...without getting banned? I tried Democrats.com and democraticunderground, which banned me really quickly when I went into serious liberterian rants.
Schools are labour camps.
It might be difficult to find any. People with ideologies that fail the logic test tend to get rather defensive.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
eliotn: ...without getting banned? I tried Democrats.com and democraticunderground, which banned me really quickly when I went into serious liberterian rants.
Any chat room that does have a specific sympathy to any political ideaology (i.e. majority of chat rooms), surprisngly. I would highly recommend one of the first discussion enviroments on the internet, USENET, for it's long history & more than likley, senior particpants who will most likley not flame to death for saying the slightest thing out of turn (i.e. the livejournal generation). I also recommend looking around on IRC, as well as asking anyone here in the forums via PM for specific communities they may frequent.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
I am mostly on libertylounge.net and my350z.com. I have found the moderators to be very easy going on them.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
FreedomIsYellow:People with ideologies that fail the logic test tend to get rather defensive.
Example: my economics teacher. Whenever I try to logically implode his arguments, he flat out denies my arguments. For example, I show that GDP is useless, and he claims that GDP is useful as an a priori assumption, like the assumption that humans act.
eliotn: FreedomIsYellow:People with ideologies that fail the logic test tend to get rather defensive. Example: my economics teacher. Whenever I try to logically implode his arguments, he flat out denies my arguments. For example, I show that GDP is useless, and he claims that GDP is useful as an a priori assumption, like the assumption that humans act.
Tell him that he's incorrect, & tell him it can be an a priori assumption that he is being an intolerant ass. Don't waste your time further, imo.
It's good you are getting banned. You will learn how to beat the system. Then you won't get banned, and you will be a more effective communicator.
I've found that on large forums, you can do a lot of convincing/salesmanship via PM. First you need to locate sympathetic individuals, then use their particular issues to direct them to libertarian oriented solutions. Like the healthcare debate. Or the bailout. Or the environment. These are all topics you can argue a libertarian perspective from, but can't just come out swinging, but rather poisoning the well of statism with the scent of freedom. Eventually, people will start to shift and question.
I'm sorry to ask, but why would you want to?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
You could try here:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/philosophy-of-politics-and-law
There you will find many people ready to challenge your views and you won't get banned if you maintain basic standards of literacy and behaviour.
I frequent (albeit less so these days) the political subforum of a music forum. As to be expected, it is full of statists and statist sympathizers (particularly of the social democracy and Marxist brands). I am basically the only "AnCap" that I know of on there (there is a Mutualist and maybe an "Anarcho Communist" here and there), so I'm usually viewed as some sort of nutter or unrealistic fool. I never get banned though, even though I find myself more and more often trying to inflame a few of the other regulars there.
It's a good place to go if you like being the underdog.
the only other board i post at generally scoffs at libertarian ideals, but i've been posting there since i was a teenager so i let it slide. i'm still in the stage of trying to find people who AGREE with me, much less argue my points against my ideological rivals at other message boards.
although i was once banned from a music message board for arguing with an administrator about how his views of military personnel were so paranoid and exaggerated as to be reminiscent of the reefer madness flick.
Reddit is my favorite place. It's about 2/3 leftist, 1/3 libertarian, but the leftists there are actually willing to argue, because they're used to being challenged by intelligent libertarians (most other lefty sites are echo chambers).
Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle in 9 steps (Soliciting comments)
compromised:although i was once banned from a music message board for arguing with an administrator about how his views of military personnel were so paranoid and exaggerated as to be reminiscent of the reefer madness flick.
Sounds a bit like the music forum I post at. I've never been banned, though, and I have certainly pissed plenty of statists off there.
sirmonty: compromised:although i was once banned from a music message board for arguing with an administrator about how his views of military personnel were so paranoid and exaggerated as to be reminiscent of the reefer madness flick. Sounds a bit like the music forum I post at. I've never been banned, though, and I have certainly pissed plenty of statists off there.
i think it was keepmusicalive.com or something.
When i tried to debate with my sciene teacher whenever i referred to anything free market related he labeled it has propaganda, and continued his pro socialist rant, he teaches chemistry and knows it like the back of his hand and seems like an open guy, but when it comes to economics he labels free markets has a propaganda tool. Annoying
a Chem teacher? Can you report him to the admin for being biased/off topic?
