How to combat this head-in-sand thinking?
Ideas welcome. I'd suggest saying "I'm more likely to die of X than skin cancer / drowning, so why the concern about climate change/Paris accord?"
They'll say that (((climate change))) is a huge looming threat that will get worse with time if we do nothing but not a significant immediate danger to life. You can then check mate them.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
archive.is
twitter.com
Tell them drunk drivers don't believe in a religion that commands them to kill you, and that their odds of getting killed by islam increases exponentially with the number of sandniggers in their area.
Like it. Also drunk drivers won't go into a cinema or concert to run you over.
tell them the only way to solve (((climate change))) is via nuclear power
You also don't really have drunk drivers spreading their ideology around. At least I've never personally heard of a bunch of drunks sitting around saying, "You know what would be cool? If we all got shitfaced and drove into a group of pedestrians and then got out and stabbed some people…"
Good thing those Muslims using cars get themselves all hopped up on drugs and booze before killing and dying for Allah.
Honestly, I've given up on them. The roadblock I keep running into is the fact that they seem to have this idea burned into their minds, that homicide and mass murder are these things that only happen in films and novels, and they don't have to worry about it happening to them.
Also
Signed. Read up on nuclear fusion and explain that to them in a few sentences.
And if they're receptive to anything on race, remind them that excessive third world populations, in third world countries, but also in second- and first world countries are a primary cause of pollution - if not the primary cause - including CO2 emissions for several reasons.
That'll open them up for redpilling on foreign aid. Start off reminding them (while still operating under 'one race, the human race') that humans are animals. Remind them of the basics of ecology. A population of any animal will grow exponentially for as long as it has the food source to support it and there is no similarly growing population of predators to take care of them. If a population of animals, whether by the hands of humans or those of other animals - isn't killed off in masses, the only natural mechanism that regulates their population is, and always has been starvation - often together with child mortality. The more food you send to a third world country, the more they multiply through overreproduction and lack of child mortality. The more they multiply, the more of them are there, they soon shoot beyond what the current amount of food you send them allows fore and they are starving again. And because it is a dynamic that happens across a large population and not consciously, the overshoot of people is not a flat value, but a percentage of the population. The only flat value at any given time is the population itself. Meaning the more food you send, the larger the population, the larger the population, the larger the population overshoot. The larger the population overshoot, the more people are starving (or killing each other because not doing so would result in starving). And just sending people from that country to another country, merely causes the current population to be artificially lowered a bit, which by the nature of how population growth works, keeps the population below the threshold, thus accelerates population growth and thus causes even more starvation.
TL:DR: Sending food to a third world country doesn't combat starvation, but causes more of it.
If googling 'Myth of foreign aid' and reading up the results you get isn't enough, tell them to try youtube.com
Also tell them to put their morals aside. They chose to abandon those with christian moral values. Especially if they're not afraid of Wahabi Islam. If they are so open to Muslims, they have embraced cultural relativism. Hold them to their self-chosen principles. Cultural relativism means that morals as a genuine guiding factor are nil. Once they have done that, paint them a picture. Picture the entire African population gone. All of Africa being empty save for wildlife (wildlife not including niggers of course). So much area open to be put to use. All the cities gone, all the destroyed empty property gone, all the broken facilities gone, all the villages gone, everything gone. Imagine all this area (or at least most of it) being put to use by small human (AKA white) enclaves to cultivate masses and masses of biofuel. Any fears of CO2 emissions would be banished, masses of oil and thus foreign wars that use it to justify themselves would become obsolete, and starvation in Africa would end overnight (since there is no-one that's starving). Imagine being able to drive your car endlessly, and not having to worry the least bit for a moment about polluting or wasting fossil resources, like we do now.
Just start a fake party to fund the nigger in Africa to lure them over there. We don't need more idiots, do we?
You are far more likely to die from normal driving than from a shooter. Why do you hate guns?
Expect "Your statistics are bullshit" type comments, do not relent.
That's what's funny about liberals. They claim to be rational and open minded….until you show them statistics and facts.
also if they believe in (((climate change))) its easy to convince them that we shouldnt import millions of people from under developed countries to europe etc where their carbon footprint gets exponentially larger
Little addendum. If you get stuck with:
Remind them that we are not only producing food for the third world and the imported third world aka 'People of Color'. We are producing vehicles for them, weapons, smartphones, internet connections, building plants, wells, bridges, funding and setting up buildings, larger electronic devices like home computers or sound systems, all the little things nobody talks about like office equipment, clothes, cosmetics and cleaning chemicals, art etc etc etc. Even in western countries, the whites that do the producing are only about half the population. Everything we produce, we produce in humongous excess in order to hand it around to third world populations both in the third world and in the first world. So if they want a more accurate view of it, they need to subtract at least (and that's still being generous, I'd wager it goes more towards 3/4 and above) two thirds of any CO2 emissions of western countries, mostly including the states of course, and redistribute them across the third world. Imagine with the non-whites gone, all this excess production being completely obsolete, because there is no-one to distribute it to. Maybe then, with a more ecological outlook, they'll be more open to white nationalism.
