Talking To Liberals

Done wrong, this is an exercise in masochism. Done right it can be rewarding and entertaining if you don't mind the risk of driving your liberal friend to the hospital with symptoms of a stroke.

Anonymous Conservative has not just a piece, but a whole blog covering the topic and investigates the r/K theory of societal development as it relates to the way individuals develop their thought processes. The whole thing is thought provoking, and indeed explains fairly well why it is that liberals and conservatives more often talk past each other than to each other.

Warning: This goes on at great length and may require re-reading a time or two to pick up all the details. There are 7 posts beginning here, and a preface here which you would do well to read first.

In discussions with my friends, details come up like these:
1. deliver comments without emotion.
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-part-iv-the-presentation/

When Lawrence Summers upset Teresa Hopkins, and when Colonel Connell savaged Mike Wallace, an essential part of their delivery was their absence of emotion. 

Observation. This is important. It's like the saying about arguing with idiots: They'll drag you down where they are then beat you with experience.Liberals are all about emotion and feelings and are pretty much immune to facts and figures.




2 out-grouping the Liberal.
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-part-v-distilling-the-stimuli/

First there must be a group of observers. Out-grouping is vastly less affecting in a private, one on one debate. Then one must design the argument to portray Liberal ideals as deviant, compared to the mores and values of the group.

Observation. Having observers helps in that the target has more trouble denying that the defeat actually happened. Certainly some of them will deny an event even in the presence of video. The lemming will have doubts installed in his mind. The true believer will deny that it's his head on the platter. (Visualize a nice book illustration.)


3. humiliation in defeat.
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/touching-the-raw-amygdala-part-vi-additional-stimuli/

Emphasize any clear defeat, no matter how minor, and you will trigger the Narcissist’s (and the Liberal’s) amygdala. Disregard of the Narcissist’s misfortune is another amygdala triggering stimuli. The Stare. Steve Jobs was reputed to periodically unnerve people he didn’t want to deal with   by using direct eye contact, delivering a wide-eyed, emotionally blank stare which he had carefully developed through hours of looking at himself in the mirror. The rise of the mob. I suspect aggressive
Narcissism will often accompany a fear of the mob turning upon the individual.

Observation. This is like training puppies. You get quicker results with a stern voice and a rolled up newspaper than you do with just a stern voice. The left goes to this early in the argument. Ex: You suggest that Social Security has insoluble problems and needs major overhaul. The liberal immediately goes to reducto ad absurdum and suggests you want to immediately cancel the program and shut off all benefits, pushing granny's wheelchair out on to the freeway. Everybody understands that you are the logical one and are expected to come up with a logical rebuttal which will make you look silly. Double down. Agree with him. Suggest we have special on ramps built (shovel ready) to push the wheelchairs down to streamline the process. Suggest a prize of a huge government grant to implement any ideas that would result in granny flying further when struck. Like an HMO (High Mass Only) lane, minimum vehicle weight = 10,000lb.

The example in part V in which a suggested rebuke of an anti-gun position led me to think that most liberal positions are based on simple envy. The thinking goes that if I can't do something, then you who are doing it must be punished for being able to do it and/or forced to do it for me. Examples would include making a living or defending yourself or your family. Recognize this and the rest falls in to place.


Salon just published a piece that right up front recognizes that liberals and conservatives think differently but then attempts to prove the superiority of liberal thinking through the use of classical Greek. Liberals, you see base their thinking on the logos or logic of a narrative, while conservatives base theirs on the mythos of their positions. Nice try. We've heard this before as the Reality Based Party has tried to sell us global warming, gun control, smart diplomacy, leading from behind and other bottles of snake oil.


An immensely interesting topic which I'm sure I'll be returning to as it has lots of interesting implications for both elective battle space preparation and actual campaign efforts.