You know how Men’s Rights Activists regularly resort to insults and invective when they “debate” with feminists online?
It turns out that they’re not just being assholes. No, they’re actually using a super-sophisticated, scientifically tested debating technique to totally PWN feminist slut bitches and mangina poodle-boy pussy-beggars alike.
By acting like assholes.
Men’s Rights Redditor anonlymouse reveals the secrets to debating like an MRA in a recent posting.
“I’ve been doing this for roughly a decade, and have experimented with a variety of tactics and approaches,” he writes. When he posts polite comments, he says, he gets ignored. When he insults his opponents, they’re more likely to respond.
[I]f I attack them head on, insulting them for posting something that’s so retarded, they listen. …
What’s necessary to debate with feminists is to strike a nerve right off the bat. Say a single sentence that they consider incredulous – or that’s explicitly offensive to them. They get upset, and commit to arguing with you. This is the bait. If you can’t get them emotionally invested, you can’t talk to them.
Yes, it’s hard to ignore someone who gets in your face and says something truly appalling. Similarly, if you literally throw your own poop at someone, they’re likely to respond to that as well, as monkeys have been demonstrating for ages.
If you present a well researched argument in a neutral tone, particularly with a source, they will pretend they didn’t notice it, hope nobody else does and move on to the next thing. They know they don’t have good arguments, so they won’t engage if you open with one yourself.
Or maybe they don’t feel like having a pointless pseudo-debate with an asshole who isn’t arguing in good faith?
Nah, couldn’t be that.
This doesn’t mean you don’t have sources backing up your argument, what it means is you don’t reveal that you have any until they’re really incensed.
Muahahahaha!
Wait for them to demand you provide a source for your claims (you can draw out this demand by gradually making your claims more specific – rather like escalating your bet each round in poker). Once they’ve demanded a source, and you provide it, they’ll actually read through the whole paper looking for a flaw in it that they can attack.
Anonlymouse apparently thinks that actually reading studies is a sign of submission.
A few things will happen here. One, they’ll realise it’s solid, they can’t contradict it and just go silent. They’ll make excuses later about how you’re just stubborn, but they actually did read it and internalised it.
Or maybe they move on because they’re tired of arguing with a dickhead who’s going to dismiss everything they say anyway.
They usually won’t make the same claim in the future, but if they do you can call them out on ignoring what you provided previously, which being a personal attack will get them involved again.
Yeah, well, YOUR MOM is a wage gap.
Two, they’ll find some niggling detail and argue that. This is OK, at this point you switch to the rational debating mode – they’re invested and arguing with you so they won’t walk away so easily – and keep explaining why their objection isn’t valid – or provide another source to back you up.
Yeah, god forbid that you actually take in anything they say instead of reacting with an instictive “nuh uh” regardless of what they actually argue.
Three, they’ll acknowledge that it has some validity and that they’ll have to give it more thought. You’ll never get a complete admission that they were wrong and you were right, but that isn’t so important. You’re influencing their position and they’re going to gradually shift.
Or maybe they’re so tired of debating they’ll say anything to end the conversation.
You can’t escalate from rational to direct attacks; that makes it look like you’re losing. But you can de-escalate from direct attacks to rational – nobody’s going to suggest that you feel you’re losing because you suddenly switched from being incensed to calm, and it makes some of their common accusations just seem ridiculous (which you can calmly point out to them).
Wow. You’ve discovered gaslighting.
Congratulations, you’re well on your way to thinking and acting like an abuser!
In the comments, the always charming DavidByron2 notes that he’s been gaslighting feminists for two decades. He especially likes the “don’t give them sources” strategy.
Make them do some work for it and they’ll have a better emotional relationship with it. If you spoon feed them it’s like a magic trick. They don’t believe the source because it came from you. The best is if you make them Google it for themselves. The more they do the more they accept it, the more you do, the more they reject it.
Huh. I always thought that when these guys didn’t give their sources it was because they were talking out of their ass. I had no idea it was all part of a devious masterdebating plan.
“Debating” MRAs can be an infuriating experience. Apparently, with some MRAs, this isn’t an accident. They set out to be as infuriating as possible — and quite often succeed.
H/T — r/againstmensrights
I like the “then you provide the source” line. Who knew they were so good at fiction.
Oh wait… he’s trying to gaslight his fellows in the MRM.
Yeah, right. Like anyone’s gonna believe that a poo-flinging man-monkey is actually a “rational” being.
