[Phoenix]

Just finished watching this awesome lecture from Ben Shapiro on doing battle with leftists. He really did a great job of summarizing the current shitty quality of right-wing political performance, and laying out a 10-point list of what they should be doing to beat the left.

His primary point is something I've always been saying myself: the right are way too defensive and 'explanatory' and the left are always on the attack. The left always have a posture of moral intimidation and the right always look like they're on their back foot. The right should always attack in any debate with leftists, specifically and deliberately attacking their character, striking first and striking hard right out of the gates. They should practice what Musashi called "stabbing at the face" - always be throwing questions at them to unsettle them and throw them off-balance, instead of just retreating against their barrage of "injected premise questions" like the right normally does.

This would certainly have practical application for front-line men like Roosh, should he ever have to go up against another Dr Oz type. Every man on the right should "weaponize" his beliefs into questions, ready for when he has an altercation with a leftist.

[Hades]

I saw Ben Shapiro's argument against Piers Morgan. It was pretty good, he's one of not many conservatives who actually goes on the offensive and doesn't lose his shit the second he's confronted or slighted.

While he does put up a good front and has a solid media presence, and does a great job of delivering direct insults, he has to slow down a little bit. Piers Morgan seemed cooler and more collected during their argument. Still he represents himself pretty well over all.

Great thread - definitely useful for anybody with media presence.

[Phoenix]

(10-25-2015 07:22 AM)Hades Wrote:  

While he does put up a good front and has a solid media presence, and does a great job of delivering direct insults, he has to slow down a little bit. Piers Morgan seemed cooler and more collected during their argument. Still he represents himself pretty well over all.

That's probably just him though, he's a naturally fast talker. I think if you could combine his tactical insight with the calm collected demeanor, delivery, and relateability of someone like Roosh you'd have something deadly.

[debeguiled]

What he is taking an hour to say is that you can't fight an ad hominem attack, no matter how it is disguised. You have to call it what it is.

The tricky part is that people often don't come out and call you names. They may start off sounding reasonable, lull you into having a logical discussion, and when your guard is down they go off on insulting tangents.

Or begging the question is a great tactic to catch someone off guard, because they don't openly proclaim their point. They assume their point, and then set about defining its ramifications. So, they don't accuse you of hating women, they say:

"It must be very lonely to feel that way about half the population."

I was a political activist for about a year in the nineties, and when you have political discussions for a few hours a day with whoever walks by, you figure this out quick. You are trying to have a rational conversation and suddenly find yourself off in bizarre emotion laden weeds without understanding how you got there.

It is a powerful tactic to be able to smoke out what they are up to, define it, and say, basically, that you are declining to speak with them if that is the only conversation they are capable of. It sets a strong frame, and it is also the truth.

The way I defined the conversational dynamic to myself while out gathering signatures on my clipboard was similar:

People relate to you in one of three ways:

They think you are wrong.

They think you are bad.

They think you don't exist.

If you can define which one you are being hit with, you can proceed to discuss something. As long as they think I am just wrong, I have room to maneuver. If someone thinks I am a bad person (veiled or not so veiled ad hominems) or thinks I don't exist (failing to respond to what I say, or responding in non sequiturs) I have to smoothly address what they are saying and try to shift them over to thinking just that I am wrong. Then I can debate them.

This is not so different from what Shapiro recommends, it is just more indirect. Like I would never call someone a bully or name caller directly. If someone said that I was a misogynist, I would say something to them like:

" I am not a mind reader, and don't pretend to know what is going on in your head. I am hoping the same respect will be extended to me."

Either way, the important thing is to be willing to shut down the whole conversation if it falls outside the bounds of polite, reasonable speech. That is where I always ran into trouble until I figured it out. I would make the mistake of continuing a conversation that wasn't a conversation any more and end up on the defensive.

This is a good skill to have for all sorts of conversations, not just political ones.

[LeBeau]

Any chance we could get a summary of the list or breakdown of the 10 points?

[Easy_C]

Anyone following recent events will recognize almost immediately that this video explains a lot. There's one public figure in particular who does absolutely everything this guy suggests and does it well.

[TooFineAPoint]

(10-25-2015 01:00 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

I was a political activist for about a year in the nineties, and when you have political discussions for a few hours a day with whoever walks by, you figure this out quick. You are trying to have a rational conversation and suddenly find yourself off in bizarre emotion laden weeds without understanding how you got there.

It is a powerful tactic to be able to smoke out what they are up to, define it, and say, basically, that you are declining to speak with them if that is the only conversation they are capable of. It sets a strong frame, and it is also the truth.

People relate to you in one of three ways:

They think you are wrong.

They think you are bad.

They think you don't exist.

