Conversations with right-wing acquaintances

These are particularly frustrating, because they will never admit defeat. Faced with a mountain of facts that could crush their world view, they simply assert the facts are wrong, or made up.

They discredit any source of contrary information as a liberal mouthpiece, not to be trusted.

At times, I find myself wanting to extend the argument by other means...

*arrgghh*

:grr:

This is exactly how things go at my workplace during "friendly discussions."

But don't forget, the Republican always has the argument-ender. Whether it's "Well, Clinton was impeached so there!" or "Well, Ted Kennedy is a murderer so there!" or the always-favorite "Well, Ronald Reagan single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War so there!"

And George W. Bush is not a lying, stealing, AWOL hypocrite so STOP SAYING THAT!

and resort to attacking the messenger more often than having any valid rebuttal for the message. Sometimes it is best just to walk away.

But other times it's best to stay your ground and fight. I have a right wing nut as one of my co-workers who gets all of his news from FOX. We have had some heated conversations in the past, the worst being when the bombs were fallig on Baghdad. We had the tv's on in the office and were watching the horror unfold when he said "That's beautiful!"

I lost it! I said bombing a city is beautiful? WAR IS BEAUTIFUL? I told him to sit down in his chair and shut his fucking mouth, loud enough for the entire office to hear. I was 1 inch from his face. I could not control myself. I did feel bad about about yelling at him, but he deserved it and it did wake him up. I apologized the next day and we made up. Thanks to DU, he's slowly opening his eyes.

I told him about PNAC, Powell lying at the UN, Yellow cake, etc...and it has had a bit of an effect on him. Today I saw him reading People history of the US, something he never would have done before. He's searching for the truth. he's still a wing nut, but I can see a change.

I thought the bombing over Baghdad was beautiful too -- only in a terrible, horrifying, "Apocalypse Now" sort of way (remember that scene where they're going past the bridge and are spellbouncd by the beauty of the tracer-fire?). People have been depicting images of war and death, simultaneously beautiful and terriying, for centuries.

The Shootings of May 3rd, 1808:


Satan Devouring His Son:


Bosch's Depiction of Hell:

Ridicule is your friend.

Find something to ridicule and then practice mercilessness. If they make criticize the UN or France for not joining in the invasion of Iraq, say:

"Yeah, right! We usually have foriegn nations lining up to have their troops shot at in place of ours. I'm SO GLAD Bush* made sure that only American troops died in Iraq." Make sure your voice drips with sarcasm, and enjoy yourself as the blood runs into their heads for the first time in their life.

I said it before on DU, conservatives pick their conclusions first, then argue to them. This means they behave as though they have no clue as to the truth.

freeper track here is Poor Rush........


:puke:

...is based on the Magna Carta."

O'Reilly: "No it isn't. That's not true."

Constitutional scholar: <stunned> "It's a fact."

O'Reilly: "No it's not."


How can you argue with fantasy?

(picked up today for the overcharged price of 40 cents)

Regarding Anita Hill's credibility:

"This timely bit of information, and a lot more, can be found in the yeoman research effort by Washington investigative reporter David Brock in a cover story in the March 1992 issue of The American Spectator."

Rather amusing, since DB pointed out, in Blinded by the Right, that he could not dig up much dirt, so he made almost everything up.

(Don't have my copy here at work, so you'll have to trust me. By the way, I'm going to give a copy of this to my niece for Christmas. She wants to be the first female Pres of the US, if Hillary doesn't do so in 2012).

I have a friend with whom I'm currently residing until I get a decent job, and yesterday, he received a notification about a Levy proposal on an upcoming special election. The levy would increase his property taxes by a hundred dollars a year, and he's going to vote "no".
The reason? "We already spend 90 BILLION dollars on education in this state, and it's ALL going to waste!"
No facts.
No debate.
Insists that Gray Davis made a deal with the energy companies (signed secret contracts) to get rich off the California energy "crisis", but can't provide any proof that Davis did that.
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

That's the logical fallacy that ensues when one tries to debunk an argument by saying the source cannot be trusted or is unreliable. The fallacy lies in that the quality of information is completely independent of the character of the person giving the information.

For example, if Hitler says 2+2 = 4, is he wrong because he's Hitler?

It is pointless to have a debating match with an un-armed man. It can be more valuable just to shut up and listen to some of their idiocies. These people are truly, truly, amazingly dumb.

One of my dear friends, God bless his heart, he's so sweet, but he is completely vacant upstairs. A few years back, when he was around 40, I learned by accident that he did not even know that the earth rotated on its axis. I don't know what he thought DID happen. He had heard of outer space. But he just never put it together that the earth turned, and that there were seasons, and that summer days are much longer in the north...He had never heard of the six months of daylight at the North Pole!

This guy was a big Woody Jenkins backer and now a benighted follower of our glorious Whistle Ass. Sad. Truly sad.


as danny quayle said, 50 percent of the population has an iq under 100

Don't waste your breath arguing with conservatives - most of them aren't informed enough to hold their own. I've found that they're able to quote from pundits but they are not able to "cook from scratch". The underlying conservative ideology, even among conservatives who can think for themselves, is a patchwork of unintegrated this-and-that. It's easy to find points of contradiction. Why doesn't Rush Limbaugh go to jail? - that's the sort of thing that leaves them stammering.