#how to argue

[etz-ashashiyot]

You know how sometimes arguing a point is losing?

Like if you engage the argument at all you are inherently putting up for debate things that should never be up for debate and the argument itself is degrading?

You see this with interpersonal gaslighting:

A gaslighter doesn’t simply need to be right. They also need for you to believe that they are right. In stage one, you know that they’re being ridiculous, but you argue anyways. You argue for hours, without resolution. You argue over things that shouldn’t be up for debate  – your feelings, your opinions, your experience of the world. You argue because you need to be right, you need to be understood, or you need to get their approval. In stage one, you still believe yourself, but you also unwittingly put that belief up for debate. In stage two, you consider your gaslighter’s point of view first and try desperately to get them to see your point of view as well. You continue to engage because you’re afraid of what their perspective of you says about you. Winning the argument now has one objective :  proving that you’re still good, kind, and worthwhile. In stage three, when you’re hurt, you first ask, “What’s wrong with me?” You consider their point of view as normal. You start to lose your ability to make your own judgements. You become consumed with understanding them and seeing their perspective. You live with and obsess over every criticism, trying to solve it.

[Source]

But you also see this on a broader societal level, with people asking unfathomably awful questions about minority groups, such as:

[Source]

It should go without saying, but no group of people should be forced to explain that yes, they really are real people, dickheads. The question doesn't deserve an answer; it deserves at best a disgusted eyeroll + "Are you a Nazi?" and at worst a punch to the face.

There is also the related phenomenon of the "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions. The question is framed as a yes or no question, but the real answer for the innocent is: "I've never beaten my wife and never would." But even that answer still dignifies the question with a real response and puts the idea in the mind of the listener that hey maybe that's a real possibility and this guy is lying because of course he wouldn't just admit that. Now I don't know what to believe, but I'm skeptical.

Even if he answers, doubt has been cast on his character and many people (maybe even most people) neither have the attention span to listen to his full counter argument and supporting evidence nor are invested enough in strangers' lives to take the time to dig for facts on their own. Critically, it comes from a good impulse that shouldn't be repressed or taken too far in the opposite direction; namely, that we want to believe survivors and make it socially acceptable to speak out about abuse.

This leaves us with the uncomfortable reality that balancing believing survivors and whistle-blowers against not automatically believing allegations that very well may be false and/or in bad faith is a very tricky balancing act indeed. Because of this, people tend to struggle with taking survivors seriously and with presuming innocence until guilt has actually been proven, both. And as for the latter, this is at least partially due to the same psychological factors underlying the Don't Think of an Elephant problem.

Why am I discussing this?

See the thing is that these types of discourse have all been used, heavily, against the Jewish community, especially since Oct 7th, but really going back hundreds of years.

If you want to be our ally, you need to be on guard for how people use this rhetoric to accuse Jews of absolutely batshit cookoo bananas allegations (like being lizard people or having horns, or secretly running the world, or killing Christian babies to use their blood in our matzah, etc. etc.) and get away with it. Now obviously if so many people weren't already racist towards Jews as a people and had a vested interest in maintaining their supercessionist cultural worldview from Christianity and Islam, it would be a lot harder for this to work. Alas, the past 2000 years has created a bit of a snowballing effect.

This culminates in the effect described so well by Sartre:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

— Jean-Paul Sartre

Right now, Jews are facing extreme levels of these types of rhetorical abuse, and are receiving very little help in the way of pushback.

We have to stop trying to explain ourselves and start just naming these tactics instead.

[squishyproductions]

How to Debate a Republican

You don't.

Debate is a discussion where opposing arguments are laid out. Republicans don't debate anything.

They can't state what their beliefs are because the second they reveal who they hate, how much, and why they've lost the moral high ground and they risk getting kicked off whatever platform this is taking place on. Additionally all their other beliefs, that aren't based entirely on bigotry, are just bull shit that they go back on the second it's convenient for them. They can't bring up anything without getting a dozen examples of their party doing the opposite getting thrown in their faces.

So what is happening when you start arguing with one? They change the subject.