If you can define which one you are being hit with, you can proceed to discuss something. As long as they think I am just wrong, I have room to maneuver. If someone thinks I am a bad person (veiled or not so veiled ad hominems) or thinks I don't exist (failing to respond to what I say, or responding in non sequiturs) I have to smoothly address what they are saying and try to shift them over to thinking just that I am wrong. Then I can debate them.

This is a good skill to have for all sorts of conversations, not just political ones.

Great post! I would love to see some kind of data sheet, or at least your old notes (if you kept any) on these types of strategies. Were there any books that helped you during this time?

[rpg]

During the 70's and 80's the left was a huge joke. Huge! It wasnt until the last 20 years when they started pursuing identity politics and improving their results. They have co-opted every bleeding heart cause and made it their own. They are now promising more free shit for their base at every election cycle and it is sinking our country.
This isnt going to end until a catrastophic event happens that is too big for them to handle and smarter people rise to the top with a more rational ideology.
Sadly, many will die in the process.

[EL CHAPO]

(10-25-2015 02:39 PM)rpg Wrote:  

During the 70's and 80's the left was a huge joke. Huge! It wasnt until the last 20 years when they started pursuing identity politics and improving their results. They have co-opted every bleeding heart cause and made it their own. They are now promising more free shit for their base at every election cycle and it is sinking our country.
This isnt going to end until a catrastophic event happens that is too big for them to handle and smarter people rise to the top with a more rational ideology.
Sadly, many will die in the process.

Exactly. See my post here.

thread-51255...pid1136411

They changed the voter post 1965 immigration law. The left has always been a joke, and they never convinced anybody until they changed the voter into Hispanic (Mexican voters) to vote for them. They are flooding the country with Mexicans who will one day vote for them, etc... They enslaved Blacks and made them dependent on government so they can all vote 90+% for the Dems.

The left is pure evil.

[ed pluribus unum]

Shapiro carries Andrew Breitbart's torch pretty well. Breitbart always said as soon as someone calls you a racist you call them on it, and don't let go, hammer them into the ground until they concede you're not.

[debeguiled]

(10-25-2015 02:24 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:00 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

I was a political activist for about a year in the nineties, and when you have political discussions for a few hours a day with whoever walks by, you figure this out quick. You are trying to have a rational conversation and suddenly find yourself off in bizarre emotion laden weeds without understanding how you got there.

It is a powerful tactic to be able to smoke out what they are up to, define it, and say, basically, that you are declining to speak with them if that is the only conversation they are capable of. It sets a strong frame, and it is also the truth.

People relate to you in one of three ways:

They think you are wrong.

They think you are bad.

They think you don't exist.

If you can define which one you are being hit with, you can proceed to discuss something. As long as they think I am just wrong, I have room to maneuver. If someone thinks I am a bad person (veiled or not so veiled ad hominems) or thinks I don't exist (failing to respond to what I say, or responding in non sequiturs) I have to smoothly address what they are saying and try to shift them over to thinking just that I am wrong. Then I can debate them.

This is a good skill to have for all sorts of conversations, not just political ones.

Great post! I would love to see some kind of data sheet, or at least your old notes (if you kept any) on these types of strategies. Were there any books that helped you during this time?

I pretty much simplified it down to that. However, as many have already said on this forum and other places: Why even engage with SJWs?

Unlike the average person, someone like Shapiro is on a tv show, and if he refuses to engage, there is dead air time, so his antagonists have skin in the game, and a reason to accept his frame.

You or me tallking to an average SJW? Not so much. At the time I was an activist, people were still civil to one another, even if they disagreed, and we all know how it is nowadays.

If they beat you in an argument, they win. If they have an excuse to create some drama and accuse you of things, they win.

They really have no motivation to be reasonable with you. You are just there for them to score points on.

That said, there was one book I remember that had a lot of good information about rhetoric and how people get compliance from other people. A lot of this is old hat now, for sure, but if you have ever read Cialdini's book on influence, this book is like an expanded version of that and I found it practical. You can probably find a copy of it for a couple of bucks at a used book store:


http://www.amazon.com/Age-Propaganda-Eve...0805074031

[Phoenix]

(10-25-2015 01:00 PM)LeBeau Wrote:  

Any chance we could get a summary of the list or breakdown of the 10 points?

1) Walk towards the fire (deliberately and purposefully engage the enemy)
2) Frame your opponent
3) Frame the debate using terminology helpful to your side
4) Spot (and exploit) inconsistencies in the opponents position
5) Force the other side to answer questions
6) Don't get distracted by their bullshit
7) If you don't know something, admit it immediately
8) Don't stand by other figures just because they're on your side (in a debate)
9) Allow the other side meaningless victories (example he uses is when the leftist asks "are you in favour of X reform?" say yes, because that could mean anything and doesn't harm your position)
10) Body language and image is important

[Easy_C]

I've been using these tactics with some fairly good success. Most of the time when I come out hitting and accuse them of supporting white supremacist policies(which big government actually has been, by destroying the black family) and put some information to support it results in a few likes and no pushback. I even got some enthusiastic favorable comments from minorities on Jezebel by saying that Feminism is a joke to blacks because it only cares about rich, privileged, white women. The key is that these people have a hyperactively short attention span, and no clue what they're talking about: I respond to every complaint by throwing out additional information that proves their predictably butthurt reaction wrong, and then attacking along another tangent. Most of the time they're butthurt enough by the new tangent that they never even bother to rebut the first point...which I deliberately state in a short, manner of fact manner before flaming them based off the tangent.

