacy with my medical choices.
Hasn't failed yet to get double takes and spluttering cognitive dissonance from them.
This one, I recently turned into a full post with linked examples, but the quick gist is,
"If you were working with an underground railroad, how would you, as a leftist, convince a pampered house slave to make a desperate dash for... what? leftist-Land? What liberty, what security of property, what right to live their own life could you possibly offer them, having as it would faceless govt bureaucrats involved in every aspect of their lives, how would you possibly make that seem more desirable than the warm personal relationship they already had with their masters?"
At any rate, I think a effective strategy is to take a standard leftie by-line, 'Pro-Choice', and use it in a way that puts them in the shoes 'of da Man'.
"Conservatives and Republicans have been wasting their time trying to debate Liberals. It's not about facts or reason or logic or reality. It's about emotions, feelings, imagination and fantasy."
Yep. Tie their emotions, their 'freedom baby!' notions to our principles, and they're stumped. Also, don't expect to get them to admit you've got them... but the confusion in their faces, and then the anger, shows that you did. Any actual conversion will take loads and loads of time, but a wounding of their impervious certitude, is priceless.
Libtards never let the facts get in the way of their preconceived opinions. So where do these preconceived opinions come from you ask? From the sheepherder du jour, e.g., Obamermann, Mathexcuse, Algore, Piglosi... The cunning sheepherder knows just how to play to the emotions of the flock to give them their "feel good" fix for the day. Enviro-mental-ism seems to be one such cause. Check this one out: George Carlin on environmentalism. Enjoy...
ReplyDeleteFH
OR...simply,ask "Why do you put so much faith in Government Weinies,MoFo? You always rant against them...I thought liberal meant liberation.When did you start wanting to kow-tow to the fuckin' CLERKS? GEEZ,what an effin' wimp..."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Carlin link,"Foxhound".Seen before,but good to be reminded that,whether I agreed with Carlin specifically or not on an issue...he always liked to afflict the Comforted,the Smug.All things said and done,our historical struggle has ALWAYS been against the Smug...
ReplyDeleteSeems like way too much touchy feely for me. I agree it is a shame that we can't just shoot them. They probably would make great targets. The biggest problem that I see with dealing with them is that they truly believe that it should always go their way. No discussion or debate on it allowed. Somebody always seems to owe them something. They refuse to see the other side on anything, I'm right your wrong is the liberal attitude that I get. So here is my suggestion on it in a nutshell on how to make them see a valid point; Choke the living shit out of them, you would be very surprised how quickly people will agree Freedom is important when turning blue and they are gasping for a breath of "FREE" air. Kidding of course but you get the point that there are some things that you just can't live without. Freedom is just one of mine so my question that I always ask a liberal know it all is. What makes you think that you have more of a right to take from me and others but you refuse to give in on anything? Still waiting on the answer.............? Me too!
ReplyDeleteLet's not deceive ourselves. Conservatives can be quite emotional about a number of issues that have nothing to do with reason but everything to do with beliefs. Do you have a right to defend yourself or is gun ownership too great a risk to society to permit? There is no reasoning that supports one side or the other. It is one risk balanced against another, a mixture of reason and emotion. Also, let's distinguish the garden variety liberal that can be persuaded from the liberal elite who reason with cold calculations to obtain power.
ReplyDeleteFreedom is chaotic and risky; collectivism is ordered and secure. This is a reasoned liberal point of view. Freedom promotes excellence and productivity; collectivism promotes mediocrity and minimalism. This is a reasoned conservative point of view. They are not in conflict but a matter of preference. The liberal elite invent false freedoms and rights to tilt the argument.
Yes, use emotional and reasoned appeals but its the beliefs you must change. It would be a grave mistake to believe liberals are the sole product of emotions.
trubolota said "Do you have a right to defend yourself or is gun ownership too great a risk to society to permit? There is no reasoning that supports one side or the other."
ReplyDeleteNow that's an emotional statement. Try some Blackstone or even Locke for the Reasoned alternative.
