pull down to refresh
17 sats \ 4 replies \ @orangecheckemail_isthereany 18h \ parent \ on: To talk or not to talk with normies about libertarianism ideasfromtheedge
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.
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.
reply
a sane individual simply doesn't drink tea with stalin.
reply
Comparing me and what I have said with Stalin is as absurd and is failure to respond logically and with any convincing argument to what I have actually said.
It is a crude and blatantly dishonest attempt at shooting the messenger instead of engaging in a reasoned contest of ideas.
BTW Churchill and Roosevelt did!
If your ability to present your ideology cannot cope with the real world and challenges to your viewpoint directly then your grasp of your ideology is not strong.
When others present an alternative viewpoint this is the golden opportunity to advance your position and refute theirs in a reasoned manner.
If you fail to take that opportunity then you fail in the contest of ideas.
Those who are confident and secure in their beliefs are not frightened of different ideas.
They welcome the opportunity to engage and compare logic.
Very few Libertarians appear capable of this.
It makes them look more like a cult than a philosophy.
reply
You don't believe in the NAP (non aggression principle), it's the same thing only with a different scale. I don't care what my lack of engagement with declared socialists and communists may look like.
reply