I don't think they were accepting it, they were making sure it didn't derail the conversation. Left-anticoms are just as good as any other liberal at bullshitting and completely changing the subject, forcing the other person to have to combat a whole string of myths and lies instead of the original question asked. It's just a time wasting tactic and this is (mostly) the right approach. A better one would be "there's no proof of that, they weren't, but don't try and derail the conversation, stay on topic."
Also I'm guessing they're calling them paedophiles because Orwell was a rapist, and he's one of the "good guys" therefore the "bad guys" like Stalin and Mao were like, the extra bad version of that.
A better one would be “there’s no proof of that, they weren’t, but don’t try and derail the conversation, stay on topic.”
Their most probable answer would be "ooooh, are you trying to deny it?"
In this case, pretend to be a noob with your views akin to theirs. Say something like "fuck no, but I need some proof to smear at my redfash friend/coworker/whatever's face!"
It is useful to pretend to be one of them - or at least an "initiate" in their ways.
If they shun you, then they risk looking like they'll be driving people "to the enemy." If they try to explain, they'll sooner or later admit to being bullshitting.
That's true, I have a lot of success asking "innocent" Socratic questions about things with libs in person, just acting concerned and ignorant goes a long way to making libs think you're one of them.
While I agree it isn't relelvant, it also seems weird to just accept the pedophile claim at face value there.
I don't think they were accepting it, they were making sure it didn't derail the conversation. Left-anticoms are just as good as any other liberal at bullshitting and completely changing the subject, forcing the other person to have to combat a whole string of myths and lies instead of the original question asked. It's just a time wasting tactic and this is (mostly) the right approach. A better one would be "there's no proof of that, they weren't, but don't try and derail the conversation, stay on topic."
Also I'm guessing they're calling them paedophiles because Orwell was a rapist, and he's one of the "good guys" therefore the "bad guys" like Stalin and Mao were like, the extra bad version of that.
Their most probable answer would be "ooooh, are you trying to deny it?"
In this case, pretend to be a noob with your views akin to theirs. Say something like "fuck no, but I need some proof to smear at my redfash friend/coworker/whatever's face!"
And watch them try to produce it.
(Edit: Typo)
Good point, concern trolling a concern troll can be a great way to get them to admit they have no clue.
It is useful to pretend to be one of them - or at least an "initiate" in their ways.
If they shun you, then they risk looking like they'll be driving people "to the enemy." If they try to explain, they'll sooner or later admit to being bullshitting.
That's true, I have a lot of success asking "innocent" Socratic questions about things with libs in person, just acting concerned and ignorant goes a long way to making libs think you're one of them.
What's there to argue? We all know those people project.
Like, I’ve heard about the allegations against Stalin (have yet to be confirmed), but Mao???