"Freedom is chaotic and risky; collectivism is ordered and secure. This is a reasoned liberal point of view. Freedom promotes excellence and productivity; collectivism promotes mediocrity and minimalism. This is a reasoned conservative point of view. They are not in conflict but a matter of preference."
Calculative logic chopping, and Reasoning, are not the same thing. An argument which deliberately fails to include key relevant information, which deliberately dismisses reality in favor of what you'd prefer reality to be, is not Reasoning.
"collectivism is ordered and secure."
Ordered... perhaps in the sense that someone in authority will order those without authority to behave in a certain way, but not in the sense that the society will be ordered, in a clean, well ordered fashion. Any glance beyond the pravda would show the opposite, whether in Cuba or Nazi Germany or USSR... because the top down system doesn't work, does not admit too many vital but "mundane facts" (as Thomas Sowell's new book Intellectuals and Society puts it (just started it, but so far, quite good)), black markets and lawlessness are the necessary norms, and 'order' is a figleaf.
"and secure"! You've got to be kidding me... secure in your home from arbitrary search and seizure? Secure in your property? Secure in your right to express your opinion?
Come on. Yes many conservatives lack the substance of an intellectual argument, but that is not the same as saying that the solid, well grounded, reflective of reality, Reasoned argument, does not exist.
There is not one leftist argument I can say the same for. I've been looking for a very long time. I've been debating with them for a very long time, hoping against hope that they would engage in actual Reasoning... not happened yet. On the surface, they give the appearance of it, but when you press for the chain of argument that descends down to reality... you will not have to go far before hitting the ad hominem wall, at which point they cannot and will not go beyond.
"It would be a grave mistake to believe liberals are the sole product of emotions."
leftist positions are the result of cold, rationalist, logic chopping, erected upon emotionally held whims, and constructed in such a way as to hide that (read Descartes, Hume... and Rousseau and Kant if you can stomach it, you'll find the missing foundations soon enough)... and a simple '20 questions' type discussion will quickly expose it. Over and over again.
Excellent response to Trubolota, Van.. spot on!
ReplyDeleteI only wanted to add look what happens when "the government" has arms and the people do not: helping or hurting the unarmed people fighting for freedom now in Iran?
History shows us 'liberal' (progressive / statist / marxist / fascist / communist) regimes DO NOT WORK. Check out Detroit: a 50 year experiment in 'liberal' policies.
Human beings work when work benefits THEMSELVES. Part of our nature.
From CitizenWells.wordpress.com:
***
"An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK,we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.The second test average was a D!No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering,blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that."
The sure way to convince a liberal to become conservative is to ridicule their beliefs, call them illogical and emotional, and dismiss their ideals. Works every time, doesn't it (do I really need a sarcasm tag here?) At the risk of being parsed into meaningless fragments with misleading commentary, I'll offer the following thoughts.
ReplyDeleteMankind has and always will struggle to find the proper balance between individual freedom and collective responsibility. There is no black and white answer derived by logic as to what that balance should be, but there is a gray comfort zone dictated by preferences and experience. This is where the divide between liberals and conservatives lies. To insist logic favors conservatism is false. What favors conservatism is experience. Conservative societies are more creative and productive, but don't deny that they also have problems. That's where you lose liberals.
The point is not to win an argument with a liberal but to persuade them that most of their legitimate concerns are best handled in a free society of people and not a nanny state of house pets. Everything is in play; facts, logic, emotions and beliefs. What should not be in play is ridicule and malignment of intentions. You can win an argument that way, but not a convert.
Good argument trubolotta. I see what you mean. Of course, I was talking about the "garden variety" Liberal voter, not the cynical, power-hungry, fascist Elites.
ReplyDeleteI was talking about the way the Elites manipulate Liberals rather than the method either arrive at their core beliefs.
I find it hard to believe, however, that logic & reason can persuade a human being that a tyrannical collective (and there is no other kind) is better than freedom — when all the facts are on the table.
I think only fear or envy convinces one of that...and the criminal deception of the manipulators.
The "belief system" in America has already been established. It's detailed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. That work has already been done.
And I agree with the Founders that the truths are "self-evident" if you use REASON.
