|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ===In-thread strategies===
| |
|
| |
|
| '''Entering abruptly'''
| |
|
| |
| Make an entrance, but be sure to respect any language sensitivities/ToS, as this may result in your de-platforming. The politest way to do this is with a myth-and-fact type rebuttal, using a meme and link to a website. If you think you need more impetus (and don't care so much about risking an account ban), get personal:
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote>''I'm going to be quite honest, you're a fucking idiot. Evidently mid-witted, with an IQ between 80 and 110. How do I know this? Because you are simply regurgitating the BS you have been taught by whatever mainstream, or phoney-"alternative" media is in vogue with your groupies. For you, it's a flight to security, but sure as hell looks retarded from the outside. Now hear me out...''</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| That's obviously an extreme example, but it sets out the kind of dramatic entrance that is likely to provoke either extreme irrationality or a block. So we are looking at a risk-reward decision here.
| |
|
| |
| '''The absurd proposition'''
| |
|
| |
| Very much an optional tactic. This is a proposition or counterargument that you can only just about defend within the confines of logic. Or an absurd mocking caricature of your opponent's presumed position, taking it to an almost illogical conclusion. The aim here is to pitch an invisible middle ground to your audience. It's important that you don't defend your absurd proposition in the first reply - just throw it out there in all its nakedness, coming across as plausibly dishonest or mocking in tone.
| |
|
| |
| '''Play the target'''
| |
|
| |
| Study your target and make personalized attacks ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3nYm6oVFag see one classic example]) on their ideas as "typical" of their group - identifying why they are angered by something, in order to provoke that anger or elicit a partial concession. For example, with religious fundamentalists on a MAP topic:
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote>''I guess you god-wary appreciators of incestual rites were always going to be outraged by a load of liberals getting their hands on *other* people's kids''</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| Or -
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote>''It appears that as a god-fearing woman, you are simply outraged by the idea of a man and a boy experiencing erotic pleasure *outside* of sacred walls. What could I do to ease the pain? Declare all public toilets property of the Catholic Church?''</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| Moving on to a liberal target, why not attack the [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity|historical dishonesty of the LGBT Movement]], by associating with MAPs for many decades, passing motions against the age of consent, and then breaking with them for completely expedient reasons? This potential alt-right attack on liberals has been covered in a separate guide below.
| |
|
| |
| [[File:Ratio3.png|thumb|"I'm a Chad. I have bigger balls than you..." bait]]
| |
| '''Mind reading'''
| |
|
| |
| Take your baiting even further by going full-on Sigmund Freud, and getting too-close-to-home. To a Gay Man:
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote>''Close your eyes and RELAX. Imagine you are in a book shop in the 1970s, with gay erotic literature, some of it with photographic illustrations. Some of that literature covers sex between mature men of similar ages. Some of that literature covers erotic experiences between men and mid-teen boys. There is no pressure on you, and nobody watching. What book are you going to opt for?''</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| Or to the straight male nonce-hater who just posted a pedo in a woodchipper meme:
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote>''OH... So I guess you are "one of those guys" who always dates girls in their late 20s? As long as they have a shaven pussy, petite figure, childish face, mannerisms, vocal timbre, etc. But ALWAYS an adult, because as you know, anything else would be sick and perverse!''</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| To the priggish Lolicon consumer trying to distance MAPs (yes, [[Lolicon-MAP Equivalence Debate|these people exist]], in great number - it's a thing).:
| |
|
| |
| <blockquote>''Interesting, isn't it, that the one person on here protesting the most about the MAPs, is also the perv with a timeline full of kiddy sex pics. Almost as if you are trying to prove something... to who?''</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| '''Identify "copes"'''
| |
|
| |
| Identifying coping strategies in your targets is just mind reading in reverse. It's a frustrating tactic, as it constantly distracts from the debate and puts a burden of presumed mental distortion on your target.