Do you like MMA? try this http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f54/
A lot of idiots there are in need of verbal pwnage
The key to arguing with a human is to realize that the human animal operates via a system of incentives whereby the brain releases chemicals that activate the reward centers of the brain. The brain doles out these reward chemicals in response to patterns of behavior that have high expected utility. How does this apply to arguing? Most people argue not from reason but simply by stringing together other people's arguments. They select which arguments to string together based on which ones allow them to justify their own behavior. This gives them a warm fuzzy feeling because their brain rewards them it. They will not react rationally when you attack the foundations of their arguments. You are taking away their "hit" of brain chemicals. This is why it is SO important to start with terms that have good connotations to the other person when beginning a debate. If you start off using terms that have negative connotations from their perspective you have already lost. You can see examples of this constantly, in some of the examples in this thread even. By doing this you can slowly wean someone off one ideology as you spoon feed them another. If at anytime you take away their warm fuzzy feelings you will probably fail.
Now ideally people would be trained from birth to have their reward centers activated by well reasoned arguments and truth. Sadly only a tiny minority of society manages to reach this state. These people are the ones who become scientists, philosophers, and researchers.
nazgulnarsil:The key to arguing with a human is to realize that the human animal operates via a system of incentives whereby the brain releases chemicals that activate the reward centers of the brain. The brain doles out these reward chemicals in response to patterns of behavior that have high expected utility. How does this apply to arguing? Most people argue not from reason but simply by stringing together other people's arguments. They select which arguments to string together based on which ones allow them to justify their own behavior. This gives them a warm fuzzy feeling because their brain rewards them it. They will not react rationally when you attack the foundations of their arguments. You are taking away their "hit" of brain chemicals.
Awesome!
nazgulnarsil: The key to arguing with a human is to realize that the human animal operates via a system of incentives whereby the brain releases chemicals that activate the reward centers of the brain. The brain doles out these reward chemicals in response to patterns of behavior that have high expected utility. How does this apply to arguing? Most people argue not from reason but simply by stringing together other people's arguments. They select which arguments to string together based on which ones allow them to justify their own behavior. This gives them a warm fuzzy feeling because their brain rewards them it. They will not react rationally when you attack the foundations of their arguments. You are taking away their "hit" of brain chemicals. This is why it is SO important to start with terms that have good connotations to the other person when beginning a debate. If you start off using terms that have negative connotations from their perspective you have already lost. You can see examples of this constantly, in some of the examples in this thread even. By doing this you can slowly wean someone off one ideology as you spoon feed them another. If at anytime you take away their warm fuzzy feelings you will probably fail. Now ideally people would be trained from birth to have their reward centers activated by well reasoned arguments and truth. Sadly only a tiny minority of society manages to reach this state. These people are the ones who become scientists, philosophers, and researchers.
If there was a Best Mises Forum Newbie of 2008, you'd have my vote.
nazgulnarsil:This is why it is SO important to start with terms that have good connotations to the other person when beginning a debate.
In other words, be a good listener. It's important to understand where the other person is coming from, and to assess what preconceived ideas they may hold which are or can be compatible with libertarianism. Skillful discourse can draw people out, and allow them to reach libertarian conclusions merely by framing the arguments appropriately. The # of people who believe that government has been, is and will be successful going forward are few and far between. Separating the hopeful from the active and loyal makes a big difference.
Nitroadict:If there was a Best Mises Forum Newbie of 2008, you'd have my vote.
What is that supposed to mean?
