|
I'm a frequent (poo poo)poster in my college's polchat facebook group, a group formed when the conservatives got kicked out of another FB page in our university. Most of our vocal members are conservative or part of the uni's republican club, so I tend to step on everyone's toes for one reason or another. The latest fracas concerns this: https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/43115/ In an effort to...hell I dunno, try to broker peace between the club and myself, I was invited for a few beers to a meeting next week with a few members of the club. I'm mostly making this thread cause I wonder if anyone has any surefire points I can use because these guys deny reality like motherfuckers. I'm trying to think up of points which are irrefutable to the most stubborn right-winger, and if anyone tries to refute them, demonstrate how in denial of reality they are. I don't expect a lot to come from this, frankly I expect we'll ~~agree to disagree~~ but this could be a cool thread for us to come up with some surefire points that cannot be refuted or show that out opponents are arguing in bad faith. Hot topics include: -Abortion -California's tax policies -Trump (these guys LOVE to attribute anything remotely successful to the guy) -Left-wing bias in universities -Intersectionality -Racial discrimination among cops Things I know I can easily slam dunk them on: -Climate change: bring up the almost universal consensus on the matter, bring up how similar the criticism of climate change is similar to what was used to criticize evolution in the ID days -Voter ID: North Carolina case, bring up barriers to rights argument Things I stay away from: -Guns So, what do you all think?
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:
I appreciate your intentions and moxie, but your quest here is doomed to failure. There are no ironclad arguments that will penetrate their reality denial field, and basically every single experienced debater on this board is going to flatly tell you the same thing. I mean go there with a good attitude and enjoy knock ing back a couple of beers, but the only possible way you might change a few minds is to try to make a few buddies that night. That might soften their views on people with your beliefs just a tiny bit, and that might years down the road lead them to the kind of self-awareness and introspection they will need to develop to overcome the current belief system. But even that is exceedingly unlikely to pan out. (It's still your best bet imo)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
Believe me I realize that better than anyone. My only goal (and I have doubts I can achieve it) is to make the guy who organized this understand that I don't hate the club because of ~political differences~ but because of other reasons. I doubt I can make him understand those reasons, but at least I can give it the ole college try. Like one of the guys is a gay man from the South who unironically has a Confederate flag. I got my work cut out for me. Eh, I suppose focusing on gay rights is another good one. I can bring up the GOP platform in 2016 for starters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
There's opportunities to play Prankster, devil's advocate, to break the bystander effect and undermine their ability to brainwash their newest members. You might even plant the seed that person uses to help others escape the mindset. It's dangerous to go alone; take this: https://whyweprotest.net/threads/on-brainwashing-long.11614/ Good shortcut: http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/coping.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases etc etc If you're interested in being an internet samurai, battling ignorant loudmouths, insolent trolls and sociopathic sockpuppets to win the hearts and minds of the internet in an effort to avoid future war and help facilitate evidence based best practices for dealing with the coming climate change... yeah, sounds like a good place to start honing your skill. Don't expect to win /them/ over. Aim to win over anybody in earshot. And to undermine their ability to do the same. Persuasion is an artform. Compliance techniques, appeals, etc. Busk a while, it's the same skill. The reason and logic and research and evidence stuff is so you can have something firm to stand on, when you argue in /favor/ of anything. And if you never argue in favor of anything, you become just one more smug know-it-all cynic against everything 'actuallying' the world away. Other folk might notice that you always operated within a certain logical rule (that untrained interlocutors might often error upon), but that's very much a dunning-krugger thing. It's good practice to be in. But don't go in expecting to hear someone you're arguing with go 'Oh, holy poo poo, that makes sense, you've persuaded me with your reasoning and I now accept your conclusion.' And don't let anybody tell you that just because you never elicit that response that your participation in the humansong hasn't mattered, hasn't shifted reality. All I ever do is spell and curse. I say go  Expect to have a bad time, tho.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
Feel free to call greg lu an uncle wong for me
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:20
|
|
|
Here's how to win the climate debate. Get a glass and overfill it with ice cubes. Add water to the brim, like to the point where it looks ready to spill over if you can. Then all you gotta do is wait. Those liberal snobs will be left scratching there heads as the ice melts but fails to overflow the glass on account of global warming being as fake as dinosaur bones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Thanks for the tips guys!Uglycat posted:Persuasion is an artform. Compliance techniques, appeals, etc. Busk a while, it's the same skill. Got any tips? Uglycat posted:The reason and logic and research and evidence stuff is so you can have something firm to stand on, when you argue in /favor/ of anything. And if you never argue in favor of anything, you become just one more smug know-it-all cynic against everything 'actuallying' the world away. Hmm so I need a tangible position before trying to refute anything? Uglycat posted:And don't let anybody tell you that just because you never elicit that response that your participation in the humansong hasn't mattered, hasn't shifted reality. All I ever do is spell and curse. Yeah that's all they do in response to me. I don't let it keep me down (oh noez 10 people on the internet who are all friends with each other dislike me cause I don't accept hating feminism as a priori) but it makes it difficult to keep a conversation going. I have a leftist friend of mine coming with me to this shitshow so hopefully it'll be less of a dogpile. EDIT: It should be mentioned that greg unironically wore a Hillary for Prison shirt when trying to get members for his club. You will be surprised to hear nobody really likes him a whole lot. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:
