[therealpoder]

Accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are normal when having a debate with a liberal, socialist, communist, anarchist or SJW. Has anyone found out the best way to respond to this?

The only possible responses I see are:

1. Deny

2. Ignore

3. Agree

4. Attack

It seems “deny” is the worst strategy because it shows the enemy that you care what you think of them, puts you on the defensive and make the enemy continue with the accusation. Not to mention, when you deny something too much, people think you’re guilty. Bad idea in one on one discussion and absolute suicide when there is an audience.

Ignoring seems high minded and like you are above the fray. Two kinds of ignoring to me a) acting as if the comment was never made or b) acknowledging that the comment was made but saying it is an ad hominem attack and has nothing to do with the discussion. It works okay if there is an audience or it is a recorded debate since it makes the enemy look petty and makes you look high minded. However, it doesn’t really dissuade accusations of racism, sexism, etc. and relies too much on an audience having sympathy. In discussions where there is no audience, it seems that it has little value.

For agreeing, there seems to be a) agree and be totally serious (e.g. someone calls you a Nazi and you say “yes, I am a Nazi”) or b) agree and exaggerate. Agreeing seems effective because it shows that you really don’t care what other think of you and it works well with overused names like racist or sexist. It doesn’t seem to work well for something more emotionally charged like “rapist”. It may backfire during a debate with an audience because some people don’t want to agree with a person who admits to being a racist. Agree and exaggerate is effective because it shows you do not care and it ridicules the person making the insult. In one on one discussions, these seem to work reasonably well.

Seems like the two kinds of attacks are a) using your own insult against the other person and b) calling a person a “bad person” for even calling you those names. Insulting the other person can be good especially if you use stereotypes (fat ugly feminist, pyjama boy, leftist with worthless degree, anti-racist who lives in all white gated neighborhood, etc.) Even better if you are funny because it is almost impossible to beat funny. Only downside I see if that if you continue to insult each other, there is no discussion. And if there is an audience, it can also make you look bad.

In my view, attacking your opponent with your own insults is the best course of action.

Denying doesn’t work at all. Ignoring is too passive; it does nothing to stop the name calling and relies too much on audience sympathy. Agreeing takes the power out of the insult but some of the insults are still stigmatized and cause people to dismiss what you have to say.

It seems that using harsh insults against the left is the most effective strategy. If you are having a discussion with someone and they start name calling it seems that any productive conversation is over and the person insulted you, so why not insult? There are a lot of negative stereotypes of leftists so there is a lot of material to work with.

I think you should frame the discussion as well. The left has framed the national dialogue where “if you don’t agree with me you are either stupid or evil”. I think people who aren’t part of the left need to frame the conversation where “if you don’t agree with me you hate Western Civilization” or something like that.

Thoughts?

[AboveAverageJoe]

When a wise man and a fool are aguing, from a distance once cannot tell who is who.
Don't argue with idiots.

[Phoenix]

Calling it out is what I've found works best.
It's generally easy to turn it into an insult on their intelligence. You just run over the last few exchanges, saying what they did, and what that means about them.

As I've written about before, there's 3 levels of political argumentation:
- Ideas
- Character attacks
- Physical attacks

If you're astute to them dropping down a level, you can call them out on it and invite them to resume a higher level. For instance:
"I am trying to keep this discussion about the facts and debate what's best. You, instead, are just attacking my character with your accusations of [x]. That's because you're not capable of anything more, right? You have neither the intelligence to explain why I'm wrong, nor the morals to care about whats right. So all you can do is call names, right? Perhaps you could try explaining why I'm wrong, if you can."

This kind of defensive "attack" is very strong I've found, because by trying to phrase these call-outs as questions is more condemning and powerful, since it forces them and the audience to think about it.

Phrasing them as an open question "Is calling names all you're capable of?" is generally softer, and better invites the opponent to resume the Ideas Level. As a confirmation question: "Calling names is all you're capable of, isn't it?" tends to piss them off a lot more. As a statement: "You're only capable of calling people names" isn't very effective, because it just sounds like name calling itself in a way, and doesn't put pressure on them to respond and deny like a question does.

Beyond that, when you're debating with a leftist, and they stick to the character attacks, you have to recognize that they have the high ground. It's easier for them because they've been taught all the talking points and propaganda since they were kids. As a right winger, you have to be a bit more prepared.

In that situation, yes you can go down the route of explaining why they are "against western civilization", but it has to be convincing and detailed. This really throws them off because they're so used to playing within their own court (AKA "the narrative"), that they basically have no defenses when you bring in left-field stuff.

