Thinking like the other side

[scary_robot_music]

Does anyone else spend a lot of time on normie liberal and leftist sites and forums? I do. I find it useful to understand how the other side thinks. Once in a great while they might even have a valid point.

One result of this is that I find I can almost always instantly think like a leftist or liberal when I want to. This helps me avoid getting bogged down in pointless arguments over politics and culture with online strangers. I already know how the argument is going to go, so why waste my time.

I saw this meme recently:



It seemed like such a kill shot that I was initially tempted to post it on normie social media and see what my goodwhite liberal friends would say. Then in a minute or two, my "think like a liberal/lefty" algorithm finished processing and I realized that the argument would be something like yes, America was always evil because even before shutting down USAID we weren't doing enough and as a result millions were dying. Musk and Orangeman are just killing even more millions and making America even more evil. Pretty simple really, and I'm not sure why it took me a while to figure out. I can usually autogenerate a counterargument from the other side like that instantly.

Another one is how I'd until recently hoped that the imminent defeat of Ukraine would show that those of us who didn't accept that narrative were right all along. That one's easier. The new narrative will of course be that heroic strategic genius Vladimir Zelensky was just weeks away from liberating Donbas and Crimea before Trump yanked the rug out from under his feet.

I'm interested to hear if any of the rest of you have gotten to this point, where rather than actually argue with normies and leftists in real life, which I find exhausting, you just autogenerate the "debate" (such as it is) in your head in a few seconds and move on with your life, skipping the hours of wasted time that usually just lead to, at best, mutual accusations of pedophilia or of the other guy having a bad sex life.

 

[Wutang]

I used to read feminist websites back in the early to mid 2010s when the manosphere was in full swing to get an idea what the other side was thinking. Jezebel was my go to site. Understanding how and what the other side thinks is helpful if you want to troll/poke at them a bit. Something I'll do is I will take their ideas and push them to their logical conclusion. These conclusions will often be ridiculous so it's fun to see their reactions to where their ideas lead to.

I was doing this with Lily Philips/Bonnie Blue bang a 1000 men a day porn stars recently. Philips herself has said what she is doing is a feminist thing. I point out that this is the end game of the kind of feminism where it's all about allowing removing any sort of judgement or accountability from women and where anything a woman does is automatically empowering as long as she is consenting and acting in accordance to what her desires are. I got some strong reactions from these young feminist women. They were clearly not really happy about this stunt but under their own value system they don't really have a leg to criticize her since by their own standards, anything a woman does by her own will is automatically empowering. They tried to snake in some points about how she must not have been fully informed or somehow tricked into doing what she did but if you look at how these women have continued to carry on , it seems these women are clearly aware of what they are doing and are making the decisions they are making fully cognizant of the consequences.

 

[scary_robot_music]

I used to read feminist websites back in the early to mid 2010s when the manosphere was in full swing to get an idea what the other side was thinking. Jezebel was my go to site. Understanding how and what the other side thinks is helpful if you want to troll/poke at them a bit. Something I'll do is I will take their ideas and push them to their logical conclusion. These conclusions will often be ridiculous so it's fun to see their reactions to where their ideas lead to.

I was doing this with Lily Philips/Bonnie Blue bang a 1000 men a day porn stars recently. Philips herself has said what she is doing is a feminist thing. I point out that this is the end game of the kind of feminism where it's all about allowing removing any sort of judgement or accountability from women and where anything a woman does is automatically empowering as long as she is consenting and acting in accordance to what her desires are. I got some strong reactions from these young feminist women. They were clearly not really happy about this stunt but under their own value system they don't really have a leg to criticize her since by their own standards, anything a woman does by her own will is automatically empowering. They tried to snake in some points about how she must not have been fully informed or somehow tricked into doing what she did but if you look at how these women have continued to carry on , it seems these women are clearly aware of what they are doing and are making the decisions they are making fully cognizant of the consequences.

Excellent point about the 1000 guys in a day girl. As revolting as that was, it was also pretty interesting from a philosophical point of view.

A very similar thing I've noticed over the last few years with feminists is that they're running into an untenable situation with their opinon on younger women who date and marry older men. As long as I can remember, feminists have had a visceral hostile reaction to age gaps of more than a few years where the man is older. Only recently, they've seemed to notice the contradiction: by saying it's bad for a woman to date or marry a man who's a decade or two older, they're essentially saying that younger women don't really have full agency to choose for themselves, which isn't very feminist. It's almost like saying that younger women should be under the control of their father or the patriarchy or something, isn't it?

I think that if you take most godless leftist and liberal beliefs to their logical conclusion, you'll find contraditions like this. It's one of the main reasons I like to keep up on what the other side is thinking.

 

[Wutang]

I read once that the biggest internal contradiction is the two primary ways feminism tends to view women. They are either empowered Amazonian queens that have all the capabilities to make the right choices and are only prevented from doing so by the patriarchy or they are victims that need are in need of rescue - perhaps from a prince or a fatherly figure (aka a patriarch). You can see this in play with the way feminists of various stripes react to situations like the 1000 a men in one day girl or with Elon Musk's newest baby mama. Are they being victimized by a single man as in the case of Elon Musk or the patriarchy as a whole as in the case of the 1000 men a day girl or are they empowered women that are getting their bag?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I believe if you're going to disagree with somebody, then at the very least you should understand where they're coming from. One side of the dialectic can never tell the whole story. We must see both sides to arrive at the truth. As a human being, the only way to be epistemologically honest is to be open to the possibility that you are wrong.

Classical liberalism tells much truth. It's not a lie to say that many people were exploited by big industries, that some people were treated with more honor than others, etc. The problem with the left today is that they are far less willing to consider that they are wrong than the right is, and because they deal with a heavy hand, they must be dealt with by a heavy hand.

 

[Blade Runner]

They tried to snake in some points about how she must not have been fully informed or somehow tricked into doing what she did but if you look at how these women have continued to carry on , it seems these women are clearly aware of what they are doing and are making the decisions they are making fully cognizant of the consequences.

Yes, the ol' "they just didn't do it right!" communism type trope. It's similar to the 1000s of people that read the Bible and "interpret" it. On what basis do they say someone else's interpretation is wrong? There's never a good answer when you're saying you can do it (all) on your own, which is the "original sin" of Adam and Eve.

Only recently, they've seemed to notice the contradiction: by saying it's bad for a woman to date or marry a man who's a decade or two older, they're essentially saying that younger women don't really have full agency to choose for themselves, which isn't very feminist. It's almost like saying that younger women should be under the control of their father or the patriarchy or something, isn't it?

I exposed that a long time ago as well. If young women are "stupid" - something said frequently by 35-45 year old women - then they should have their rights taken away, including voting, etc. The look you get when you know you've got them (like the which button sweaty brow cartoon) is always a delight. It is strange how women view themselves collectively in ways men don't, but secretly hate and sabotage one another pretty commonly. It is curious that the "natural" state of things is such that women won't really have children if allowed to just act out forever. I'm sure we'll have a thread about the mass crowding of single, childless women coming in the next 10-15 years.