I'm arguing with some moron who put up the above picture on FB, while citing "2016 Obama’s America" as "evidence". Now, I haven't seen this documentary so I've no idea if there's any truth in it, but since members here know way more about American politics here than I do, I'm hoping for some insight. I've called him on his bullshit but I can see I'm going to be out of my depth if I press the matter; should I just let it drop?
Yes. Morons will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
"I'm just reading through your formspring here, and your responses to many questions seem to indicate that you are ready and willing to sacrifice realism/believability for the sake of (sometimes) marginal increases in gameplay quality. Why is this?"
"Because until I see gamers sincerely demanding that if they get winged in the gut with a bullet that they spend the next three hours bleeding out on the ground before permanently dying, they probably are too." - J.E. Sawyer
Yeah, this is one of those times where it's better to just stop talking to people like this. If only because you can't kick them in the balls over Facebook.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
That's the feeling I've been getting from him, he labelled critics of the documentary, "Obama worshipers and left wing radicals". His entire argument is pretty much: "This President is a worthless piece of shit, that is dividing this nation from the inside out."
Yeah, this is one of those times where it's better to just stop talking to people like this. If only because you can't kick them in the balls over Facebook.
My thoughts too, I'm just debating whether I should wind him up further when he says "get an education" when I quote what critics have said, by pointing out how ironic it is coming from a guy whose entire argument is based on a bullshit documentary
Wait, if I say I am a communist it is apparently a bad thing, because of obscene simplifications like "caused the deaths of millions durr". OK. Colonialism caused the same amount of deaths, on a longer timescale but on a much smaller global population and with more primitive means. So why the fuck is it wrong to be an anti-colonialist?
Forget it, Enterprise. Against arguments specifically constructed to make you lose your cool and look stupid, you must cut your losses and run. Quit while you're not yet broken to the level of hysterical gibberish, and let his own bullshit stand out.
It's on Facebook, which means there's a chance your friends and family have read your response(s) to him. On the internet, there's always a crowd, and they're usually always quiet. Silence is usually taken as a sign of submission or agreement. This isn't true, I've been silent about a lot of things but that doesn't mean I agree; however, the conspiracy theorist ranting about Obama's 'socialism' or 'the fake Moon landing' might be emboldened by our collective silence (and dread), and continue his or her senseless crusade.
So the point I'm trying to make is this: Yeah, you're feeding a troll. Yeah, many of your friends and family will likely think you're wasting your time. But if you can convince just a small group of people who are on the fence about this, then you did the right thing. Your opponent will also know you won't tolerate this shit in future discussions, so hopefully he'll keep his opinions to himself.
With that said, if you haven't already, I'd deconstruct his 'points' by immediately distancing Obama from whatever his Father/Mother/Grandfather/Grandmother/Dog believed in. Here's a fact: Obama is neither a terrorist nor a communist. I don't see what's wrong about being anti-colonialist. One of my cousins is an anarchist, my best friend is a mormon, and another of my friends is a vegetarian. I'm none of these things yet apparently I am, according to your opponent's faulty logic, which believes the beliefs of our family/family/colleagues represent our personal beliefs.
Next, demand evidence from multiple, unaffiliated yet reputable sources. Point out how 2016: Obama's America's author, Dinesh D'Souza, has never personally met Obama, and all he did was read Obama's book, Dreams From my Father, and assumed Obama's father's ideologies are ones Obama shares, which isn't supported by evidence.
Be sure to practice what you preach. Do your own research, rely on evidence and evidence alone, and ask questions. I love doing that last part, asking questions, because your opponent's answers will eventually betray them.
Should you choose to continue this fight, all I have left to say is this: go for the jugular.
Hmm lets see.
Point out who the Founding Fathers fathers and grandfathers were. (Or however far back)
Point out that Ronald Regan funded and armed Muslim Jihadists.
Point out the base closures during the Clinton and Bush administration.
etc., etc.
Also ask for him to back the claims up. Challenge his intelligence by saying he is just a propaganda eating mouthpiece and that he didn't know any of these "facts" before he read them on another facebook picture or someone smarter than him tricked him into believing the picture. Ask him for the sources of each "fact" and tell him that if he can't do what some socialist commie college kids can do he is a pathetic American and should move to Canada/Mexico/Cuba wherever.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
And fuck just ignoring him. The joy of idiots is making them FEEL like idiots. Once they respond with their first "fuck you" or "lets just agree to disagree lol" you can smile smugly knowing they feel stupid because they can't figure out how to argue back. I mean we are Americans, we like to win and make the losers know it for years.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
You can make him feel stupid, that is what I enjoy.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
No you can't Hav. Idiots like this start with their conclusions and work backwards from there, cherrypicking evidence to fit their worldview and dismissing everything else. There is no reasoning with a person like that.
To Absent Friends
Dalton | Admin Smash | Knight of the Order of SDN
"y = mx + bro" - Surlethe
"You try THAT shit again, kid, and I will mod you. I will
mod you so hard, you'll wish I were Dalton." - Lagmonster
Actually Dalton, its called forming a hypothesis from what you (think you) know and then gathering evidence that appears to support it, then "experimenting" by telling other people and seeing what they bring to the table.
The problem, you see, is when they ignore the evidence and rationalizations of everybody elses hypothesis because they cant handle the implications of being wrong. Because a lot of the time, it means that something they have beleived for years and probably gotten into arguments over has been wrong or was wrong from the very beginning, and instead of feeling righteous for screaming down idiots, they now feel like total nasty douchewads and owe a fuckload of apologies.
Nobody actually *starts* with conclusions. They usually just cant handle their hypothesis being wrong. And TBH, most people instinctively just jump into an argument or discussion before doing any research. Because thats how it works IRL.
You dont stop and spend ten minutes on Google or thirty seconds looking for that bookmark or other reference when talking about stuff IRL, it would look stupid. And some people cant be bothered to treat internet discussions and debates any differently. Mostly because they dont view and use the internet the same way people on communities like this do. They view it as a convenience or a tool, not as a club house to hang out and debate things.
I actually watched the documentary mentioned by the OP.
It's a long-winded, "guilt-by-association" sort of psychological analysis that basically concludes "Obama grew up around anti-British, anti-colonialist people, therefore today he is generally anti-Western and wants to reduce America's power and influence." As proof, Dinesh D'Souza (the director and narrator) interviews various people who met Barack Obama or his father at one point or another, including his brother in Kenya. D'Souza also paints every single diplomatic outreach Obama has every made to the Arab world (espeically his Al-Jazeera interview) as "pandering to Muslims".
It all really amounts to nothing but D'Souza reading excerpts from Obama's book which indicate affection for his father, and concluding from this that Obama's entire outlook on the world is shaped by a 19th/20th-centrury anti-colonialist worldview (which I guess translates to a 21st-century anti-Western worldview.) D'Souza concludes that Obama's overall goal as President is to weaken the United States, thereby equalizing the playing field globally.
D'Souza also throws in some outright misleading information in an attempt to support his thesis, such as the fact that the number of nuclear weapons stockpiled by the US has decreased significantly under Obama's presidency. Of course, D'Souza neglects to mention that the reduction in nuclear arms is a continuation of an overall anti-nuke proliferation program which began with Kissenger, and has nothing to do with Obama specifically.
Hilariously, D'Souza even uses the phrase "Obama's sympathy for Jihadists." I guess D'Souza is somehow interpreting an unprecedented escalation of drone strikes and the resultant collateral Muslim victims as evidence of Obama's "sympathy".
