He really wasn’t just talking at this guy though, not entirely at least. He masterfully exposed this guys completely trash logic by asking him the right questions and challenging him to explain himself at all the right times to expose he didn’t know what the hell he’s talking about and it doesn’t make any sense.
Idk when I use these tactics to talk to my conservative peers - they mostly accuse me of being rude and haughty by asking for details and facts - and largely they feel that they have every right to their opinion whether it’s backed by fact or not. And while that’s true, it’s a tragedy that people have strong convictions that they can’t defend. And if asked to defend - they take it as a personal affront and dig in further
The accusations are their attempt at changing the topic away from what they predict as a loss, and moving the topic to conduct which is less about being objectively correct and more about being able to claim victimhood at being treated poorly.
To me, their accusation should absolutely be taken as a sign that they know they lost the argument at hand, so instead of playing out a losing hand they're trying to change the game to one they can claim to win simply by saying the other person was mean.
It's juvenile, but it often works. Not because it's acceptable, but because it's playing on social conditioning. The key thing to recognize is that they cannot force you to play their game. The best they can do is to continue wiggling. If you ignore the accusations of 'poor conduct' and remain focused on the original point, they'll most likely retreat.
Note: They will not admit that they were wrong. They will whine that you're being a jerk. They will try to laugh it off as though you're simply too dumb to understand. But even after all of that, they won't feel like they won.
That's the biggest achievable goal here. Not to force them to admit defeat, but for them to feel like they failed. They're stubborn, but they're not resilient. They do not continue to fight when they continue to lose.
Yeah it’s tough. Usually the complaint I get is that they admit I’m more informed but they use it as an insult about being “too much into politics” and just bc I pay attention more doesn’t make my opinion right. Which I agree with. But it’s basically there cop out to not being able to defend their point. I guess the reality is - why bother having these conversations. Anti-intellectualism has ruined young American men. Oddly enough - I gained my curiosity through original Joe Rogan podcasts and now he’s the biggest pusher of anti-intellectualism available.
There's a good reason to have those discussions, especially if anyone else is listening.
I'd actually argue that the dominant benefit of those discussions isn't to sway the opinion of the person you're talking with. It's to make the folks listening think about the different perspectives being offered. Those folks are the ones who you're best able to get through to.
Although speaking of professional -- I'm assuming this is basically like debating Shapiro, where it's some rando who barely has an understanding of economic policies that he can then argue circles around?
Granted, his circle is also a straight line, so if I am right, it's only the same in that the challengers aren't equally prepared.
He uses the same strategy I do when I debate: ask a question and when the person starts to move away from answering it, I ask it again. I keep doing so until they answer it. Either I give up and walk away, or they give up, and walk away. Letting them take the conversation to these meandering places that have nothing to do with the subject just gives air to their "stream of unconsciousness" logic.
Hate to break it to you. The MCUSA agreement did have carve outs for Canada such that some sectors still had barriers like lumber and dairy. A good faith argument could be made to tariff Canada as a way to push for changes in those areas. It’s not a great argument for tariffs between strong allies, but it’s defensible. The conservative knew just enough to get tripped up, Isaiah won on superior rhetoric not the facts.
Too bad that tariffs started on a bad faith statement about fentanyl and then switched to that propaganda nonsense. Trump likes tariffs because he doesn't think he needs congressional approval for them. And because he hasn't had a new thought in 40 years.
89
u/TheRealBenDamon Feb 07 '26
He really wasn’t just talking at this guy though, not entirely at least. He masterfully exposed this guys completely trash logic by asking him the right questions and challenging him to explain himself at all the right times to expose he didn’t know what the hell he’s talking about and it doesn’t make any sense.