A simple example of a "strong counterattack", e.g. against a multi-culturalist. Note that you should always consider if you even want to bother, or just walk away, because this style is quite heavy and has a good chance of ending up in them physically attacking you.
"Islamic immigration is bad."
"You are Islamophobic and racist, a typical closed-minded bigot and a backwards-thinking dinosaur. It's surprising and dismaying that people like you still exist in our society". [recognize this is a character attack, not an idea]
"Is calling names all you're capable of? Can you not have an objective discussion about whether Islamic immigration is good or not, based on the facts?"
"There's no point having a debate with somebody who believes such backwards, disgusting ideas" [recognize it's an affirmation of the intent to only character attack]
"So I'll take that as a yes, leftist." [always use the word leftist, said in the same tone they say racist] "And what is Islam? Have you read the Koran? Have you read about the Prophet Muhammed, the things that he did? Are you aware of how Islam prescribes women and gays be treated?" [this is a setup]
"What? Yeah I know, much more than you do, blah blah, you are mischaracterising it blah blah"
"And if I said, on the street, "I support a man who says Jews should be gased", would you hesitate to call me a Nazi, a far-right winger? Of course not. Now if I said "I support a man who says gays should be stoned to death", would you not call me a far-right extremist? No! You, a leftist, will give me nothing but support for being a Muslim. And isn't that interesting, leftist? A leftist supporting a foreign far-right political movement, and attacking the local moderate right, who would never believe such things?"
"Huh? Blah blah"
"Yes, because this is the kind of human being you are. The only reason you don't support the Nazis is because they no longer exist. They no longer have the power to do any damage. But Islam does, doesn't it? You pretend to be about virtues, but really what you personally get off on is the opposite, isn't it leftist? When women in Cologne get raped by muslim immigrants, you get off on it don't you? You fantasize about fucking 12yo girls like Muhammed did to his wife Aisha, don't you? You personally get excited and feel giddy inside when you see them throwing gays off buildings, or stoning women to death, don't you, leftist? Which is what your true nature is: by defending their immigration, by protecting this foreign far-right extremist political movement, you help make sure those things come here too, which is what your true desire is, isn't that right, leftist?"
[rage ensues]

[RatInTheWoods]

Don't wrestle with a pig.

He likes it and you both get dirty.

[Valentine]

Combating 'xenophobic' slur:
"Phobia literally means irrational fear eg anthophobia is irrational fear of flowers. Xenophobia is wrong because instead of irrational fear I have rational dislike. There's logic and evidence for my beliefs. So let's get back to facts and talk like logical people. I've given you my logical evidence, what's your evidence that what I'm saying is wrong?"

Combating 'racist' slur:
The approach depends on what ethnicity you're discussing. Of course it's easy to attack a particular ethnicity for provable flaws but I think it's best to avoid trying to win the argument on that level because almost everyone shuts down their logical minds. There's always plenty of evidence other than race so avoid it as best you can.

Muslim/Arabs:
"Racist? You know Muslim is a religion not a race? If you're born in the Middle East and are Christian I have no problem with you. I have problems with the sexist, bloodthirsty religion that's all."

Black lives matter/Blacks:
"Racist? I have nothing against black people as a whole. This is just a subsection of thugs who are using oppression as an excuse to go break shit, steal and kill white people. The whole movement is a joke and the elite are supporting them in order to worsen the perception of black people as violent thugs and to divide them against poor whites when it's really the elite who have fucked up the economy to ensure they have low income."

Keep rebuttals brief, don't attack, just win them over with logic. At some point though be prepared to eject if they're not being rational, especially if there's no audience that you're trying to convince.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Someone resorts to dehumanising you? Just call it a day.

You say: "Progressive starts losing debate. Cries racism, flips the proverbial chessboard and runs away to their safe space with their fingers in their ears. *shrug* Game over."


Then you walk the fuck away.

[Fortis]

Yeah, if someone seriously accuses me of racist I usually repeat back in a funny voice (think eric cartman) "dats racist!"

I don't often get accused of racism since I am black, but when I am accused of it I treat it like a joke. If they're a serious debater, they won't do that. Anyone can call anyone a racist, but only true gangstas can logically deconstruct your argument without character assassination.

I always use humor to attack stupid shit since It's just how I operate.

[Periphrasis]

Step #1 is state control. No matter what you say, if you lose your cool you'll lose the battle. Anyone with a history being shaken up during political arguments will find it astonishing how much they can suddenly get away with if they become extremely emotionally grounded.

