COMMON ARGUMENTS THREAD

...

JUST

Reason for this response: People naturally react better to rhetoric when being spoken to. Policy is something you need to look into when you've already been drawn in by conversation, then you sit down and scrutinize it in your own time. When speaking to someone, always be truthful, but you're wasting your time trying to give them statistics or hard evidence. Make them think with an argument, they'll fill in the details by themselves and usually come back to you about it.

>"Having a conviction doesn't immediately make you wrong - but the right/left dichotomy is overly simplified. Reality is much more complex than that leftists WILL react to that part and you need to examine a persons positions on a deeper level. Being a centrist or moderate doesn't mean sparing your judgement on an issue, it means your decision is just to let strong-willed people do what they want. If you want that to benefit you, you'll need to find a side to stand on."

Reason for this response: It forces people to understand that everyone is out for themselves and their in-group. Whites can be especially apathetic politically because they've been raised thinking "Everything will be fine! No need to cause a fuss," and in a homogeneous society this is usually fine. But too much comfort will make the whole society weaker, and they start sliding on issues like border control, morality, ethnicity, etc. and that apathy becomes a major weakness. By saying the above, you are pushing that person into a conviction, which regardless of polarity can then be influenced by using the rhetorical technique mentioned above.

jesus christ. The riot one was interesting to listen to but god damn that faggot failed miserably at conveying his points and then wouldn't acknowledge it when he contradicted himself.

A better way to address this is to neither affirm nor deny. Note: don't just say nothing, but deny the legitimacy of the question by not saying yes or no. You can either respond sarcastically,
Or you can appeal to their maturity,

Use the first one around small groups of people that all disagree with you, because it'll trigger the fuck out of them and make them think. Sometimes that's all you can do.

Use the second one around larger groups whose alignment you don't know, or especially in individual conversations with people you care about and don't want to alienate.

More rambling:
What links people's lackluster arguments is simply a lack of engagement with the issue. Often what happens is they regurgitate something they heard from a talking head without actually delving into an issue and thinking about it. As soon as you can engage someone into thinking about something without being overly confrontational or grand-standing, then you've already pushed them towards swallowing a small red pill. The first step is to get them in the mindset.

food and other goods have been traded between nations for thousands of years, and have nothing to do with mixing cultures.

I can give you my grandma's apple pie recipe, but my grandma' doesn't need to come live with you in order for you to make said pie.

...

That's racist
Then tell the "ethnic" restaurants not to sell burgers, pizzas or anything else white
:^)

Related to the thread topic, you all need to read this. It's by the weev himself on how to proselytize white ideology.

mpcdot.com/forums/topic/8683-i-sing-a-song-of-racewar/

PS. don't think that the leftists are somehow immunized against emotional arguments because they are "atheistic". Quite the opposite, they think they are very logical, whilte they are completely unable to assess reality and draw logical conclusions thanks to their relentless brainwashing and ignorance.

Emotional arguments work.

If you use emotional arguments, you are speaking on their wavelength. They themselves are not arguing logically, so you will only lose if you try logic against them.

You would throw your own people under the bus for food? Food you are quite capable of making yourself? What kind of awful hedonist are you?
There is such thing as cultural exchange, and permanent immigration is not necessary for it. It's essentially tourism and it means you get all the pizza and kebab you want, minus the mafia and jihad.

This isn't the French Revolution. There is no "left" or "right" wing politics.

Take money from a rich person and give it to a poor person and the poor person will become richer. Does that mean that everybody wins? Or that this is fair? Or that it makes the world a better place when the rich person planned on investing that?
When we accept immigrants, we make their problems our own. Our nation suffers. The hatians have destroyed their nation with continued bad decisions and poor planning, yet instead of staying and fixing their problems these individuals wish to forsake Hati and drain money off a rich country, showing that they have not learned from their mistakes and will not improve our nation or create a better tomorrow for their descendants.
Instead, I propose that rich, successful countries annex poor countries. The rich countries have demonstrated that they know what they're doing and by annexing poor countries they will drag them into success without losing anything. Everybody wins. You find this unethical? Then what right do you have to tell me to let people into my own country to drain my economy, split my society and dilute my culture?

