i would be curious to hear how other people deal with this. when a group or individual makes a dangerously racist or stupid comment with the expectation that you should conform to the group think. how best to react without betraying your core principles.
for example someone says “putin invaded Ukraine for no reason and is killing the babies”. this is a real case example, i tried being reasonable, i tried evidence, i tried history, i tried comparison with iraq, i offered to present the evidence, i was just dismissed. “i dont know were your getting all this from” is the standard response, or the dismissive “your entitled to your opinion”. but its not a matter of opinion its a matter of fact and the group think is v v dangerous. in the example above i cracked and said “i cant believe your that f@@ stupid”. now he is stupid but also nice. as in nice but stupid, it gets socially awkwerd but he wants me to cheer for ww3. as Assange said if a lie can start a war maybe the truth can stop one - but no one really cares about the truth, so are we all doomed to dystopia or mushroom clouds.
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” – Martin Luther King
Don't ever use evidence in an argument always dictated by emotions.
Everyone is ruled by emotions. Evidence is the cherry on top. Evidence should be a last ditch resort.
A sibling of mine remarked that 'leaders were crazy'. I agreed. They then directed it at Putin and Xi ("Poohbear"), to which I remained passive on. I could have said 'no, you're horribly wrong' but this would force them straight into the defensive, because to agree with me they would need to admit they're wrong. Nobody will ever admit they're wrong.
Instead, I changed the topic, and asked them if they knew about Tory plans to conscript the public? - Always switch to topics you can find common ground on and can make progress with, or that you know they will agree with you on. They said they had heard of the plans. I told them to think of both themselves and their family in relation to conscription and nuclear war, and to think of their own survival.
They actually accepted nuclear war was a possibility. And conscription.
For them, they were of the view *they* (not myself) could not resist conscription. It's not a totally unreasonable assertion - pressgangs are violent and forceful. But we left on amicable terms. But ultimately, with them knowing the truth - that conscription was coming, and so was nuclear war.
It doesn't matter if they believe Putin is sane or deranged, because what Putin thinks doesn't decide what they themselves will do. What matters is their survival. Avoid trying to win fights on being 'technically right' and focus on winning the fights that matter.
You can always work on convincing them about the "minor" details later.
If your family are so-called "liberal" and hate Republicans, find the common ground in your opposition to NeoCon warmongers. If they're so-called "Conservative", find the common ground in your opposition to NeoLib warmongers.
Always seek the common ground first, and build bridges from there. If you look for a fight, you will get one, and if you look for peace, you will find it.
Thanks to everyone for your views. You're right of course. Now I have to think about the implications of this.
I don't know many clued in people but those i do are often withdrawn from society finding people just too much to deal with. Family’s and friends fall out over this. For the normies you’re a grandma killer or a Putin apologist. Conform and seek forgiveness or you will always be the outsider. Caitlin Johnston put it this way:-
“You could choose to tell the truth - But you’d also be aware that it would cost you everything. Your job. Your friends. Your social standing. Your carefully cultivated relationships with all the right kind of people. Your expensive house. Your fancy car. Your spouse. Your kids’ Ivy League educations. The respect of everyone you know.
And you look at the two options, and you weigh them out, and every day you pick the easy way. Every day you choose your own cowardice over truth.”
Sly suggest writing an article addressing these issues and theres shared experience here ! And Mr Beagle once suggested that if someone was willing to pay a few bob he could research/write an article on the desired topic. Why not .. could we do this.
Because at this stage I’m tired of walking on eggshells and banging my head against a wall.
I see my problem now. I love evidence and always use it. Engenders anger sometimes, especially if people are just making shit up. I do try to find common ground though. It has amazed me how internally inconsistent people’s arguments can be. Let them talk long enough and they almost come full circle but don’t realize it. Have you ever found thought experiments to be helpful?
I've tried that too, Kevin. I know those kind of people. When they get going on that nonsense I've casually and briefly mentioned facts that are pretty well known and they glare at me and say "You're just OBSESSIVE!!! A lot of people consider ignorance a virtue, and knowledge the product of irrational obsession. There's not much we can do about this.
If you attempt to resist or verbally fight them, you will get pushback.
But, if you lead them to naturally form their own conclusions - which just so happen to resemble yours vaguely - by gently directing them there, they will assist you.
Start by finding the common ground. Find what you share in common in terms of views. Then, from that, build your bridge outwards.
So, when I approached BLM over the vaccine mandates, the common ground I shared with them is medical experimentation on black people was wrong, and that the horrors of Tuskegee Syphilis experiment should not be repeated, especially not through coercion and mandates. They agreed with me.