Drunk drivers aren't attempting to take over your life, force you to believe in anything, or intentionally attack you.
The thing is, it's absolutely true that global terrorism deaths are TINY compared to the total. Like 0.0001% small.
But that figure is growing exponentially, in the same way they claim climate change will cause massive global human suffering. The idea is to eliminate the problem NOW so it doesn't become a serious one.
If we know an asteroid is going to hit earth and kill billions in 20 years, do we say "no one is dying right now" or do we divert a huge amount of resources to try and deal with it?
They can't seem to make the connection or maybe they're just massively naive about how insidious Islam actually is.
The ridiculous thing is that to eliminate terrorism in the west, we have an easy solution involving zero immigration and deportation.
To "eliminate" global warming, we'd need to basically fully convert industry / power generation into clean renewables which is either technically impossible right now (fusion), or vastly too expensive or impractical (solar / wind, especially in developing nations).
Who cares if Germany produces 100% clean energy if China is building a new coal powerplant every week? It's like there's a house party going out of control and more and more people are flooding in, getting shitfaced and trashing the place, but Al Gore keeps drip feeding Roomba's through the front door like it will do a damn bit of difference.
How many times must we say it user? Look at what Yuri said. It really doesn't matter what you say to them even if it's clear as day right there in front of them. They are subverted, compromised, lost, done. There's nothing you can do for them short of a quick and humane death. It's just a sad realisation no matter how much you want to save them they can't even save themselves, they're too tangled in the web of lies postmodern society has created. At best you can read to yourself and them John Glubb's The fate of empires to see how many times humanity's great civlisations have been through this.
The modern Jewish economic system does not work without the third world. Even with all this excess production the pillars of the west are creaking under the enormous debt load that enslaves us.
...
The real threat isn't terrorism, but immigration and cultural destruction.
Not entirely true
many on /pol were liberals in the past
Well, immigration is the CAUSE of terrorism and cultural destruction, which are both SYMPTOMS of it.
This.
stockholm syndrome
How to trip up Liberals:
Ask them, "So you believe there's too many people in the world right now and that people in general should have less kids, right?" They agree because they are liberals and most believe this. "Okay, and do you believe automation will take away a lot of low-skilled job in the future?" Some say yes, some have to think about it. Usually agree. "Then why do you support immigrants, who typically have 5 kids per family, who rely on government assistance, who aren't assimilating well, which means most will end up being low skilled workers? Why do you want people here that make big families of low-skilled workers? I thought you said you want to decrease the world population! Why would you support automation in the workplace but want a bunch of low skilled laborers that will probably end up unemployed?" At this time, spaghetti will come out of their mouths. Then you need to put the pressure on. "WHICH KIND OF FUTURE DO YOU WANT?"
A nice division point is redirecting their non-arguments to feminist issues. Why not apply the same logic to complex matters?
There might be more, like the m&m's argument used a few months ago.
A shill will tell you that this kind of tactic will only reinforce and validate feminist talking points. Of course, that would be true if these points could be counter-attacked without using doublethink. And the more liberals use doublethink, the more they destroy their own arguments against non-indoctrinated normalfags. If any counter-argument comes, you only have to force a single-standard for both issues.
Here's another good thing to fuck with liberals. Addd bonus is that it uses colorful gumballs, so perpetual-childhood libshits will squirm in congitive dissonance as they've been conditioned to reflexively accept anything wrapped in such twee packaging.
Solid points.
And here's a webm in case anyone wants it.
Honestly, how much more evidence does one need before they accept the fact that leftism is just a religion? It's all faith based too. Just as long as they continue to believe the dogma they accepted as gospel, they think they're good people, safe from eternal damnation. It's Christianity minus the Bible. Now they're willing to die for what they believe like the Christian believers who came before them in earlier times. I can't stand this Kafka reality anymore.
Bible ethics works with the assumption of non - zero sum world. They have bible ethics with a zero-sum world.
The good thing is that these kind of leftists will inevitably end up dying out due to their self-destructive nature. They have all of the martyrdom of biblical ethics, with none of the self-sustainable social institutions.