Unfortunately in this circumstance the skillset and psychological toolkit you need to accomplish your goals are things that take many years of study and practice to acquire, and have virtually nothing to do with political knowledge or soundness of arguments. You just can't really convey that kind of information over a brief internet post. It's akin to asking for tips on how to do a double cartwheel on a balancing bar in a local gymnastics competition when you've never done more than walk across the balancing bar with your arms out once or twice. If I were going to that meeting then my entire approach and conduct would be predicated upon reading the mood of the room and adapting as I went, and that's just not something that can be explained or even learned by reading, it's more of a learning-by-doing or learning-by-observing kind of skill. There's probably about a half-dozen approaches I can think of off the top of my head that I might go with, but I would have no way of knowing which way would be the best fit until I stepped into the room and had a couple of minutes to get a reading on things. (I'm definitely not saying you shouldn't go, because if you genuinely want to acquire these kinds of skills than this meeting will be an excellent opportunity to gain vital real world experience. ) The only real simple tip I can think of offering you in this context is "under no circumstances have an emotional reaction to anything they say, keep your wits about you, and always be looking for a way to make a joke". Here is the video demonstrating the potential effectiveness of this approach in the hands of someone who both had balls of steel and knew exactly what they were doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NW3RLnXmTY Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
I stand by my suggestion of hiding a fart machine in the room beforehand and blasting it every time trumps name is said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
debating almost never changes anyone's minds studies show when faced with contrary evidence, people's views actually gets more entrenched http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
Show up and just have a beer, because you know there's probably a T_D post or something about exactly this from someone on the other side who wants to debate you into being right wing, and think about how ridiculous that sounds and you'll know exactly why it won't work. If nothing else you can make them feel like a bunch of douchebags for trying to debate you into a corner instead of actually just hanging out for beers. Pick your battles, and this is one you shouldn't fight. Also seconding the fart machine, that's an S tier idea if I've ever heard one, but make sure to push it whenever they say Hillary too so they won't get suspicious.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
Typo posted:debating almost never changes anyone's minds A lot of it also isn't really responsive to facts anyway because it's philosophical wankery (i.e. I can sum up a lot of different positions as "everything I like is an inalienable right that trumps everything else and isn't up for discussion, and that they are inalienable rights is a fact"), or fretting over hypothetical scenarios that are a complete inversion of the real world. You're not gonna get them to change their mind in one go, but maybe you can get them to sour on the batshit a bit. Yeah OK, but make sure you understand the warning embedded in this video too: If you're up against people that want to intimidate you, then they will raise the stakes until you back down. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 08:16
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Show up and just have a beer, because you know there's probably a T_D post or something about exactly this from someone on the other side who wants to debate you into being right wing, and think about how ridiculous that sounds and you'll know exactly why it won't work. seriously. of course, they won't actually feel like douchebags. and you're not going to win this. if you make an argument like "well climate change is already causing more severe weather patterns year by year and the ice caps are shrinking faster and faster", one's gonna go "but it snowed in march!" and all the others will go "yeah! global warming is a hoax". they're gonna gang up on you and it will feel good for them, and you won't win an inch from it. just drink your beer
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 09:00
|
|
|
Maybe don’t go at all, and stop getting involved with people who don’t deserve your time? They were ostracized for a reason, don’t let them believe for one moment that you consider their points worthy of being debated, because they’re not and debating them does nothing but legitimize them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 11:29
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Maybe don’t go at all, and stop getting involved with people who don’t deserve your time? They were ostracized for a reason, don’t let them believe for one moment that you consider their points worthy of being debated, because they’re not and debating them does nothing but legitimize them? this is also a good idea
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 12:26
|
|
|