The first part is simply saying europeans are better than africans, hence our success. By natural law we deserve to be more successful that far. Take that as you will.
The historical hurdles are irrelevant, because punishing someone for the sins of his father is racist, just as is giving another special treatment just because of who their ancestors were. They may indeed be a significant cause for the shitty conditions of the modern american negro, but moping about the past fixes nothing. China, Western Europe, Germany and Persia have all gotten fucked over real bad at some point or another, yet all became significantly rich and powerful without affirmative action.
As for the modern hurdles, don't you think a better solution would be to actually fix those rather than offset them with handouts? Why not instead eliminate the thug culture that causes black kids to act like idiots and go straight to prison from high school, create a bad reputation to the police and whites and kill themselves with STIs and cocaine at 40? Why not target the government corruption that uses intentionally shitty education to keep people stupid and unemployed, and causes the police brutality that all american ethnicities suffer under?
This sort of woe-is-me handout system does not fix anything. And forcing people to pretend to like you only makes them hate you more, driving the wedge deeper. It creates a sense of entitlement which leads to further damands rather than hard work and investment. Instead the blacks should work together to get their shit together themselves. That, on the other hand, has been shown to create a hard work and long term mentality.

TEAR THE LEFTY A NEW ONE user

Way off. Lefties and proles can get pretty stupid, but none of them think or talk like that. Besides, to normies that know about but have never visited 4chan, it is a place of racist psychopaths that fap to weird porn. Nobody is going to equate anti-hedonism with 4chan.
Try again.

Yeah fair enough.
But they do pull out the
one and I haven't really thought about a counter tbh

Why did Rosa Parks need to sit at the front of the bus?

I'd just ask them if they get their opinions from Tumblr/The News/The Onion/Marx then criticize them for using absurd personal attacks instead of arguments. It's not a question that validates a counter, just either verbal shitposting or calling them childish.

That works. Thanks, that's what the thread is for I guess.

Semi-related: anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-an-analysis-of-liberal-debate-tactics-preface/

They are incapable of reason, they operate thanks to pack mentality, so once you deconstruct their weak arguments, they will become aggressive and swarm you.

user needs to read The Lonely Crowd to understand liberals better, i know it's written by kikes but it makes some good points. Most liberals are other-directed.

Because I need to keep my family and myself safe from criminals, tyrants and invaders. Would you feel comfortable invading an armed man's house? Or angering your subjects if they are armed? Or invading a country where the average yobbo is as well equped as your troops?

"I don't get my opinions from a website, do you?"

The best environment for arguing with liberals is a calm, isolated place where you are able to have a friendly discussion. Then slowly and subtly guide them along your argumentative lines and make them arrive at conclusions you want.

Make them think you are arguing logically (they love to feel like they're being logical) while appealing to their emotions.

I would also recommend the first few sections of Industrial Society and it's Future, by uncle Ted. Guy drops some heavy redpills straight off the bat.

Also, never argue with women. They will either be attracted to you, or unattracted to you.

If they are attracted to you, they will easily accept your opinions, possibly with a little emotional persuasion required.

If they are unattracted to you, they don't perceive you as a human being worth taking advice from.

This is all assuming you're male, of course.

You will hardly find those people isolated, and even when they are, they feel extremely uncomfortable and are looking to join the pack as soon as possible. They also hate being left alone with their thoughts.

It's good for contemplation, but i wouldn't agree with everything he says.

Why must women be biologically predestined to be subhumans?

Here are my replies to your shitty videos, shill. I await your reply.

Video 1:
Even if I cared about and thought that I was in some way responsible for the welfare of niggers, spics, pajeets, sand-negroes and the other inferior races I don't but, y'know, for the sake of the argument the fact remains that immigration will never solve world poverty. Watch [vid]

Video 2:
Putting the shitty production values aside, there are innumerable examples of white people who have suffered above and beyond what the niggers suffered that went on to make great contributions to science and technology and who perform well in our society.

To name just two: The Slavs and the Greeks. The Greeks were enslaved by the Ottomans for 400 years and were discriminated against and treated like shit the entire time - far worse than American blacks. The Slavs were slaves and then serfs and then were discriminated against for centuries.

There are also counter examples that go the other way. E.g. the Haitian Niggers were not subject to any of these problems. So why are they such a bunch of losers?