I say this as an individual who has spoken with every major political movement and religious group imaginable across the globe. It can be done. It takes work, it takes 'holding ones tongue' proverbially, it takes a lot of personal research into others' beliefs - but it can be done.
Thanks, Underdog! Maybe you could write some articles on this subject to share more of your strategy tips? Open the discussion for commenters here to share what works and what doesn't? It might help us all polish our technique- I know I could use some improvement.
Most people i know appear to be “sincere” in there convictions and yet they simply refuse to consider the objective evidence. im getting tired of tolerating and being talked down to by “sincere” people who refuse to respect objective evidence. listening to both sides is correct but for nearly everyone i know its a fake excuse they use to find comfort and security in the mob. if people were rational the world wouldn't be the way it is. peoples “concern” for the truth is fake
In my entire time of trying to warn people of 'this thing' or 'that', is eventually, the train of "I told you so" always arrives in the station sooner or later.
It used to be, in my younger years, I was passionate about convincing people. I'd stress myself out impaling myself on their spikes and getting caught in their snares. Now I realise everyone only deserves a 'one warning minimum'. The time I could spend trying to convince 1 stubborn horse, I could be using to convince a group of eager listeners.
Some folks have hit the "I told you so" station multiple times and seem incapable of learning. I sometimes wonder if certain people have these very abstract learning disabilities that only apply to certain topics.
• Nations are slowly implementing laws to restrict our access to food.
• In the UK, anyone owning a (a as in 1) chicken must register with government.
• Beginning in the fall of 2024, anyone in the UK who owns a single chicken in England and Wales will be required to register their bird before October 1, 2024.
• The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) claims that they are simply attempting to prevent diseases from spreading.
• Why should people who own a single bird be required to maintain a permit with the federal government?
• Make no mistake about it – these measures are intended to control the food supply.
If we can just wake up a tiny majority of the population, even 51/49%, we'd have a chance of stopping ALL of the horrendous lies/crap thrown at us on a daily basis. Unfortunately, most are tuned into CNN/FOX/MSNBC/NEW YORK CRIMES/WAPO / TWATTAH / FUH Q BOOK and the very dangerous UnFRONTLINE DOCTORS etc.
Majority of the pop = Asleep at the wheel. Driving drunk?
Reporting on war affairs is always tricky and a sensitive matter due to each of our subconscious / conscious political affiliations. However one thing we all should learn from the "pandemic" saga is that we can be sincere in our positions but yet wrong in our core beliefs or dogma. Therefore as free thinkers we should be open to other or opposing opinions . We may choose not to agree on all matters but must be respectful and willing to listen and even civily engage in debates.
I try my best to paint myself into a 'neutral, facts matter' corner where possible, even if I suspect I have my own personal bias (it's hard not to cheer the other team when your own government backstabs you). I will say though, some the sick, twisted stuff I see done to people just enrages me. And who wouldn't? Have to be inhuman to not get mad.
This is a tiny point but perhaps symbolic. The name for a person from Britain is a Briton, not a 'Brit' which always strikes me as a somewhat disparaging shorthand. Saying the 'UK' and 'Brits' seems subtly undermining of Britain and the British, a form of Newspeak which discourages pride in one's country and heritage. Now, in the context of an article on war, perhaps nationalism and patriotism don't look like virtues we should be encouraging but then again in the context of resistance we do need pride in our land and our culture and history, otherwise from where do we draw the strength to keep resisting globalism? So, in short, I'm wondering if you might consider avoiding the term 'Brit' and replacing it with the traditional term Briton?
As a Brit myself, I'm fine with the shorthand, which is short for British, not 'Briton'. If you were trying to go old school you might say Anglo-Saxon or *English*, given the Scots - clamouring for Independence - and the Welsh - enforcing their language - don't see themselves particularly as British.
New Britannia has a nice ring to it. Are you sure you want to fight to re-establish the traditionalist norms that allowed a corrupt Parliament to lord it over us? Not all change is bad, just ask the Parliamentarians regarding their fight with the Roundheads.
Personally I think our country is in dire need of major reforms.
i would be curious to hear how other people deal with this. when a group or individual makes a dangerously racist or stupid comment with the expectation that you should conform to the group think. how best to react without betraying your core principles.
for example someone says “putin invaded Ukraine for no reason and is killing the babies”. this is a real case example, i tried being reasonable, i tried evidence, i tried history, i tried comparison with iraq, i offered to present the evidence, i was just dismissed. “i dont know were your getting all this from” is the standard response, or the dismissive “your entitled to your opinion”. but its not a matter of opinion its a matter of fact and the group think is v v dangerous. in the example above i cracked and said “i cant believe your that f@@ stupid”. now he is stupid but also nice. as in nice but stupid, it gets socially awkwerd but he wants me to cheer for ww3. as Assange said if a lie can start a war maybe the truth can stop one - but no one really cares about the truth, so are we all doomed to dystopia or mushroom clouds.