MRA shit, meet PUA shit. Same shit, different shit-flingers. But shit just the same.
I’d love for this guy to point to one exchange where his technique was successful (as in, got his debate opponent to engage seriously and accept his argument as possibly valid). I doubt he can, because when you poop on someone’s floor, and then follow up with your real argument, people will remember you pooped on the floor and hold it against you.
His debate style is to poison his own well and hope that his debate opponents have short-term memory loss.
Bina
“MRA shit, meet PUA shit. Same shit, different shit-flingers. But shit just the same.”
http://youtu.be/GWHqLJHss9U
Yes, because everybody knows that self-admitted trolling is the best way to prove your intelligence!
Has he been learning his advanced techniques from console wars fanboys and 12-year-old COD players, perhaps?
Wow that’s hilarious. So if a feminist stops arguing with them after they repeatedly refuse to provide sources for what they’re saying, these guys assume it’s because said feminist has googled and discovered how right thesee dudes are – not because they’ve given up on the pointless, tedious and dull act of arguing with someone who has absolutely nothing to back them up with. Give yourselves a pat on the back, guys!
One thing that’s truly hilarious is how he seems to think a lot of us are just seeing his shit for the first time. Nope. We’ve seen it allllllll before. And that’s why we won’t be bothered to “emotionally invest” ourselves in googling it. He seems to think being an MRA is terribly original, when actually, it’s the oldest stoopid in the book.
Is there anything sadder than someone on the internet “coaching” others on arguing to people on the internet. I mean, really, of all points, all beliefs, internet arguments end the same way:
One person gets tired or arguing and leaves. Both people remain even further committed to the beliefs they had when they began.
Not to say that rational discussions, where all beliefs are respected don’t happen, and aren’t rewarding. But the end result of internet arguments produce nothing.
Internet arguments are like any other arguments. And remember that, while argumentative people tend to entrench themselves, other people watching the exchange might change their mind. I know, it happened to me.
I think their poop flinging goes more like this:
But what happens if the crazy feminists have their own sources? What then, anonlymouse?!
I believe this is called “moving the goalpost” and it is not a way to have a rational argument. That is what you want, isn’t it, anonlymouse?
Oh, no. What you actually want is to pretend you are “winning.” Well, newsflash, you haven’t won. Your opponents just decided that you weren’t worth the time it takes to type up a response because you insist on using this asinine techniques rather than having a productive discussion. But go ahead and pat yourself of the back any way. It sounds like your ego needs as much stroking as it can get.
Moving the goalposts is exactly what it is, and interestingly:
Wikipedia: “In workplace bullying, shifting the goalposts is a conventional tactic in the process of humiliation.”
Bullying, hmm…
Interestingly, it’s considered an informal fallacy – which means that as an argument it is automatically invalidated. The other party cannot win through reasoning or logic, therefore the premise is defunct.
Which kinda supports the sense in feminists giving up and not bothering – there’s no point in continuing in a bad faith argument.
So his technique is “be a troll?” Um, his brethren have been doing that since forever.
Cue trolls coming to this thread to prove they aren’t worth “arguing” with.
@steampunked
So what you’re saying is that his method for winning an argument is actually a method to lose the argument?
Very interesting.
So, all you have to do is say something ridiculous and then keep moving goalposts until you get into the land of the “almost credible” from the starting point of “sheer ridiculous”.
Wow. Why has no one ever thought of that. (Hint, much sarcasm)
Ninja’d! Thrice ninja’d? Ninja’s^3?
The important part is this:
Holy cat, they’ve finally found something they succeed at (such that it is)!
My experience is that when an MRA provides a source, they’ve rarely even read it. They usually pick a random website with a title they think supports their argument.
I love it when they throw down what they think is a source that supports them, only to read it and see the exact opposite.
You know, usually when I ‘go silent’ when faced with an MRA/terper ‘argument’, it’s not because I’ve been stunned into silence by their cool, rational logic and the solid factual correctness of their position. It’s because there is so much barely-coherent fractal wrongness that I don’t even know where to start, and usually end up deciding to spend my time doing something more productive and rewarding, like, oh, ANYTHING.
When I go silent, it’s because I’ve realized I’m debating the Black Knight.
“Your arm’s off!”
“No it isn’t.”
“It’s just a flesh wound!”
“YOU’VE GOT NO LEGS!”
… need to watch that movie again. It’s been too long…