It's not good for anyone if 50% of the nation is willing die at the feet of an ominous mud-tsunami because they think it's the right thing to do. These people are the reason why our countries are fucked.
Why would you argue with a liberal in the first place?
Gang members often kill bystanders in the name of their gang. Gang members also kill fellow gang members for disrespecting their code. Gang members also kill members from other gangs because the size of their turf and overall influence is becoming a power too large to ignore.
Let's follow this insanity all the way: if you can claim multiple "madmen (all admitting they are doing it for the same reasons)" are isolated cases, why not ignore the relation between gangs and violence? Why not launch a campaign "not all gang members"?
So long as the area of effect doesn't involve Israel 'no one is dying right now' is exactly what the reaction is going to be, until it's too late. Mark my words.
Fuck you, I'm Millwall.
Muslims aren't committing terrorism in Europe, our own governments are, by way of hoax and false flag, with the objective of shutting down the Internet and accelerating the final stage of White genocide.
Although Muslims need to be removed from our countries, as soon as we have got rid of the Kikes, random crimes due to inbred low IQ, general violent tendencies and religious doctrine aren't terrorism.
The board is flooded with threads aiming to support the claim that the recent incidents were Islamic terrorism rather than Jewish, state backed terrorism. This is an obviously organized psyop and part of the push to interject "OUR BASED JEWISH ALLIES WHO ALSO SUFFER ISLAMIC TERRORISM" into the psyche of the right.
If you don't realize this, you are part of the problem.
Watch some of the research which has been done into the Manchester hoax and the London hoax before it. If you're intellectually lazy, there is one video which is short yet exposes the hoax well enough. If you care to learn the truth there are hundreds more showing clear evidence that all of these recent events are Jewish operations.
Whenever anyone tries to be an apologist to Islam, just remind them that the prophet was a warlord and a rapist who set legal standards for sexual slavery. This is well documented and cannot be refuted.
This
Even if they don't commit terrorism. They still rape, steal and murder people a lot. They should fuck off either way.
Summerfags please go
Reported for not even trying.
By using muslims, fuckface.
Except it’s muslims doing it in accordance with muslim tradition.
They are. You’re a dipshit.
Idiot.
Absolutely, if their day-to-day habits are not sufficiently disrupted nothing will steer them away from slaughter.
Probably, I don't think stockholm syndrome as much as just plain having given up though. Regression, recession, degenarcy, not even being allowed to say you prefer to be with our own.
Let's also not forget Peter Hitchen's confession:
archive.is
You don't. Liberals are a suicide cult. Imagine a sheep setting up a meatgrinder, then gleefully throwing itself into it, fully confident that it is the only and the best way out.
You cannot reason with a fanatic, because fanaticism and reasoning are mutually exclusive. Anything that does not correspond with a fanatic's worldview is either ignored, discarded or destroyed. You cannot talk a liberal out of killing himself, just as you cannot talk a kike out of being a parasitic debauched pervert, persuade a mudslime not to blow himself up for his shitty desert deity or sweet-talk a nigger out of being a drug-dealing shaved ape.
Remember what good ol' Yuri said about liberals? "You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You can not change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior."
The only solution is to fight to save ourselves and leave all who do not want to fight behind to die.
REPLY
You're more likely to die by drunk driving than lightning too, but that doesn't mean you wait till you find yourself on a high hill in a thunderstorm to worry about it.
You take steps to never get in that situation.
...
This. Also, once the population of "moderate" Muslims reaches a tipping point, enjoy being harassed for drinking alcohol, eating/selling pork, dressing immodestly, making art or music, dancing, walking your dog, going to church, etc. And those proscriptions are just off the top of my head. It really is the most life-denying, miserable fucking ideology on Earth.
It's based on a false premise that they have to fall back to: multiculturalism and diversity are good, equality is a must. Just don't play their game to begin with, as long as they believe in the above said dogmas then they will never mentally concede defeat, ever. False pretense is the root of all this evil, none of these people actually care about muslims. Accuse them of pretending to care about people they have no legitimate incentive to like.
You need to also make in infographic about sharia law, and a few examples of sharia court decisions and their punishments, and spread screencaps like this around.
Thanks for that cap. I have a few days off, I might be able to come up with a halfway decent info-graph.
It's funny, I've been anti-Islam for almost 30 years because I took comparative Religions as a minor in college (atheist at the time). It was the ONLY religion that both terrified & disgusted me. Never thought I'd see the day when the West would have to confront it AGAIN. But I've actually seen bag-clad women walking around my deep south US city. Crazy times.