The ones that stick around are consistently barely literate.

[thoughtgypsy]

(10-25-2015 06:23 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Just finished watching this awesome lecture from Ben Shapiro on doing battle with leftists. He really did a great job of summarizing the current shitty quality of right-wing political performance, and laying out a 10-point list of what they should be doing to beat the left.

His primary point is something I've always been saying myself: the right are way too defensive and 'explanatory' and the left are always on the attack. The left always have a posture of moral intimidation and the right always look like they're on their back foot. The right should always attack in any debate with leftists, specifically and deliberately attacking their character, striking first and striking hard right out of the gates.

You're correct in pointing out the right are defensive and explanatory, but I would suggest that this is by design. Rather than having a two party system, what we actually have is a one party system separated into two subwings.

On one side we have the Leftists, which is the official position of the state, and is supported by the media, academia, the public school system, and the cultural elite in general. On the other side we have the mainstream right, whose job it is to be the losers that apologize and retreat slowly, and to control what points are politically acceptable to discuss.

You can look at the republicans, who after being elected into both houses, have an indistinguishable track record compared to the liberals they claim to oppose. They're the same.

What's changed is many people are finally starting to realize it's all a big scam, and they're not willing to play anymore. People are fed up. It's created a huge political vacuum and the alternative right is starting to capitalize it. Look at Trump, taking on the establishment and winning.
_____________________________

Thanks for the video. These are the strategies we need to discuss when thinking long term. Controlling the debate has a lot to do with controlling perceptions, much like game. An obstacle will be creating an alternative media, because any debate that is edited properly can be made to look completely different.

An aspect of the left which I expect to be a bigger problem in the future will be their fragile coalition of fringe groups. There are many groups that make up the left which silently hate each other. SJWs, trannies and gays, which Black and Latino culture don't typically have the highest respect for. Look at what happened with the Bernie Sanders speech. As our deficits get bigger and the economic situation worsens, they'll be fighting over what little government spending is left and tensions will rise. If we can help sow discord among them, we might be able to encourage a large disillusioned portion to sit home on election day, or even defect to the right.

[memcpy]

Ben goes into enemy territory with obvious set-up. Debates transgender man and panel of other idiots:

[Hades]

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet, but Ben Shapiro is going into full meltdown mode. He seems to have a lot of neocon leanings.

Long story short, Shapiro got a few naughty tweets from some pro-Trump anti-Semites (more likely just 4channers) who got pissed that he is trash talking Trump and promoting Cruz due to the ambiguity during that David Duke thing.

Seriously, read the article. He got a few photoshopped pictures, one guy called him a Jew Cuck, and the rest of it is fairly tame 4chan memes.

Feminists get objectively worse hate mail than this, and even I think they make up half of their supposed death and rape threats. Shapiro's a worse crybaby than a low-rent SJW. At least they usually fake bruises with makeup or call in bomb threats to their own events.

It's sort of funny because his fellow Jews think he's a homophobic racist or something.

In other news, I'm trying to get #DownLowRubio trending.

[Phoenix]

Ben going full rant at CSU-LA lecture, excoriating the university's leftist academic dipshits and the mindless rabble barricading the lecture room outside:

He was even agitating for marching out into them at the end, that would've been nice to watch if the police hadn't stopped it

In the same speech he also says "it's near 100% that Trump is going to get the nomination", but reiterates that he doesn't like that because "he's a buffoon". I know Shapiro gets a lot of flack here, but his chief reason for being anti-Trump is that Cruz is ideologically more genuinely conservative and right-wing (which is true). I doubt he'll complain too hard after the nominee is chosen.

[Hades]

I don't put it past Shapiro to be trolling and trying to get the elusive Jewish Republican to vote for Cruz.

That being said, he's being too uptight and huffy in believing that Trump makes the GOP look bad. He's not a natural provocateur like Milo.

As long as leftism has the moral authority in the US, the GOP will always "look bad".
Besides which, Trump being offensive is his brand, so it generates press without being terribly scandalous.

[Sp5]

I have to laugh at all the military metaphors in this thread - "doing battle," "walk towards the fire," "enemy territory."

Yet Shapiro was a military age male during all of the past 12 years of the wars he was a cheerleader for.