Repeatedly.

Endlessly.

They'll level personal attacks at you. They'll have an unending list of things to distract you with. "What about Hillary? What about Obama? What about gay frogs? What about pizza place demonic sex ring? What about Hunter?" They'll do everything in their power to change the subject to something they think they can win or drag you into a name calling screaming match. And if you clap back against what they're pushing they'll just change the subject again until they find a subject or incident that you're not strong on. So don't fall for it the first time thinking you'll get them on what they're trying to deflect to. They'll just deflect again. They don't give a shit.

The last thing they want is for you to stay on topic. Every single word they use is a conscious effort to distract you. STAY ON TOPIC! Throw in their faces pictures, studies, clips of what their own media and politicians have said. And, while doing so, constantly mock their attempts to change the subject.

Eventually they'll come up with an excuse as to why they've won anyway and run away.

You can't win an argument against someone who doesn't care about facts. All you can do is make them crawl back under their rocks hissing and spitting when it's obvious their ploys aren't working on you and you're making them look like the goose stepping idiots they are.

Or you can hit the jackpot and they snap! Going into a racist tirade. You then screen shot it, post it all over social media, and then report them. If you're on anything but Twitter chances are they're gonna get banned and you've successfully limited how much bull shit they can spread. But screen shot it first because they're likely to delete the whole conversation when they realize they said the quiet part out loud.

[peggy-sue-reads-a-book]

Some comebacks I’m proud of:

Whatever. You’ll never be Nick Offerman.

Whatever. I have a fat ginger baby and you don’t.

Do I look?!

Yeah, but I’m literally a hedonist

You’re right; I don’t own a colony.

[yehoria]

you shouldn't be taking so long to call it oppression olympics.

it's the main point, the biggest problem with the thing you're calling out — get to it sooner!

you could've just like:

Oppression Olympics

and that, honestly, i would consider that a better post. it would be more concise, focusing on the main problem.

or you could start by saying "this is oppression olympics" and then move to everything else later. it's obvious, it doesn't need much explaining, it establishes the wrongness of the fundamental premise of the original post before going on to deconstruct less important points.

ughhh sorry if i'm being obnoxious, but i do want us all to present the correct arguments in a fashion that's easier to read and understand.

some of yall cant seem to wrap ur fucking heads around the fact that violence doesnt begin and end at who is killed more

violence is also domestic abuse

violence is also conversion therapy

violence is also sexual assault

violence is also bullying and harassment so bad that it makes you want to kill yourself to get away from it all

everyone in the trans community deals with all these different forms of violence in one way or another and trans men/mascs have been reported as having the highest rates of depression and suicide and of having experiences sexual assault

the violence that trans men/mascs experience is also worth acknowledging and addressing, just like the violence that trans women/fems face is worth acknowledging

but to claim that any one group of trans people is "more" or "less" oppressed just based off of the statistics of only one type of violence experienced by the trans community is straight up oppression olympics and needs to fucking stop

we need to come together to acknowledge the violence that ALL trans, nonbinary, and intersex people face and combat it TOGETHER

[artistic-arteries]

A: people need to stop using mental disorders as insults. Retard ≠ stupid, delusional ≠ wrong/stupid, narcissistic ≠ asshole, etc.

B: people need to stop calling someone names just cause they disagree with them, yes even if they're objectively wrong. Not only is it not polite but it's also a great way to make people defensive and not listen to your argument

[justsayyesmiss]

[nikoisme]

fucking hate how cats think they can mrrp their way out of anything because yeah, they fucking can.

[homeboygirl]

learning that self deprecation isnt cool and just makes the people around you uncomfortable unironically improved my mental health a lot. like if you just stop saying negative shit about yourself you will genuinely like yourself more and other people wont be repulsed by your attitude and you will have more friends. it's true.

[chloesimaginationthings]

Mike can’t handle Abby in the next FNAF movie..

