Was reading a university sub-
and I saw the same two hypocrisy gotcha responses from chuds.
1 ) These protesters should go live in Gaza since they keep complaining. I don't see the logic here? The protesters don't like the place getting bombed so they should go to that place and experience the bombing themselves? If anything shouldn't it be the opposite? That people who think current treatment of Gazans is justified should go experience Gaza for themselves to walk a mile in their shoes? Now that I think about it, maybe the logic behind the gotcha is that alternative left-wing types would not be accepted in a socially conservative muslim country? Even if that were true, still doesn't mean kids from there should get bombed.
2 ) The protesters are against the walls and checkpoints encircling Gaza from, yet the protesters have barricaded their encampment with a plastic sheath so they can control who comes in and out. So are the chuds here saying they're against all barricades including the Gaza one? Or are they saying they agree all barricades are bad? Or just hypocrisy in and of itself is bad? Denouncing the wall is fine, as long you stay consistent and also don't use a plastic barricade yourself? How are these things even being equated in the first place? Oh you're against the Berlin Wall yet your apartment complex has a fence behind the dumpsters. You're a hypocrite which is the real crime here.
Anyway I know I'm preaching to the choir. How do you all deal with braindead smug gotchas? I guess it's time to touch grass?
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
The point isn't to show any flaw in our logic, the point is to make us shut up and let the one group they hate destroy the other group they hate. Ideally for the chuds, Isn'trealis and Palestinians would simply wipe each other out. The point is to keep us playing defense so we look weak to outsiders as the chuds keep making ridiculous, baseless claims that make for good soundbites and quotes.
It's all in The Alt-Right Playbook (and other places, but I learned it off YouTube from Innuendo Studios)
As for what to do about it...I'm not sure. The masses crave easily digestible answers to their concerns, and we simply don't have those. Plus, to the outsiders, the chud position isn't that materially different from the status quo. "You're already doing the right thing" is a persuasion lay-up, and all of our answers require changes, some of them quite drastic. We need better ways to communicate our goals and our theory, or at the very least a find a way to keep peoples' attention while we explain it to them using what comes across as politics/economics technobabble. Other users in this thread might be onto something with mimicking/mocking their behavior, though in my experience they tend to just tune out after a while.
Except for demanding they post hog. Always demand they post hog.
edit: expanded on the last point a bit.
I'm a cynical person but i still think you are wrong in your conclusion. Yes, masses crave easy and digestible answers, but there's a genocide going on. There isn't anything more easy and digestible than "genocide is wrong, fuck off zionists". The easiest way to combat them is simply ti show everyone how dishonest and monstrous their politicians and zionist influencers are.
I agree, but the problem is
doesn't usually entail saying the kinds of things that make for short, quippy, quotable soundbites.