| |
|
| |
| '''Dissing in plain sight'''
| |
|
| |
| Instead of responding directly to your target, bad mouth them to another person who is engaging with them. Explain how your target will never come round to their way of thinking, pointing out the causes of their fallacious reasoning and inflexibility. This kind of proxy attack can be very triggering; it reeks of snobbery and forces your target to take the initiative in engaging with you.
| |
|
| |
| ==The [[Degeneracy|Degenerate's]] alt-right Trolling Guide==
| |
|
| |
| Often, interrupting cathartic LGBTQ+ echo-chambers with authentic facts about the ''downtrodden'' MAPs can yield explosive results, so for no particular reason, let's use this as our example. The reason liberal-left [[anti]]s and LGBTQ+ react in this way is their own sudden realization of the obvious hypocrisy they must display in their distancing of "unapproved" or "[[Debate Guide: MAPs are invalid|invalid]]" minorities such as Zoophiles and MAPs. In effect, they are practicing exactly the same "erasure" they decry in others, thus presenting the perfect opportunity for ironically "enlightened" pro-MAP rebuttals.
| |
|
| |
| A. Your target, therefore, is going to be "SJWs" - so called Social Justice Warriors as described in the culture wars...
| |
|
| |
| B. You needn't claim strict adherence to the beliefs you are espousing; an ironic triggering is better for a number of reasons we won't go into.
| |
|
| |
| To this end, just put "Minor Attracted Person" or "Minor Attracted People" into the search box (perhaps alongside "LGBT(Q)" or "queer") and set a minimum of 2 replies/faves/shares. Inject yourself into a recent conversation and look out for the following troll-prone arguments:
| |
|
| |
| '''1. Your target often distances MAPs by inadvertently using the "redpilled" argument that MAP is just a euphemism for Pedophilia.'''
| |
|
| |
| So, claim the moral high ground by being technically and politically correct, before getting into the meat of your argument.
| |
|
| |
| Instantly point out that not all minors are prepubescent children, that [[Research: Pedophilia as a sexual/erotic orientation|Pedophilia is defined by the APA, US Govt and even Wikipedia]] as an attraction to prepubescent children, and always has been. Go through the many categories of MAP, point out that MAPs are entitled to value neutral terminology, and finally, repeat their tropes back at them; that "SJWs" are "denying the existence" and "lived experiences" (of MAPs) by not respecting this!
| |
|
| |
| '''2. Your target will often claim that they have "never had anything to do with the MAPs", and that the idea gays are out to recruit children is a "pernicious myth" based upon the "defamatory" conflation of gay history with the pederast movement.'''
| |
|
| |
| Wrong. Bring up examples of [[Historical examples of LGBT-MAP unity|Harry Hay, Oscar Wilde, Ginsberg and the acceptance of pederasts and pedophiles within the early, post Stonewall Gay Movement]]. Point to Paternotte's paper<ref name="Paternotte">[https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/1363460713511103 The ILGA and the question of pedophilia: Tracking the demise of gay liberation ideals, by David Paternotte]</ref>, which is in and of itself, both highly triggering and awakening for young LGBTs. Also bring up the fact that gay lib only ever cast aside the pederast once he became a liability. The above linked Newgon article on this subject is particularly useful.
| |
|
| |
| [[File:Uspepe.png|thumb|US [[Age of Consent]] law: Social Purity and feminists]]
| |
|
| |
| '''3. Your target while including significant MAP-adjacent elements, is still often the most vicious in their hatred towards MAPs. This is perhaps because many are already part of sometimes marginalized groups such as NBs, Furries, anorexic/ED community, or [[Lolicon-MAP Equivalence Debate|ironic lolicon]]s.'''
| |
|
| |
| Point this out as exactly what it is - ''projection'' of one's guilt and anger onto another minority as a form of cathartic group bonding between beat down deviants. Point out how they have been successfully "divided and conquered" by elite MSM propaganda, and how for the "respectable" perverts, the MAP is simply "too close to home", as he is a more honest mirror image of himself.