I agree with what nazgulnarsil wrote. As the old saying goes, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".I would advise that you read or listen to the audio book “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie. In it he makes the point that the key to winning an argument is not to argue. Nobody really wins an argument. Even if you logically tear down every point your opponent makes they’re just going to hate you for it and in all probability walk away even more convinced of their rightness. This is common sense if you think about it. Would you honestly expect someone to change the entire paradigm through which they view the world after you embarrass them in a public forum? Would you?My father told me something when I was young that you might find useful. People’s beliefs are like a precious vase. And in that vase they put their identity, their sense of purpose and many other things that are important to them. If you do anything to attack that vase while they have their valuables in it, they will fight you tooth and nail to defend it, regardless of how poised and reasonable they may otherwise seem. So you first have to convince them to take their valuables out of the vase.If you’re anything like me it’s tempting to envision yourself as an intellectual warrior, a scrappy unrelenting fighter for the cause. It’s easy to get caught up in delusions of grandeur, of smiting your intellectual foes and standing atop their shattered fallacies and pride while onlookers watch in awe, basking in the glory of your immutable reason. However, you need to get over that if you’re going to win people over to your way of thinking. This isn’t to say that there isn’t a time and place to be a hard liner but you need to keep in mind that a hard liner approach will only convince people who are looking for an alternative belief system anyway.Here is an example of what I might say to someone on the issue of health care:“I find a lot to be admired in what you are proposing. It would be wonderful if everyone could have access to any medical treatment they needed without having to worry about going broke. This is especially important to me because I was born with a heart condition and will probably require treatment for it throughout my life. In fact, it wasn’t that long ago that I too was in support of a government sponsored universal healthcare program. However, I came to realize a few things that caused me to rethink my position. First, I could not assert a right to free healthcare without violating the rights of other people. In other countries, where the government provides full health coverage healthcare providers often get put upon because governments tend to favor majorities and ect, ect, ect…”Note what I did there. I started by finding common ground. If fact, I even found something to appreciate in my opponent. I also demonstrated that I care, that I’m human. I then went on to frame my argument from a place of caring. I didn’t use condescending language or any type of labeling and the most important thing you need to remember is that if you are trying to convert your opponent you must let them save face.You should gauge the content of your argument to each audience too. Some people may just not be ready for everything you have to tell them. The idea is to plant a seed, nurture it and let it grow to its natural end. Some people respond more to emotion (left-of-center people especially tend to come from a place of the heart) while others are more responsive to reason. This is neither good nor bad; it takes all kinds. Remember that everybody is different so be patient and tolerant. (As a side note the fact that there is such diversity in the way people learn and think lends considerable weight to the necessity of individual liberty.) Apologize if you say something rude or out of line.Also, like was said before, be interested in the other person’s point of view. If you are genuinely interested in what other people believe and why it will show through and you might even learn as much from the exchange as they do.Though people tend to be more open to you if you come from a place of caring there still may be some who are rude to you. If that happens either ignore them or if you feel you must say something, say something to the effect of:“I’m sorry that you are so insecure in your beliefs that you can’t debate me in a reasonable manner right now. I hope you feel better later.”That was a bit of verbal aikido. Rather then attacking them with the same force they are directing at you, it’s better to redirect their aggression in such a way that it actually undermines them. Keep it short.Remember, if anyone is ever rude to you or attacks you in any way, it means that at that moment in time they are hurting or are low in self-esteem. People who feel secure and confident don’t need to attack someone else to feel better. This is as true for you as it is for other people so don’t neglect to look at yourself and question where you need to do some work. Lord knows, I need plenty.
LancierDombre:a hard liner approach will only convince people who are looking for an alternative belief system anyway.
which is why libertarianism has come to viewed as the ideology of surly teenagers. of course, surly teenagers engage in:
LancierDombre:envision yourself as an intellectual warrior, a scrappy unrelenting fighter for the cause.
which makes the situation worse. It seems to me that most people with a libertarian bent have just learned to keep their mouths shut, because they got tired of getting shouted down by socialists who accuse them of leaving granny to die in the snow.
I find that the Jonas Brothers website and Miley Cyrus forum are excellent training grounds for Austrian economics.
Gotta start them young. Nobody there has even heard of Marx or Keynes yet. None of them pull out nonsensical mathematical models.
Just use the logic: the market loves Jonas Bros. and Miley Cyrus. Ergo, it totally rocks!
John Ess: I find that the Jonas Brothers website and Miley Cyrus forum are excellent training grounds for Austrian economics. Gotta start them young. Nobody there has even heard of Marx or Keynes yet. None of them pull out nonsensical mathematical models. Just use the logic: the market loves Jonas Bros. and Miley Cyrus. Ergo, it totally rocks!