The Liberal Elite pretend there is an optional belief system permissible in America about the nature of God, Man and Government. But, in fact, what they sell is nothing less than a betrayal of the very foundations of our nation.
That's not "legitimate concern". It's treason.
And I absolutely "malign their intentions".
But I agree that using that argument isn't necessarily effective in deprogramming their victims - which is the whole point of this discussion.
Finally, I think I agree with Judge Andrew Napolitano that there is no "balance" permissible when it comes to freedom and natural rights.
Natural Human Rights come from God with only one caveat: You can't violate anyone else's.
I find it impossible to accept that fully human adults can "logically" arrive at the conclusion that it is acceptable to live as "house pets" of the State.
That may be logical for a dog, but not a Man.
Foxhound, yes someone said: "Green is the new Red": the modern way to establish a communist dictatorship is by enslaving us all to the EnviroStasi.
ReplyDeleteYou know, those geniuses who insist we all drive electric cars while they outlaw coal plants and refuse to build nuclear power plants....which generate electricity.
That's so baldly illogical one is compelled to wonder what their real agenda is.
Horses and buggies? Pre-wheel cultures?
Van, as always, BRILLIANT!
ReplyDelete"Calculative logic chopping, and Reasoning, are not the same thing. An argument which deliberately fails to include key relevant information, which deliberately dismisses reality in favor of what you'd prefer reality to be, is not Reasoning."
As we understand and use them, the word REASON is probably a better one, and less vulnerable to distortion or misapplication, than LOGIC.
"Calculative logic chopping". Perfect phrase!
trubolotta said "do I really need a sarcasm tag here?"
ReplyDeleteNo, no... but a common sense one would be nice.
#1, I'm not talking about the level headed democrat (and yes there are many, who mistakenly see leftist policies as basic decency and generosity), but the ideologue. The straight forward argument with logic, experience and evidence is an infinite loop of equivocations, evasions and insults - their beliefs (faith) is not based or derived from logic, experience and evidence, and so is impervious to them. The possibility of convincing them is off the table, until you can manage to get them to question their positions - that's where the usefulness of the shock and awe of using their taglines in opposition to their tenets of faith.
Once you can shake their faith, then you have an opening for an argument with logic, experience and evidence, but not until then.
"Mankind has and always will struggle to find the proper balance between individual freedom and collective responsibility."
Yeah... see the unity and then opposition between Hamilton & Madison, for an example of this.
"There is no black and white answer derived by logic as to what that balance should be, but there is a gray comfort zone dictated by preferences and experience."
Gray comfort zone... dictated by preferences and experience... together with our previous discussions on the nature of power, it sounds a lot like you come from the Hobbesian, Benthamite side of things, with a dose of Rothbard and Hayek to smooth things out?
Not buying it, or the misapplication of black and white answers derived from logic... there absolutely is a way to derive the proper general course of things, while allowing the individual to make their own vastly differing choices within them... but then I come from the Ciceronian, Lockean, Burkeian (and though she'd object to some of the company, Ayn Rand, especially her views of epistemology and concept formation) side of the issue, where there is Natural Law, human nature, and their principles are discoverable and applicable.
There is a black & white solution, but not to specifics, only broad concepts, those being Rights, derived from Natural Law... you may have noticed, we've got a nation based on that... not derived from experiences and preferences, but with experiences and preferences rooted in a cultural respect for that foundational basis.
Once the basic concept of the Founders is established at the highest level, that property rights are fundamental and the root source of all Individual Rights, then the individual states can work within that principle, lean towards different preferences and customs, and down at the local level, township, ward, then there can be vastly different customs, experiences and preferences practiced among the locals, things that would go over great in Berkeley but be rejected in Small Town USA, and vice versa; but there is no 'right' to violate the property rights and other fundamental rights of citizens, and chalk it up to being acceptable based on "a gray comfort zone dictated by preferences and experience."