Stop making excuses for the inferiority of blacks.

How do you even begin deconstructing that?

I wouldn't call them necessarily subhuman. They are not men, nor children, but somewhere inbetween. We care for them and they care for the children. Such is life.

It is by definition false. You may as well say "human gender" or "human phylum".

Point to genetic distances white-nigger (0.23) and white-Homo Erectus (0.17). Biologically, it's not just different races, but different species. (There's an alternative: that the whole biological classification of old bones is bullshit.)

What about Jews being Neanderthals?

(checked)
Why are you humanising them?

"You're a racist bigot".

so, you are argumenting for the complete abolishment of sale of foreign food, making it only available in their respective countries of origin?

I can live with that, hell, I support your idea.

Rarely addressed but commonly discussed, what's the answer to the Economic Question? Especially re:Libertarians. Obviously, there's the national bank, the work currency, and temporary mass employment programs, but aside from that there's a remarkable ambiguity in issue, not least because of Hitler's own vague policies. Is the best approach simply to disentangle market liberalism from the total Globalism mandated by Libertarianism, and then simply to put off the issue until the point of need like Hitler did?

Honestly, you can't win with some people. My bro was smugly chiding me the other day for warning him about a tranny cosplaying as a woman at a store he goes to. "I know two already. It's not a big deal to me. I don't know why it's a big deal to you."

This helped me BTFO my cucked friends and family. Genuinely helped me articulate points I never would have. Read it.

They are not humans, they are Neanderthals

I've replied to a post ending in 77 and got 77. Does this count as quads?

That's insulting to neanderthals! :^) Sort of like comparing niggers to gorillas is insulting to the smart, gentle creatures who care for their families.
I'd call it synchronised dubs.

What's a good thing to say to moderates/centrists/libertarians who say anyone on the left/right is brainwashed? It's like these people have no actual beliefs, at the very least people on the left have something even if they are deluded and ignore human nature.

read the book "The Hammer of the Patriot" by Zeiger, available on Iron March.

It's just a list of common liberal arguments and good retorts. laraj.ca/AGwiki/index.php?n=Contemporary.IronmarchOriginals

africans might not have been direct slaves but they did get 'opressed' during apartheid, so that doesn't work

This argument is called "Lewontin's Fallacy", named after the biologist Richard Lewontin who popularized this line of reasoning. Lewontin is a self-described Marxist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/why-lewontins-fallacy-is-a-fallacy/

infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/11/human-genetic-variation-fst-and.html

westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/lewontins-argument/

humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Edwards, A.W.F. "Human genetic diversity- Lewontin's fallacy." BioEssays 25 (2003).pdf

abc102.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/lewontins-2nd-fallacy/

unz.com/pfrost/lewontins-fallacy/

Then why is race a factor in finding a suitable bone marrow donor?

archive.is/LgI6Z

archive.is/gTHr

archive.is/lCSux

archive.is/7n3dZ

archive.is/5f4Jf

See this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=VTROCGb5qj8

See:

realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/end_the_hype_over_epigenetics__lamarckian_evolution.html

theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/sep/11/why-im-sceptical-about-the-idea-of-genetically-inherited-trauma-epigenetics

Gregory Cochran discusses epigenetics:

youtu.be/w3310KWlDXg?t=19m21s

The criminal justice system is not biased against blacks.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913000470

Facts about the racial disparity (read black people) in drug arrests, 'despite similar rates of use'

On the subject of the racial disparity in drug arrests, despite similar rates of use:

The vast majority of arrests for marijuana possession are the byproduct of being apprehended for an unrelated, more serious manner.

aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdf

casacolumbia.org/articlefiles/575-report2010behindbars2.pdf

Very few people are going to prison simply for marijuana possession. Blacks have a higher rate of arrest for drug possession because they are more likely to have their person/property searched by the police in general. Harsher prison sentences are likely the result of having prior convictions.

postandcourier.com/article/20130606/PC16/130609519

youtube.com/watch?v=3fkZUrT7t4o

They need help and the world has failed to give it to them. A world where the sick are not cared for is not a world I want to raise children in.

I advocate strongly for the first sentence being our second safeguard along with the calling cards when rahowa erupts.
Know it well, brothers.