One does not simply walk into Disney...
eliotn:.without getting banned? I tried Democrats.com and democraticunderground, which banned me really quickly when I went into serious liberterian rants.
You should not be getting banned unless you are being a troll,spamming, or offering endless illogical and baseless points.I have joined tons of forums where I believe exactly the opposite of its owners/purpose and have never been banned. (Including this forum. *cross my fingers*)
I think if you are non-offensive and can soundly reason and verbalize your point, you would never get banned, just argued against a lot. If you go into a non-Austrian forum with "your all dumb sheep" you will probably not last long. (That being your thesis, although the language may very.)
OR
What I see a lot of on this forum, that other forums might ban you for, is non-contribution in the form of "Its all realitve" and taking a Richard Rorty approach to reality. (There is no truth or fact). At which point your really a combo troll/spammer where every argument is dismissed as "an assumption". Like Gravity Rorty would argue QUITE CONVINCINGLY is just an assumption. And if you base physics and quantom mechanics answers on gravity you are automatically invalidated because its just a (in your opinion) False assumption.
Short answer: Its called etiquette. Look it up.
Ixtellor
Ixtellor:You should not be getting banned unless you are being a troll,spamming, or offering endless illogical and baseless points.I have joined tons of forums where I believe exactly the opposite of its owners/purpose and have never been banned. (Including this forum. *cross my fingers*)
Lol. Just look in the old posts, about a year or so ago, and look for posts by "Nathyn". Just do exactly the opposite of what he did, and you'll be fine
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
LancierDombre:I agree with what nazgulnarsil wrote. As the old saying goes, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".
Yeah, I have way more success with lines like this.
"Gee you have nice breasts, you could really fetch a pretty penny for some photos of them on the free market"
or
"I love you. You have value. You are a good person. Now read Mises."
also
"Wow, you're so clever. I never thought that Obama might be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. Hey, I bet a super smart person like you must be a big fan of Murray Rothbard. Oh no? You have to check him out. Obama quotes him extensively in his books and speeches."
Imagine having to argue here.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/
http://www.netjeff.com/humor/item.cgi?file=HowToArgueEffectively
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
I definately think your right about the soft approach rather than an instant attack or harsh words but it really is difficult when your in the heat of the moment ,maybe the person's deeply insulted you and you're just angry.I try to keep it positive and gentle.You guy's here are definately helping me to come across better in debates.
I debate on Bebo and Facebook. Facebook has quite a large Libertarian ,esp an-cap, community.It's kinda like here.
As for bebo ,I debate on a debate page and a political page.I seem to be classified as a nut and an anarchist but I'm remembered when mentions of government healthcare etc come up.I notice that most people seem to converge on which middle of the road mainstream type views and the more unusual a view is the more it's shot down and criticised- this applying equally to radical lefties as radical libertarians.Bebo sadly severely lacks Libertarians(mostly leftist types here ,hard to get a say about much) though I've met a conservative who was relatively open to free market education and another free marketer who wasn't radical enough .there's a capitalist page too but man the love friedman and thatcher and it basically stinks of conservatism. they support drug bans and gun bans.I've called them out on this a few times.I once took on a page claiming to be economic libertarians and showed them up for frauds.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
I never really argue on the Internet. I find that no one ever really wins those arguments.
In person, I usually come out assertively, like the Dog Whisperer. I get a feel for their feelings and attitude. Then I tear down their defense, or expose a weakness in it. At that crucial point, I leave it alone and stop attacking. No point in embarrassing people when they've come to the realization.
Giant_Joe: I never really argue on the Internet. I find that no one ever really wins those arguments. In person, I usually come out assertively, like the Dog Whisperer. I get a feel for their feelings and attitude. Then I tear down their defense, or expose a weakness in it. At that crucial point, I leave it alone and stop attacking. No point in embarrassing people when they've come to the realization.
And when thhey start with strawmans and logical fallacies, do you shout "SHHHH"? You have to be the pack leader in these situations, lol.
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
reddit, reddit, reddit. REDDIT! (Main page, not any of the sub-reddits.)
Why anarchy fails