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” – Martin Luther King
Don't ever use evidence in an argument always dictated by emotions.
Everyone is ruled by emotions. Evidence is the cherry on top. Evidence should be a last ditch resort.
A sibling of mine remarked that 'leaders were crazy'. I agreed. They then directed it at Putin and Xi ("Poohbear"), to which I remained passive on. I could have said 'no, you're horribly wrong' but this would force them straight into the defensive, because to agree with me they would need to admit they're wrong. Nobody will ever admit they're wrong.
Instead, I changed the topic, and asked them if they knew about Tory plans to conscript the public? - Always switch to topics you can find common ground on and can make progress with, or that you know they will agree with you on. They said they had heard of the plans. I told them to think of both themselves and their family in relation to conscription and nuclear war, and to think of their own survival.
They actually accepted nuclear war was a possibility. And conscription.
For them, they were of the view *they* (not myself) could not resist conscription. It's not a totally unreasonable assertion - pressgangs are violent and forceful. But we left on amicable terms. But ultimately, with them knowing the truth - that conscription was coming, and so was nuclear war.
It doesn't matter if they believe Putin is sane or deranged, because what Putin thinks doesn't decide what they themselves will do. What matters is their survival. Avoid trying to win fights on being 'technically right' and focus on winning the fights that matter.
You can always work on convincing them about the "minor" details later.
If your family are so-called "liberal" and hate Republicans, find the common ground in your opposition to NeoCon warmongers. If they're so-called "Conservative", find the common ground in your opposition to NeoLib warmongers.
Always seek the common ground first, and build bridges from there. If you look for a fight, you will get one, and if you look for peace, you will find it.
"Don't ever use evidence in an argument"
Thanks to everyone for your views. You're right of course. Now I have to think about the implications of this.
I don't know many clued in people but those i do are often withdrawn from society finding people just too much to deal with. Family’s and friends fall out over this. For the normies you’re a grandma killer or a Putin apologist. Conform and seek forgiveness or you will always be the outsider. Caitlin Johnston put it this way:-
“You could choose to tell the truth - But you’d also be aware that it would cost you everything. Your job. Your friends. Your social standing. Your carefully cultivated relationships with all the right kind of people. Your expensive house. Your fancy car. Your spouse. Your kids’ Ivy League educations. The respect of everyone you know.
And you look at the two options, and you weigh them out, and every day you pick the easy way. Every day you choose your own cowardice over truth.”
Sly suggest writing an article addressing these issues and theres shared experience here ! And Mr Beagle once suggested that if someone was willing to pay a few bob he could research/write an article on the desired topic. Why not .. could we do this.
Because at this stage I’m tired of walking on eggshells and banging my head against a wall.
I see my problem now. I love evidence and always use it. Engenders anger sometimes, especially if people are just making shit up. I do try to find common ground though. It has amazed me how internally inconsistent people’s arguments can be. Let them talk long enough and they almost come full circle but don’t realize it. Have you ever found thought experiments to be helpful?
I've tried that too, Kevin. I know those kind of people. When they get going on that nonsense I've casually and briefly mentioned facts that are pretty well known and they glare at me and say "You're just OBSESSIVE!!! A lot of people consider ignorance a virtue, and knowledge the product of irrational obsession. There's not much we can do about this.
If you attempt to resist or verbally fight them, you will get pushback.
But, if you lead them to naturally form their own conclusions - which just so happen to resemble yours vaguely - by gently directing them there, they will assist you.
Start by finding the common ground. Find what you share in common in terms of views. Then, from that, build your bridge outwards.
So, when I approached BLM over the vaccine mandates, the common ground I shared with them is medical experimentation on black people was wrong, and that the horrors of Tuskegee Syphilis experiment should not be repeated, especially not through coercion and mandates. They agreed with me.
I say this as an individual who has spoken with every major political movement and religious group imaginable across the globe. It can be done. It takes work, it takes 'holding ones tongue' proverbially, it takes a lot of personal research into others' beliefs - but it can be done.
Thanks, Underdog! Maybe you could write some articles on this subject to share more of your strategy tips? Open the discussion for commenters here to share what works and what doesn't? It might help us all polish our technique- I know I could use some improvement.