With a Harvard Law degree, he could have walked into any reserve center and got a direct commission as a JAG officer. Joe Biden's and Jeb Bush's sons deployed as reserve officers.

MikeCF called Shapiro out on his blatant chickenhawkery:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Cernovich/sta...9056914433

Trump and Bernie are the antiwar candidates, which is why chickenhawk Shapiro is against Trump. With the others, guaranteed war with Iran and maybe Russia, too! You'll see Shapiro on TV then, not in uniform.

[Irenicus]

As Sp5 already said, he is using way too much references to "war", "fight" for someone who has seen the military only in movies. Why didn't he do any military service, either in the US Army or IDF? I do not know any veterans (bar those with PTSDs) that speak like that (vet here).

He reminds me a little of all these keyboard warriors (of all nationalities). They always mention killing, raping, fighting and what not, and when a war (God forbid) starts, they will...go in front of a TV, grab some popcorn...and watch.

[262]

(03-03-2016 12:29 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

In the same speech he also says "it's near 100% that Trump is going to get the nomination", but reiterates that he doesn't like that because "he's a buffoon". I know Shapiro gets a lot of flack here, but his chief reason for being anti-Trump is that Cruz is ideologically more genuinely conservative and right-wing (which is true). I doubt he'll complain too hard after the nominee is chosen.

The nominees are practically chosen at this point - you even quote Shapiro saying so - and yet he and the Republican establishment are still attacking their almost certain nominee, Trump.

They have yet to deliver the same primacy against Clinton, who has already started campaigning against THEIR practical nominee.

So Shapiro and the Republican establishment are not only letting Clinton attempt to fuck their Trump, but are effectively encouraging it.

If that isn't the definition of a CUCK, I don't know what is.

[Phoenix]

^ I'll reserve my opinion until after the nomination. If he does persist in attacking Trump after that then yes, he's a cuck, but I don't think he will. His primary beef is that Cruz is more consistently and believably conservative, I think he's just naive to believe that's all it takes.

We should stop short of a cult of personality with Trump. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of risks with him: he basically has no real respect for privacy nor any qualms in pushing government intrusion further, he might go overboard with protectionism, he might flipflop back to some of his originally (or still) held leftist beliefs (he still believes in socialized medicine for instance). We accept all these risks because the bigger risk is that he doesn't get to execute his other plans: the wall, the deportations, pushing back against the Muslims, injecting life back into American business with tax cuts etc, withdrawing from military gallivanting around the world, smashing political correctness and perhaps even the cultural left generally.

So yeah, criticism is fine, but if he actually puts any concerted anti-Trump effort in after the nomination then he can fuck off.

[Hades]

(03-04-2016 08:10 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

We should stop short of a cult of personality with Trump. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of risks with him: he basically has no real respect for privacy nor any qualms in pushing government intrusion further, he might go overboard with protectionism, he might flipflop back to some of his originally (or still) held leftist beliefs (he still believes in socialized medicine for instance).

Agreed on all points, cults of personality only breeds discontent. If Trump makes any big screwups I'll just sit this election out.

That being said, I like Trump's policy and style. I saw him shit-talking some Wahabbist cultists over Twitter and that had me convinced to some degree that he would bring actual sense to American foreign policy and get rid of our toxic Allies In Name Only.

For reference -- I'm not sure how well you guys remember the epic liberal wank-fest that happened after Obama beat McCain, but they were convinced back then that he'd implement socialism, make racism illegal, cure income inequality, and give everybody a free phone, free insurance, and pay all their bills too. What he ended up doing was dial up GWBs bailouts to 11, NSA, maintain three shadow wars, double the national debt, and tax the uninsured. The decline is real and even Hope and Change candidates who made their platform "do right by America" end up doing all kinds of messed-up shit.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

I support Trump, because he actually has the balls to take action, and he understands how to leverage his table stakes and negotiate hard in favor of the US. However, I'm under no illusion that he's perfect. It's easy to get rose covered glasses about your favored candidate, and to demonize opponents that threaten him. During the primary season, this tends to mean demonizing others on your own side of the fence.

Ben Shapiro, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich; these are all good guys, who for the most part are out in the trenches fighting the fight for the kind of civilization most of us favor. They need to take the red pill, and really have their eyes open, but they're 90% closer to our views than the liberals and the SJWs, and they're out there fighting as a full time job.

It's OK to critique, so we make each other stronger, but I don't think it's good to demonize. If we want to slow down the decline of the west, or even turn the decline around, then some of the tactics and attitudes of Shapiro and Cruz will be part of the solution. We need to find the good, tactfully critique the bad, and keep getting better.

[Razgriz]

I think Ben has good points in Trump. I was a hard supporter of Trump but with the Supreme Court nomination up in the air now I don't know what to think about who trump would nominate. Justice Scalias death has been the biggest game changer in the election for me.