reply on: To talk or not to talk with normies about libertarianism \ stacker news ~ideasfromtheedge

pull down to refresh

52 sats \ 12 replies \ @orangecheckemail_isthereany 8 May \ on: To talk or not to talk with normies about libertarianism ideasfromtheedge

Recently came accoss this: https://archive.org/details/edward-griffin-the-chasm-collectivism-vs-individualism Good short piece introducing some of the important distinctions.

On the communication piece: It's often a good idea just to bear witness to how you feel and think about a situation without trying to convince anyone about anything. Simple changes of phrasing towards "I can't help but feel that...", "I can see no way around ...", "It makes me sad to see .... because ......" etc.

Instead of trying to convince just try to bear witness as acccurately as you can to what you actually feel and think.

E.g. Instead of declaring that taxation IS theft, you can try "I cannot see taxation as anything other than theft". That way heated arguments about "no it isnt! yes it is!" are avoided.

42 sats \ 10 replies \ @88b0c423eb OP 8 May

maybe also saying that I pay taxes in order to not go to jail?

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @orangecheckemail_isthereany 8 May

I've made the mistake of laying on the table things like:

"Out sourcing violence to a mafia called "government" does not make it moral or any less violent."

"A majority voting for theft of a minority doesn't change the fact you're stealing or taking other people's stuff by force."

"Guaranteeing positive rights implies slavery or theft."

It can be frustrating to hear people deny that.

I can't see any way around these and when you say something like that and people say "nah that's bullshit that's totally retarded" without attacking the logic or offering a counter-argument and instead just say "you're wrong" why that can be frustrating

because it seems to me these are simple logical statements that one can't really disagree with. And there's the problem: I should say it that way: "I can't see any way around concluding..."

That way the other side can't say "no I disagree" or "that's wrong" I'm simply sharing that I cannot see a way around those things.

Then you can push them a little bit and ask them to explain how they explain otherwise

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @88b0c423eb OP 8 May

but if they react that way to those truths you can't call it a relatioship. In the end I think it's better I just get away from people that can't handle those truths.

45 sats \ 7 replies \ @orangecheckemail_isthereany 8 May

There's definitely some people with whom further discussion is likely to be fruitless, or certainly not worth the effort. But the point I'm making is that we should be honest and realistic in the way we speak. That way we not only speak more accurately and more truthfully, but that manner of speaking can also avoid unnecessary argument. However much we believe something to be true, however certain we are, however logically inescapable something seems it is still our opinion and our perception and we should talk in that manner. I've noticed discussion are far more congenial that way. People don't get defensive as much, don't dig their heels in as much. It becomes more about exploring perspectives and possibilities, than about proving who is right and who is wrong.

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 9 May

Well said and it is telling that very few Libertarians appear capable of responding in such a calm and reasoned manner where they will defend and represent their viewpoint in a manner that welcomes alternative viewpoints - because they provide a golden opportunity to engage in a contest of ideas.

Much more often Libertarians out themselves as fragile emotional ideologically rigid 'believers' in a creed, and that they cannot convincingly respond in a calm and reasoned manner that convincingly refutes alternative viewpoints.

When a respondent seeks to shoot the messenger they concede defeat, by default, in the contest of ideas. They lose the opportunity to respond in a manner that demonstrates to a neutral observer the logic and strength of their beliefs.

7 sats \ 1 reply \ @orangecheckemail_isthereany 9 May

I wouldn't make that generalization about libertarians. In my experience the average libertarian on responda in a reasoned manner more often than the average member of most other political ideologies. I've found that libertarians tend to be able to describe what they believe and why more effectively and consistently on average. I think we should all strive to respond in a calm and reasoned manner like you say and there's certainly examples of people using the label libertarian failing to do that.

Returning to the theme about ways to avoid unecessrily acrimonious arguing:

Slowing down the discussion and pauzing to ponder and consider can also be a good strategy fo fruitful conversation and debate. E.g. when someone makes a point that seems off we could say pauze, and say: "Interesting, that doesn't seem quite right to me but I'm not sure why. Let me think about it. ... Ah I think the reason for my reluctance to go along with that description has to do with ..."

Instead of reflexively responding "No" or "That's incorrect" without offering actual argument or evidence.

I see it often these days that people confuse statements like "That's misinformation", "That's a conspiracy theory", "That's been demonstrated to be incorrect" with actual argument or evidence.

These phrases merely state conclusions or assertions without offering reasons to give them creedence apart from the authority or perceived credibility of the person uttering them.

People often take for granted their own understandings and beliefs about the world and fail to make them explicit in discussion. They throw out conclusions of theirs without showing how they reached them, sometimes perhaps not even know how they reached them.