Most people i know appear to be “sincere” in there convictions and yet they simply refuse to consider the objective evidence. im getting tired of tolerating and being talked down to by “sincere” people who refuse to respect objective evidence. listening to both sides is correct but for nearly everyone i know its a fake excuse they use to find comfort and security in the mob. if people were rational the world wouldn't be the way it is. peoples “concern” for the truth is fake
In my entire time of trying to warn people of 'this thing' or 'that', is eventually, the train of "I told you so" always arrives in the station sooner or later.
It used to be, in my younger years, I was passionate about convincing people. I'd stress myself out impaling myself on their spikes and getting caught in their snares. Now I realise everyone only deserves a 'one warning minimum'. The time I could spend trying to convince 1 stubborn horse, I could be using to convince a group of eager listeners.
Some folks have hit the "I told you so" station multiple times and seem incapable of learning. I sometimes wonder if certain people have these very abstract learning disabilities that only apply to certain topics.
And, more War On Our Food.
Martin Armstrong: UK Requires Residents to Register Chickens – War on Farming
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/great-reset/uk-requires-residents-to-register-chickens-war-on-farming/
• Nations are slowly implementing laws to restrict our access to food.
• In the UK, anyone owning a (a as in 1) chicken must register with government.
• Beginning in the fall of 2024, anyone in the UK who owns a single chicken in England and Wales will be required to register their bird before October 1, 2024.
• The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) claims that they are simply attempting to prevent diseases from spreading.
• Why should people who own a single bird be required to maintain a permit with the federal government?
• Make no mistake about it – these measures are intended to control the food supply.
"mandatory biosecurity requirements" - I.E. they want you to kill the birds.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-help-protect-poultry-industry-from-bird-flu
These people are evil.
'These people are evil.'
Beyond belief.
If we can just wake up a tiny majority of the population, even 51/49%, we'd have a chance of stopping ALL of the horrendous lies/crap thrown at us on a daily basis. Unfortunately, most are tuned into CNN/FOX/MSNBC/NEW YORK CRIMES/WAPO / TWATTAH / FUH Q BOOK and the very dangerous UnFRONTLINE DOCTORS etc.
Majority of the pop = Asleep at the wheel. Driving drunk?
Great link you dropped. You do a great job.
Show me The Money 💰 and the Lies 🎬
Reporting on war affairs is always tricky and a sensitive matter due to each of our subconscious / conscious political affiliations. However one thing we all should learn from the "pandemic" saga is that we can be sincere in our positions but yet wrong in our core beliefs or dogma. Therefore as free thinkers we should be open to other or opposing opinions . We may choose not to agree on all matters but must be respectful and willing to listen and even civily engage in debates.
I'd welcome your views on any subject matter!
I try my best to paint myself into a 'neutral, facts matter' corner where possible, even if I suspect I have my own personal bias (it's hard not to cheer the other team when your own government backstabs you). I will say though, some the sick, twisted stuff I see done to people just enrages me. And who wouldn't? Have to be inhuman to not get mad.
That said, I won't tolerate propagandists.
This is a tiny point but perhaps symbolic. The name for a person from Britain is a Briton, not a 'Brit' which always strikes me as a somewhat disparaging shorthand. Saying the 'UK' and 'Brits' seems subtly undermining of Britain and the British, a form of Newspeak which discourages pride in one's country and heritage. Now, in the context of an article on war, perhaps nationalism and patriotism don't look like virtues we should be encouraging but then again in the context of resistance we do need pride in our land and our culture and history, otherwise from where do we draw the strength to keep resisting globalism? So, in short, I'm wondering if you might consider avoiding the term 'Brit' and replacing it with the traditional term Briton?
As a Brit myself, I'm fine with the shorthand, which is short for British, not 'Briton'. If you were trying to go old school you might say Anglo-Saxon or *English*, given the Scots - clamouring for Independence - and the Welsh - enforcing their language - don't see themselves particularly as British.
You will have to create a new culture to form your resistance around. The current 'leader' is an unelected Moderna tyrant (https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/i/140221412/moderna-de-facto-control-the-prime-minister), the monarchy are basically dead (https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/the-poisoned-monarchies), and the UK government did this to themselves whilst the general public watched quietly as they replaced the British flag with pride flags, kept borders open and burned money overseas for Ukraine.
New Britannia has a nice ring to it. Are you sure you want to fight to re-establish the traditionalist norms that allowed a corrupt Parliament to lord it over us? Not all change is bad, just ask the Parliamentarians regarding their fight with the Roundheads.
Personally I think our country is in dire need of major reforms.