I'm sorry to be so defeatist, but I don't think you can convince these people. It is part of their identity, to be this way. From what I've read, they will deny reality. Because otherwise they will deny themselves. It's all philosophical and that. Stuff about how a person would rather die than become their opposite. I'm tempted to just describe all of that American conservative/Christian/regressive poo poo as a cognitive hazard, something to be avoided at all costs. So no single part is wrong: the core of the United States of America is super cool and awesome and enviable. And Christianity is interesting in a theological sense. It's fun to think about and a little bit comforting and all that. And being regressive and harsh and psychopathic comes naturally to me. But together it becomes your Republican Party, at least the part the rest of the world sees. And honestly, when we see that, we do not see a saviour or a beacon or an icon or a mentor. We see a tyrant. The figurehead does not really matter, the essense is a bunch of rich white dudes who may actually do terrible things to maintain their power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
the way you convince people btw, is (I'm serious) by being nice to them and talk about non-political subjects a lot it makes more sense once you realize people's political views are 95% emotionally, and logical reasoning are ex post facto justification for how people think to themselves. You are actually trying to attach pleasant emotions and memories to the ideas you are presenting more than anything else. this is why political ads are 95% feel-good music/scenery fluff and this is why whenever I see the idea "you just need to humiliate them enough with LOGIC" I cringe a little because for the vast majority it simply makes the people you are trying to debate hunker down and become more entrenched in their views. And maybe you've made some personal enemies too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:What you want to do is get them to think critically and start questioning the reliability of what they've been hearing, which is really more about understanding the universe of bullshit that they're entrenched in, so hope you're ready for a Molyneux/Sargon/Peterson/Shapiro marathon. I've been trying to word something in my head for a while, but just can't get it to come out right. It goes something like this: "Do you not see the inherent problem with consuming news from places whose primary purpose is to convince you that mainstream media can't be trusted? If these are your primary sources of information, how did you come to decide that they are to be trusted with giving you the complete picture? Because they told you so? Because it aligns with what you already believe? How did you come to decide that they were more accurate than other sources? Because they told you so? Because they tell you what you want to hear? If you think that mainstream media is liberal and can't be trusted, how do you justify the thinking that obviously partisan conservative outlets are any more trustworthy?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Don't try to make any sweet burns, don't try to convince anyone they're dumb, don't tell them things/speak down to them. Go in and start conversing about non-political things. The people who see everything through a political lens will automatically make even the most non-political thing political; make a mental note of these people and don't even bother talking to them any further (If they try to force the talk into politics right away just say something along the lines of "Hey, I thought we were going to have a beer and get to know each other better, we can get into the heavy politic stuff later). Talk with the other people and try to have normal, friendly conversations (sports, campus life, classes, hobbies, normal stuff). It will eventually work it's way to politics and at that point, don't try to argue political points with anyone, instead ask them questions (genuinely) about some of their views. Ask why they identify as a Republican more than a libertarian, some probably vote Republican because they feel more libertarian needs are met by the GOP than the Dems, some are probably Republican because they truly agree with most of the GOP platform. Ask them their views on thing like the steel tariffs (was it a good idea but maybe not well implemented/phased in? Was it a bad idea for free market trade?). Just get them to take some time and actually think with a little introspection about the beliefs they hold. Don't ask about the super polarized topics like guns/abortion/climate change, there's nothing productive to be gained there, but getting them to talk thoughtfully about things like "even if regulations are generally viewed as bad, we can create worse situations by striking and rolling back regulations without properly planning how to remove them so as to avoid leaving gaps and loopholes" will get them to actually examine their beliefs. You aren't there to convince them of anything, you're there to talk and get them to think about their views instead of falling back on their talking points. They'll have a better time and you'll have a better time than if all y'all do is throw talking points at each other and try to get sick burns. Also bring a fart machine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
don't voluntarily associate with garbage people OP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
I've had political discussions with my reality-denying parents and I've (temporarily) gotten my dad to agree that global warming is real. It requires some dedication and mental stamina though. - Pick subjects with overwhelming evidence on your side. Good ones are global warming, police racism, border wall, voter ID - Focusing on a narrow discussion. i.e. don't discuss "global warming is real", argue "human actions have had at minimum some effect on the temperature of the earth". Or instead of "white privilege" debate the two separate points of "police treat african americans differently than caucasians" and "difference in police treatment of african americans is due at least partially to racism". The terms are super clear and you can say anything else is out of scope. i.e. don't get pulled into any discussions of global warming interventions until they agree with the key point that humans are at minimum partially responsible for global warming. - Never use any points that can be debated. For example, don't use the scientific consensus argument for global warming. They will rebut that scientists are biased/wrong/liars/tools of the liberal agenda and you can't really win that fight. Instead show charts of blackbody radiation from the earth and compare with the actual radiation emitted from the earth measured