(annoying anti-longwinded blogger break)
(cont)
ReplyDeleteWe are a nation founded (politically) on a classical liberal philosophy, whose particulars can be defined and determined no further down than their concepts, hence Madison and Hamilton could work wholeheartedly together to write and promote the constitution, but then violently disagree on it's application in particulars. In that sense, yes, there is no black and white, logically determined resolution available, and conflicts will have to be resolved reasonably by individuals, or in courts - that's why we have courts, because there is not flowchart checklist for coming up with the correct answer, the context and particulars will be able to be considered with the dispassionate judgment of cooler and wiser heads.
There is no one size fits all solution, but there is one general way that can clearly be shown to be logically correct and necessary, and the doctrinaire leftist isn't even on the playing field.
Gunslinger said "I think only fear or envy convinces one of that...and the criminal deception of the manipulators."
ReplyDeleteBingo.
"That's not "legitimate concern". It's treason.
And I absolutely "malign their intentions"."
You Betcha!
Ooh... sorry for the missing words and disjointedness... I know better than to start typing in these wittle comment boxes... was 'in the moment'.
ReplyDeleteGunslinger said, "That's so baldly illogical one is compelled to wonder what their [the environmentalist's] real agenda is."
ReplyDeletesorry. here's the rest...
ReplyDeleteThe agenda is all in the name, e.g., Earth First! In the perverted world of the modern day environmentalist, Earth is first and man is last. These "scholars" believe in an inverted food chain where the rughts of snakes and frogs trump those of humans. Why, you ask? Because in their warped world it is man who is destroying the planet and thus destroying the habitat of all other living things. At least that is the belief system of the flock. The power brokers have a much more sinister agenda.
The Carlin video shows a more pragmatic view on man's true contribution to planetary destruction. But with respect to today's enviro-MENTAL movement, it all boils down pretty much to what you alluded to, Madame Gunslinger -- the basic tenets of communism. Environmentalism is merely the delivery system.
"Environmentalism is merely the delivery system."
ReplyDeleteWonderful line - Perfectly so.
May I steal it??
Van,
ReplyDelete"...but there is no 'right' to violate the property rights and other fundamental rights of citizens, and chalk it up to being acceptable based on "a gray comfort zone dictated by preferences and experience."
Exactly!
I hate to just repeat others. But you guys are on FIRE today.
"May I steal it??"
ReplyDeleteWhatever helps the cause, Madame.
Lock, load and aim left. Exit right --FH
Gunslinger,
ReplyDeleteIt is axiomatic to you and I that rights are God given, and that one person's rights must not infringe on another person's rights because that would be an act against God. But axioms cannot be proved or disproved by logic. Take away God and rights take on a different meaning. From a liberal perspective, rights are given to men by men for mutually (collectively) beneficial reasons. To a liberal, either there is no God or God didn't go far enough.
I said and maintain that societies, and governance in particular, are based on preferences and experience, or at least a perception of what the experience may have been. The biblical Jews wanted a king. They were warned by God what that would mean but expressed their preference for a monarch. The German people preferred socialism to capitalism when their economy collapsed. To them, it was preferable to elect Hitler than see their wives and daughters prostitute themselves for food. Anyone that believes you can build a society based entirely on logic should talk to Plato and St. Thomas Moore.
Ideally, experience shapes our preferences, but if the experience has been bad or misinterpreted, the preferences will be tainted. The basic building block of liberalism is historical revisionism, censorship and lies, whether its in schools, universities or the main stream media. Liberals are enamored with socialism because they are convinced that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are "good people" that would never ever do bad things like Hitler or Stalin. If health care is nationalized, they will find out differently just what it means to be one of the "little people" in the eyes of the liberal elite.
But back to the point, how to convert a liberal. The liberal axiom is no more provable or disprovable than the conservative axiom. You believe it or you don't. All you can do is demonstrate which axiom leads to "better" results, where "better" can be quite subjective. Hence the gray comfort zone because the axiom cannot be proved black or white and the result will be gray unless you are willing to eliminate anyone who doesn't believe as you do. Our attachment to our axiom is emotional and logical.
If you want to convert liberals, pick your battles carefully, use the full range of ammo available, and understand above all this is a struggle that never has an end. If you can't win the battle, pick another one. That's what I do and why I have liberal friends who sound more conservative every day. I don't browbeat them, I engage them, just a little at a time.