| |
|
| |
| Obviously, it's a cope, [[Debate Guide: Self-loathing hatred|or worse]], and this should be pointed out.
| |
|
| |
| '''4. Your target sometimes even inadvertently uses the red pilled argument that MAPs are "entryists", attempting to become part of LGBTQ+ politics.'''
| |
|
| |
| This is a simply laughable idea, given just how hard LGBTQ+ people are already protesting against MAPs to disown their past associations. In reality, MAPs were at one point part of LGBTQ+ politics - when multiple organizations such as [[NAMBLA]] and [[Paedophile Information Exchange]] were official members of gay and civil rights organizations (ILGA and CHE + NCCL respectively). They even marched in pride events as recently as the 1990s; how more obvious could you get?
| |
|
| |
| MAPs were eventually excluded at the behest of [[assimilationism|assimilationist]] homosexuals and lesbian feminists, for predominantly expedient political reasons. MAPs, have of course despised the "pride movement" ever since this great betrayal, seeking to create their own identities. They have had some success in mainstreaming the term [[Minor Attracted Person|"MAP"]] and conceiving a [[MAP Flag]] concept as early as 2009. This is genuinely their own work, as [[Minor Attracted Person (archive research)|proven by web archive research]], and not a trolling campaign. It is the result of [[Validity Policing#"Queer"_policing|queers attacking other queers]], and was always going to happen.
| |
|
| |
| It is clear projection of panic on the part of LGBTQ+, to suggest their former allies are trying to regain entry into a movement, that has become just as intolerant and authoritarian as the 1980s American Moral Majority. All the pride lobby care about is [[Rainbow Revisionism|public perceptions]], running scared of less fashionable minorities, just like the inauthentic, sellout cowards they are.
| |
|
| |
| '''The basic truth of the matter:'''
| |
|
| |
| Mainstream conservatives have argued that "normalization of pedophilia" is the ultimate goal of liberal American society and mainstream media. However, in this example, we are dealing with social media liberals and leftists who claim to strongly ''reject'' this argument.
| |
|
| |
| You could therefore conclude your anti-[[degeneracy]] argument by claiming that your target (if not willfully dishonest) is naive, and being manipulated/softened up because they don't ''instinctively'' perceive that pedophilia is degenerate. That they will one day learn to tolerate pedophilia as an identity. Your target is after all, "natively degenerate"; since they have no religion, no absolute morals, and view most forms of deviance within a morally relativistic/constructivist framework in which "(in)validity" is determined by political circumstance/convenience. Point out, using the resources on Newgon, how the predominance of rational and relativistic approaches will inevitably lead to MAP and MAP-Youth relationships becoming normalized. This will always be the case unless some moral standards are held to be absolute truths, starting most importantly in childhood.
| |
|
| |
| If the target employs the quasi-legalistic sophistry of "informed [[consent]]", [[CSA dilemma argument|give them this dilemma]]. Then point out that they are discriminating against and problematizing "sex" like the truest of moralists, but only when it suits their own degenerate worldview.<ref>[https://muslimskeptic.com/2023/03/14/atheists-liberals-pedophilia-bestiality/ Muslim Skeptic: Can Liberal Atheists REALLY Criticize Pedophilia, Bestiality?]</ref> Ask them what special argument they suddenly have against other peoples' idea of good sex, given they are so permitting of their ''own'' right to express kinks and perversions.
| |
|
| |
| There are numerous [[research]] resources and [[Memes and Graphics|factoid memes]] to use on your target when they revert to bigotry and red pill arguments in their reaction to MAPs trending. The acceptance of MAPs is a natural conclusion of identity politics and social justice theory, so to "own the libs" as they say, just force them to accept their own relative and rational tenets, or swallow their pride.
| |
|
| |
| ==References==
| |
|
| |
| [[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]
| |