from above the ozone layer (ooh look there's a huge chunk of radiation at the exact same bands that CO2 absorbs!) Someone has to either accept your point or say they think science is wrong. If they say the science is wrong, you can offer to walk them through specifics. If they don't want that, shove their face in the fact that they are trying hard to avoid facts pertinent to something they feel they can confidently discuss. If you get to this point, you have them by the balls and can maybe get them to admit that they simply aren't interested in the facts. - Be willing to pull back. If you say something that leads to a rabbit hole (i.e. scientific consensus of climate change means it's real, etc.) be willing to say "never mind that point is not required for my argument". If they try to change the subjects or talk about how dumb liberals are, say that it is irrelevant to the discussion (do NOT engage with tangents). If they throw out hundreds of factoids at you about "if global warming is real then why X", offer to respond to any 1-2 of those points after which you'd like them to hear you through. Definitely don't engage in any insults - one option if they go for insults is to say back to them what they are doing to you - i.e. "you are now raising your voice and insulting my intelligence. Please address my point". This also applies to other attempts at tangents: "you say liberal X said/did a dumb thing. That is entirely possible. This discussion is not about whether liberals are intelligent - we are discussing global warming." Mainly you should have basic facts in front of you before the conversation. Global warming is a great one since the scientific principles are relatively simple and with some research a layman can understand the overall idea (and why the data is so damning). I recommend going through the article below and understanding the basic premise, i.e. CO2 levels have definitely spiked due to human activity; CO2 levels have a large, obvious, and measurable effect on how much radiation leaves the earth; some portion of that radiation gets back to earth which heats it. Which is sufficient to demonstrate that human activity has some warming effect on global climate. https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm The best part about showing graphs is that people will feel stupid for dismissing them. And any attempt to disprove them makes you come off as a conspiracy nut (those satellites are FAAAAAKE). Anyways this is super hard to actually do, requires not falling for bait / tangents and maintaining a straight face during insults. EDIT: one more thing for my extra long post. You can lay out the ground rules before discussing. i.e. "we are both intelligent logical people who would like to learn from this discussion. I believe that any difference of opinion falls into 2 possibilities: 1. A disagreement of premise, i.e. I might think it's the government's job to help poor people in other countries and you might disagree, or 2. a factual or logical error. During our discussion I'd like us to pick a narrow subject of conversation and identify any differences in premise or factual beliefs that leads to our differing view points. The best way to do that is to not interrupt each other, allow each other to make our points and be willing to take a break / google any points that are required for our discussion." Tomfoolery fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
It is helpful to understand how (and not nessisarily what) they think, being able to communicate in the terms they think in is useful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Easy y'all I'm way ahead of you. I'm under no illusions that anyone will go "holy poo poo Neo, you're right the scales have fallen from my eyes!". I'm gonna try to use the Socratic method as much as I can while being pleasant. Like I said I expect we'll agree to disagree.Doctor Butts posted:I've been trying to word something in my head for a while, this is p much why I made this thread, it's my exact problem. You made a good point though, I'll use that. Flowers For Algeria posted:Maybe don’t go at all, and stop getting involved with people who don’t deserve your time? They were ostracized for a reason, don’t let them believe for one moment that you consider their points worthy of being debated, because they’re not and debating them does nothing but legitimize them? Condiv posted:this is also a good idea Well I was gonna go anyway, but now I have to go since Condiv said this. I really don't respect this point of view at all, especially coming from you of all people. Typo posted:the way you convince people btw, is (I'm serious) by being nice to them and talk about non-political subjects a lot This makes a lot of sense and I'll keep it in mind. Grounding my ideas in anecdotes will certainly make em more appealing. Ethos/Pathos/Logos and all that. zeroprime posted:Don't try to make any sweet burns, don't try to convince anyone they're dumb, don't tell them things/speak down to them. This is gonna be really loving hard since at least two of them basically do nothing but this. Alright, don't get bait'd. I'll keep it in mind. I'll ask em about why they're republicans, and how their gay members manage to reconcile their gay identity and their republican identity. Typo posted:debating almost never changes anyone's minds I know this and you have an exempli grati in the thread now 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
hi thread, i'm going to a meeting of reality-denying troglodytes who haven't left their hardened bubble of confirmation bias for years. any ways to own them with logic?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
I got a lot of good tips and approaches thus far so 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:"Do you not see the inherent problem with consuming news from places whose primary purpose is to convince you that mainstream media can't be trusted? If these are your primary sources of information, how did you come to decide that they are to be trusted with giving you the complete picture? Because they told you so? Because it aligns with what you already believe? How did you come to decide that they were more accurate than other sources? Because they told you so? Because they tell you what you want to hear? Getting people to the point of "one of us must be wrong, how do we figure out who it is?" is ideal, then it's possible to start talking about facts instead of ~triggering the libs~ or whatever. That still only applies to issues that can be settled by facts though, there's still a ton of cultural/social/semantic/philosophical poo poo that can't be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:
the answer is inevitably "not me"
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:That still only applies to issues that can be settled by facts though, there's still a ton of cultural/social/semantic/philosophical poo poo that can't be. Oh absolutely but I'm gonna try to stay away from it. Convincing people irl that millennials don't need "safe spaces" is a lost cause.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:hi thread, i'm going to a meeting of reality-denying troglodytes who haven't left their hardened bubble of confirmation bias for years. any ways to own them with logic? There are people who do things like that successfully. But they don't use logic and they often take great personal risks. Huge bordering on insane risks. Like this guy: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...8uhvIeG9va-5qFr
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
Ask yourself what the talking tree would say in this meeting. Then you have all your answers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Well I was gonna go anyway, but now I have to go since Condiv said this. I really don't respect this point of view at all, especially coming from you of all people. nice way to throw a fit. go if you think it's a good idea. don't go cause you think it'll spite me or something. if you really think you're gonna win these people over with your logic, you're in for a world of hurt though (especially considering your previous attempts at persuasion on these forums). Condiv fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Mar 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 09:12
|
|
|
Trying to win over people who've already made up their minds to be conservatives is usually pointless. They've bought into a worldview based on spite and hate. You need to engage people who are not already engaged.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
Tomfoolery posted:- Pick subjects with overwhelming evidence on your side. Good ones are global warming, police racism, border wall, voter ID My brain immediately assessed how much this will not actually do any good, to an extent that it made me feel tired inside and I need a nap. (the nap will, incidentally, be more productive)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 09:37
|
|
|
Kavros posted:My brain immediately assessed how much this will not actually do any good, to an extent that it made me feel tired inside and I need a nap. I can confirm that it's possible to convince someone down the fox rabbit hole that global warming is real. It just requires them to be invested in the discussion and for you to be able to ignore tangents/insults.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
Maybe try the "steel man" debate method:quote:There are two debaters, Alice and Bob. Alice takes the podium, makes her argument. Then Bob takes her place, but before he can present his counter-argument, he must summarize Alice's argument to her satisfaction — a demonstration of respect and good faith. Only when Alice agrees that Bob has got it right is he permitted to proceed with his own argument — and then, when he's finished, Alice must summarize it to his satisfaction. Ask them to see from your perspective before they launch into their own tirade, which would force them to think outside their bubble.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Here's the only point I can honestly suggest using, and not because it will necessarily work, but because I'm curious what the response will be: Basically you want to point out how it's fundamentally impossible for everyone, or even most people, to be capable of making a lot of money in our society. Point out that the number of jobs that can/do pay highly that are needed in our society is very limited, and there are many jobs that pay little that our society needs filled to function (since most jobs are relatively low-paying service/retail jobs). As a result, in a hypothetical world where literally every American was a hard-working genius, you'd still see roughly the same proportion of poor and rich people. So even though a specific individual working at Wal-Mart (or whatever) can hypothetically become well-off, it is literally impossible for most, or even a significant portion, of people currently working such jobs to do so. As a result, on a population-wide level, most Americans are not free to improve their lot in life, even if our society was a perfect meritocracy (which is something you can just grant them for the sake of this argument, even though it's obviously wrong). This point is good because it's basically impossible to deny and forces them into having to acknowledge that they're okay with a permanent underclass that will continue to exist regardless of merit. edit: This argument can also be used against "we should focus on equal opportunity, not equal outcome" liberals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Don't know if anyone else has suggested it. But starting out with a joke about liberals should go over well with endearing them to you and demonstrating that you don't "drink the Shilary cool-aid" .
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:As a result, in a hypothetical world where literally every American was a hard-working genius, you'd still see roughly the same proportion of poor and rich people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:nice way to throw a fit. go if you think it's a good idea. don't go cause you think it'll spite me or something. if you really think you're gonna win these people over with your logic, you're in for a world of hurt though (especially considering your previous attempts at persuasion on these forums). it seems like the op is the one who can't be convinced by reasonable arguments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
If these guys are bad enough to get banned as college Republicans the best thing to do is to say you'll meet at some terrible bar at the far end of town and then just not go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 20:00
|
|