Once you've managed to not flinch at all or feel any negative emotions which are written on your face, when they call you "racist" or "sexist" you have at least two good choices:

First choice is to ignore the negative connotations ("you're a bad person!") and terminology ("racist!"/"sexist!") and merely reply to their statement as if they said something like, "Hm, what you're saying seems to be an overgeneralization which reflects poorly on [protected group e.g. women, blacks]."

Second choice is to agree in words except with a slight re-definition: "I suppose I could be considered racist if we mean I believe there are significant differences in average intelligence between races." If they insist that your definition is wrong and that you're simply "RACIST!", then you can ask them for their definition. They won't have one.

Consider this: One reason it's looked down upon and considered childish to have picky habits with food is because the people interacting with you will wonder when you'll reject them for a shitty idiosyncratic reason.

Most people approach conversations not as a literal discussion of the macro issues in society, but rather as a way to tease out your inner motivations and your feelings about them and other people. They're usually not actually worried about your beliefs on racial or sexual politics leading to changes in society which are damaging; they're scared that if you're a judgmental prick then you'll judge them too... perhaps behind their back and in a vicious manner.

Project an aura of emotional control and unconditional love and support (even in the midst of making sweeping criticisms of e.g. women in the West), and you'll find you can voice (almost) whatever beliefs you want.

[nek]

Ask them to define racism and sexism. I'm serious. When I was growing up racist and sexist meant you disliked/hated that group. Most people agree about not hating someone simply because of their appearance. However, these terms have been hijacked and used in situations where facts, independent of feelings on the matter, may lead to an undesirable conclusion. It needs to be pointed out that pointing out facts and realities of life doesn't mean you hate anyone. It may not win over the person you're arguing with, but there's a significant portion of people that'll agree, you just have to be the first person to make the point.

[therealpoder]

I thought of two possible ways to address such accusations in a debate.

If you know the person you are debating with has a history of calling someone a racist, sexist or whatever, then at the beginning of the argument, call them out on it. Directly say or imply that the person cannot have a rational discussion about the topic and only wants to name call. Or say "in the past when I've discussed this issue my opponents have been irrational and call people racist or sexist for disagreement so I'm glad you are not like that." Therefore if during the debate if he does name call, call him out in it and say this proves your point that the left cannot discuss the issue without name calling.

During the debate, if you are called a name, simply state that "it's not racist/sexist/etc. if it's true". It shows you don't care about the name, presents yourself as merely being the messenger of the truth and puts the focus back on the facts. Simple.

[MMX2010]

Ask the person how long they've lived in a Muslim majority country.

[Lance Blastoff]

After years of arguing with liberals, I've just given up. You will never change someone's mind. Liberals have not arrived at their beliefs through a process of rational deliberation. It's about feelings and temperament.

I just say, "I was always raised to not discuss religion or politics."

[LeoneVolpe]

Even though he's revealed himself as quite the cuck, Ben Shapiro had a great video on YouTube about how to debate leftists. Skip to 3:26 to get to some of the good stuff.

[Wreckingball]

(10-14-2016 04:17 AM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  

Even though he's revealed himself as quite the cuck, Ben Shapiro had a great video on YouTube about how to debate leftists. Skip to 3:26 to get to some of the good stuff.

This video is amazing and I have a couple quotes from the video on my one note which I use quite regularly (unfortunately more than I would like to).

Here is what I say (copied from Shapiro's Nukes):

You feel better by calling me racist. It makes you feel good special about yourself.
 
If you are going to use tactics like that you are the bigot/intolerant one. You're the one calling me racist without evidence. It means you're nothing but a bully. A nasty human being. If you're that type of person, we cant have a rational conversion. If you want to enter the world of rational conversation where we can discuss policies, causes, effects and outcomes, then we can do that.
If not, than this conversation is over. We are not going to have a conversation where you call me a racist and I explain you why i am not a racist. We're not gonna do that, because you have no evidence that I am a racist, you're just saying that to make you feel good about yourself with your moral superiority. It's vile and despicable and makes you a horrible human being.

[ElFlaco]

(10-02-2016 06:48 AM)Periphrasis Wrote:  

Most people approach conversations not as a literal discussion of the macro issues in society, but rather as a way to tease out your inner motivations and your feelings about them and other people. They're usually not actually worried about your beliefs on racial or sexual politics leading to changes in society which are damaging; they're scared that if you're a judgmental prick then you'll judge them too... perhaps behind their back and in a vicious manner.

Project an aura of emotional control and unconditional love and support (even in the midst of making sweeping criticisms of e.g. women in the West), and you'll find you can voice (almost) whatever beliefs you want.

Great observation and advice. Always keep in mind the meta-conversation going on.