[pineapple-frenzy]

Book 2 au with Zuko and Katara Lee and Huamei

Katara is separated from her friends, and so she's left to travel the earth kingdom on her own. She stumbles across Zuko, who is similarly travelling on his own. They decide that pairing up and travelling together would be best

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

main take aways from Halloween (1978) rewatch:

michael myers is canonically 21??? this bitch should be at the club

*sees tiddies* ***MURDEROUS RAMPAGE NOISES***

that's it that's the movie

outside of the fact that everyone who has sex is murdered by the narrative, this is a surprisingly chill portrayal of female sexuality? these teen girls are horny and actively enjoying Getting It On with their boytoys. no pushy boyfriends sneaking in through their bedroom windows--these ladies are taking the initiative to sneak out and GET SOME. one of them gets laid and then immediately orders her boyfriend to get her a beer. (yes she gets Slashered soon afterward, but so does the boyfriend so honestly, gender equality.) yes the Final Girl is the only one not having sex, but she's not bullied for that, nor are her friends slut shamed except possibly by being murdered by the narrative

actually the only character who is shown being morally condemned on-screen is michael myers. specifically FOR his violent overreaction to other people's sex lives. (people he is spying on). metaphorically, the villain is American Puritanism sticking its judgy nose into other people's business.

aka Michael Myers Is A Republican

but actually the real villain is the doctor. guy's a judgemental, shaming, pathologizing asshole. and he's been in charge of michael's care since he was SIX YEARS OLD? kid never had a chance. i'd go on a killing spree too

also the parents. where are the parents? it's halloween night and all the teenage girls are home babysitting their younger siblings? come to think of it, michael's first victim was his own older sister, whom he killed while she was babysitting him. teen girls are really shouldering a labour burden here. maybe parentification is the true villain

side note: mike commits his first murder wearing a clown costume...which is never referenced again? his 'iconic' costume is a generic mask and wig and jumpsuit, when we coulda had a Killer Clown Michael Myers??? travesty

i like how the Final Girl and her friend casually smoke weed in her car. yeah she's an honor student and her friend is the sheriff's daughter. yeah they smoke weed. so what it's 1978

(to reiterate, mike is 21 and should be at the club. im not saying he shouldn't be rampaging, im saying it's sad that he broke out, tasted freedom for the first time in his life, and immediately snuck back into his childhood home to go rampaging. let's have a remake where he goes to a nightclub and has a few beers. maybe some slutty dancing. then rampage)

oh no he's hot

[nouverx]

*proceeds to drink the whole bottle*

Yeah Alastor you're gonna be loved and appreciated wether you want it or not :)

[johnlennonbignaturals]

when i'm in a "what are we" competition and my opponents are these mfs

[flurmitcraff]

Mumbo, desperate to feel normal for once, releases dirt on his fellow hermits and asks the community to rank their weirdness.

[ninja-knox-ur-sox-off]

Okay 3 things

1. I was thinking about an aroace Sonic who says things that can be taken as wildly flirty/romantic but he just means them genuinely. “You have beautiful eyes, I keep getting distracted while looking at them,” not cause he’s interested romantically in them but because eyes can be really cool and pretty man I dunno what to tell you he likes looking at cool things and he thinks his friends are neat. “You’re the most beautiful person here,” because he really thinks that, he loves his friends

2. Sonic randomly dropping heartfelt genuine comments on his friends out of the blue completely blindsiding them and then moves on like nothing happened while they’re left going ?????? Bonus points if he does something immensely stupid or jerkish just before or immediately afterwards and they can’t tell if he was serious or not with the compliment (yes he was)

3. Sonic usually being so allergic to truly vulnerable moments that when he expresses something heartfelt randomly Tails thinks he’s been stabbed or something and does not believe him when he reassures him that he’s fine he’s fine he’s not dying yeesh

[desultory-suggestions]

Stopping yourself mid-conflict to change your perspective is allowed! It’s okay and normal to be mid argument with someone and realize you disagree with your own stance. Often I find myself and others caught up in trying to win the argument (not the point of arguments!) or too embarrassed to back down and be wrong. I promise there is so much more pride in going “Stop! I’m wrong. I hear you and I see how I wasn’t in the right and I want to amend my view” than digging your heels in.