...

I just downloaded this and it's really good so far.

I had some moderate success with this:
The idea that race doesn't exist is based on a misunderstanding of two true points: 1) Lewontin's fallacy: there is more difference within races than between them and 2) the overall difference between all humans is surprisingly small compared to other animals.
The conclusion that race doesn't exist is still false because 1) just because the edges of two things are blurred doesn't mean those two things are the same. Like that picture that says that just because it's impossible to say where red becomes orange and orange becomes yellow, doesn't mean that red and yellow are the same colour. 2) yes, that's why they're called races and not subspecies.
(I've never tried this part before but:) The idea that the genetic distance between races isn't enough to count, despite all evidence to the contrary (see evidence from medicine, unless you're keen enough to go with education), has nothing at all to do with biology and everything to do with politics. Jared Diamond (of Guns Germs and Steel), to pick one horrifyingly influential example, says that the division of humans into races is "destined to follow the flat earth into oblivion", but also that Israel should be using DNA testing to determine whether applicants for immigration are real Jews. Most normies will respond well to the example of the Ethiopian Jews, who Diamond reckons aren't really Jews and that DNA testing would confirm this. i.e there are two races, Jews and goyim.
I'd probably start on how unreasonable it is to expect all races to be not only equal but THE SAME and what kind of person would ever want that anyway since apparently diversity is our strength.

Feedback pls.

without losing anything? Maybe except our racial integrity when the shitskins flood our lands. Maybe the loss of resources used to manage the worthless nigger territories. Any annexation should come along with exterminating the niggers for white colonisation. none of this "white man's burden" nonsense.

fuck off that pozzed shit

nobody asks anyone why they collected literally anything else.

because I like them. fuck off.

Why do you own a haircut?

Argument:
A common argument in academia is that leftist say "There is a law of decreasing profits" . And then they use this as an argument for the proletariat struggle, and the class-warfare across all races and cultures.

Solution:
You can easily break their entire reasoning by showing that there is no such thing as a "law of decreasing profits". Just point them to how Options, Securities or Derivates (or any other modern financial instrument) work and you have won the debate. Hence, there are options that have shown no sign of being effected by this "Law".

Occurrence:
Smug leftist professors and other "economy lolbertardians" will use this "Law of decreasing profits" as an argument against plebs to encourage racial mixing.

The more decietful professors will say its not a law, but more of a "thumbrule". They do this because they are ashamed of the pseudoscience behind Marxism. Sometimes they mindbend and weasel the words too and say there's a "tendency of the RATE of profit to fall"….rather than just "Tendency for profit to fall". This is all just babbling away their deciet. Everybody knows what it means, and its nonsense. Plebs won't see it tho.

See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall

Common argument problem for me is that I try to point out how corrupt and lying Clinton is, but then they just come back with
That and they are complete brick walls who will never change their vote anyway.

The heck

The big liberal topics on my facebook feed. (only 7 people have blocked me and I think about half of those are ex girlfriends)

1. Weed. Pot is literally the answer to all our problems

2. Some football player that is being rudely attacked by conservative straw men. As far as I can tell conservatives don't actually care about this issue at all.

3. Rape, and feminism… Lots of memes and Mic stories about how evil white men go around raping drunk girls on campus and only get minimal prison time. Also feminism isn't actually about hating men.

4. Dakota Access pipeline.

Most of them can't cite examples.

My preferred means of handling people who mindlessly bash Trump is to just regard him as a person from which I've heard nothing I dislike. When people talk about lies and money shenanigans, I ask for examples and try to figure out which of the Lügenpresse's lies they're talking about.

They're usually deflated pretty easily when you ask for more information, mostly because they're fed part of a story with no substance and figure that's all it takes to look informed.

Someone have anti-white quotes from jews in north America please btfoing a jewess on twitter

His response: "but if Trump wins that will piss of Putin and we will have a world war and the economies of the world would collapse, he is only doing this presidential run because he is bankrupt admit it. Its a last ditch effort to stay rich."

"No he isn't he does not have billions in liquid assets"

"That's not liquid assets either way I think his a dummy and will fuck up the world and obviously our sources are different just google it, if you even trust google haha"

I just gave up