[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog

See 8chan's new software in development (discuss) (help out)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


A recognized Safe Space for liberty - if you're triggered and you know it, clap your hands!

File: 1446571171990.png (4.61 KB, 500x250, 2:1, Oekaki.png)

 No.11790

In discourse should libertarians strive to be as civil as possible?

In a talk with Tom Woods, Michael Malice brought up the point that the left has often been extremely derogatory and aggressive, yet they have been very successful. Does it work? It seems like treating the opposition with complete contempt would tap into the non-rational part of peoples' thinking and make them more disposed to prefer the least-demonized side of the argument.

Is deriding opponents on top of refuting them a good idea? I'm inclined to say that civil discourse is the best course of action when debating in person one-on-one or in an academic context, but when someone says stupid shit like deregulation caused the 2008 crisis or borrowing money to fund NASA doesn't increase the national debt because the money gets spent on US soil I often find myself debunking such claims on top of calling people idiots etc. good or bad idea?

 No.11794

kill yourself you fucking retard


 No.11795

>>11794

rude tbh fam


 No.11799

>>11790

Depends on why you are debating in the first place.


 No.11803

>>11790

>Is a civil discussion better a non-civil one?

yes.

But that does not mean you should pander to another person's whims, or wishes by using words according to definitions that you know are wrong. You should not say things that you know don't look good on the surface but have positive implications. Those "implications" mean jack. Put your argument forward in the most logical, rational way without sacrificing your own viewpoint in the name of sarcasm or rude language, and then let the other person reply. If the other person is irrational, the. he will never understand what you say. Just leave him be. The only way, then, is not be voicing your opinions loudly or by trying to subtly manipulate them into thinking their viewpoints have changed, but by taking action to ensure their downfall by means that bring you profit and do not involve any sacrifice of values on your part.


 No.11804

File: 1446574233706.png (11.78 KB, 1024x730, 512:365, 1446522237934.png)

>>11790

They can afford to be rude and aggressive because they are also a powerful cultural force. The assumptions that underpin the arguments of social liberalism and everything to the left of it is that they are helping people live better lives, or striking at people who hurt others, so they are easily able to portray their opponents as uncaring or mean, or outright evil - and it's alright to be vicious to evil-doers.

Besides, their tactics only serve to whip up the base, those who already agree with them or with their basic assumptions. It doesn't win any friends - if you look at the SJWs, and the split they're causing, you'd know it's not a good tactic for the long-term as you must eventually find targets everywhere, even among your allies. Libertarians and fiscal conservatives have less broad support in society, so we must portray our side well or we simply fall into the trap already set for us - that we are mean, uncaring people.

Also fuck being a nasty a person in general. The golden rule, baby - do unto others as you'd have them do to you.


 No.11805

You should be civil in front of an audience when your opponent is being a dick, be aggressive in civil debates (but not a dick), and be a troll online because it will just make your opponents more unable to refute your claims when in real life, while bringing in fun folks to the party.

Think of Sanders supporters, they legit believe that capitalism = fascism, therefore Voluntaryism is literally nazism against the poor, kek. Online you troll them to high hell, so they think you're something completely different, then you blast their ass in the piblic debates. This is why the dems and pubs are afraid to debate the Libertarians on my campus.


 No.11817

>>11805

>dems are afraid to debate

how about they're afraid of any free expression that doesn't pander to identity politics or socialists


 No.11828

Sometimes you go dialectical, sometimes you need to use rhetoric and sometimes you just need to call someone a semi-retarded dogfucker. Libertarians say way too hard towards the first however.


 No.11847

>>11817

>everyone I don't like is a socialist

Please stop posting here.


 No.11859

>>11847

>I can't read comments without misinterpreting them to suit my agenda

You first.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]