⚠️ This post has been marked as offensive.
Is it possible for an opinion to be socially right wing (defined as the values of the American republican party) and NOT have it to be Rage Bait?
If so, then give examples.
Not saying I agree with all of those, but they are socially conservative and not rage bait if defended sincerely.
It's not rage bait if it's motivated by genuine discussion rather than a desire to enrage people. You specifically phrase things in a way for the purpose of making people mad. If you want, I can rephrase your titles/posts for you so they mean the same thing but aren't rage bait.
In my view, sincere advocacy is never ragebait. Ragebait is an intentional attempt to cause outrage. Conservative views that are not ragebait include (but are not limited to):
Opposition to abortion
Traditional Marriage
The Party of Law and Order
Public role of religion
I generally disagree with what Conservatives mean when they say these things, but thats totally fine. That leaves plenty of room for discussion.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
RemyBrown wrote:
Seeing if any of you respond. If I'm being honest, then I think many on the left hold grudges for fun and you ignore me to preserve your mental health because in order to preserve your mental health, it avoids hearing the truth.
People typically like to transform their internal conflicts into interpersonal ones, Remy argues because of some tortured internal conflict., and there's only one thing we can all do.
OK, bring it in: Group Hug for Remy.
.
How do we know if someone is rage baiting?
They make extreme absurd claims.
They try to trap members to take sides.
They make intentional errors so that they can correct themselves.
They like to shift the blame.
They like to flip the script to play victim to make you look unhinged.
Seeing if any of you respond.
Wow, I wasn't even important enough to include. My feelings are hurt.
I was going to respond substantively but Savant had already addressed the main points.
You continue to pretend it's all the same by ignoring all the differences, then marvel at how others aren't being won over by your awesome logic.
The prime ingredient that turns any statement into rage bait is intent. If you can't understand that simple concept then the rest of this conversation is pointless.
You guys really think you can teach Remy how to be normal? Good luck with that.
Instead, you should try something with at least some remote chance of success, maybe a more realistic goal, like teaching your dog how to play chess.
Remy should be treated better than a dog, even though he may never learn to play chess.
But I sort of know how those discussions would go in a way that's extremely predictable, and rather than do the same repetitive stuff like a script, I'd rather just cut to the chase.
So you clearly know what we mean by rage bait and you are doing it anyway. Hence, intent...
You don't speed up the conversation though; in fact, you make it take longer. People don't understand what you mean because you skip a few steps. A better strategy would be: (1) say the line in a non-ragebait way, (2) anticipate common objections they might make, if you know how the convo would go, and (3) respond to those common objections. Maybe you are trying to do (2) when you write out scripted convos, but try to take the strongest arguments the other side might make rather than the weakest ones. Or list a few responses depending on the different responses they might have. It'll make the post longer, but you end up spending more time as it is just getting people to understand what you actually mean.
RemyBrown wrote:
->Group Hug for Remy.
Try bugging a polar bear first, as you argue I'm more scary than a polar bear to women. Left wing men have no morals and no principles to begin with because their environment they were raised on easy mode. There needs to be a way for them to get the right wing benefits of living on hard more without doing the impossible; editing their childhoods.
It has nothing to do with politics, it doesn't matter if they are Republican, Democrat, or Independent women, they still choose the bear over Remy.
You are nonpartisan creepy.
RemyBrown wrote:
->(1) say the line in a non-ragebait way, (2) anticipate common objections they might make, if you know how the convo would go, and (3) respond to those common objections.
2 is going to be hard to persuade someone on because capitas aren't motivated by logic (I would like to think they are, but they aren't).
For example, you've said that you're not a virgin. It is good to be a non virgin as it reduces your risk for pregnancy and STDs/STIs. This is objectively true. And while you may or may not agree, such information won't be enough to get you to stop having sex because at the end of the day, you have an emotional attachment to sex.
People in general have an emotional attachment to various things that I find bad. Logic doesn't work on them. Only emotional responses have a chance of working on them. This means I have no choice but to Rage Bait.
Emotional people don't care about logic; they don't care about hypocrisy even. They care about their own feelings; their own identity.
I'm pretty sure Savant would rather be alone with a bear than take advice about his sex life from Remy Brown.
RemyBrown wrote:
It has nothing to do with politics, it doesn't matter if they are Republican, Democrat, or Independent women, they still choose the bear over Remy.
You are nonpartisan creepy.
And yet you wanted to hug me. Like I said, you have no principles.
Left wingers are the first to deny something has to do with politics; the false sense of unity. Your party is the party of platitudes and sugary dishonesty.
I'd rather talk to a bear, they're smarter, more interesting, and more logical.
RemyBrown wrote:
Opposition to abortion
This is viewed as sexism.
Traditional Marriage
This is viewed as Homophobia.
The Party of Law and Order
... police state.
Public role of religion
... theocracy.
I generally disagree with what Conservatives mean when they say these things, but thats totally fine. That leaves plenty of room for discussion.
Generally is 50%<X<100%. It's just 100% for you.
Is this the part where you tell me what I believe? I mean, you're not doing a very good job of it, but I admit it saves a lot of time if you carry the entire conversation by yourself.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
People in general have an emotional attachment to various things that I find bad. Logic doesn't work on them. Only emotional responses have a chance of working on them. This means I have no choice but to Rage Bait.
Your emotional arguments have convinced zero people to my knowledge. I've seen people change their mind here but it's only ever because the other person makes a logical argument. I think people here are more inclined to listen to logic given that it's a debate site, and even if they weren't, logical arguments must succeed at convincing people to some extent, or we would just reach an information heat death where beliefs are the result of random emotions and we can't trust any of our own beliefs. And then you couldn't even trust the beliefs on which your argument depends.
Most people are conditioned ideologists and it's not that we get a lot of say in that conditioning...Though some might be conditioned to be thoughtful enough to modify their point of view...But yes, most people are nonetheless predictable.
So Remy is bears and rage bait, rather than fluffy kittens and hugs.
You convinced Debby that you are a Nazi virgin. A virgin has no business talking about sexual matters,, marriage, abortion, homophobia, sexism etc.
I've convinced Debby on a lot of things (or my trial did). She saw all of my posts and was trying to find what was offensive.
That was her own opinion, that wasn't her being convinced by you. If you wear a t-shirt and I don't think it's offensive, that doesn't mean you successfully convinced me of anything. Also, Debby kinda just says random stuff.
-> I've seen people change their mind here but it's only ever because the other person makes a logical argument.
Examples?
I have, and I've seen SkepticalOne, SatanLucy, and wylted change their minds on minor points based on arguments I made. I could go more in depth but I'm not making this up.
They work on people who are relative fresh slates to an issue. No logical argument will get a planned parenthood worker to become anti abortion (but maybe if they got pregnant and given birth, then they might change their mind off of that, but it could go reverse as well).
Most people here don't work at planned parenthood. And even if they did, the fact that they're on a debate site means they're more open to changing their opinion than most.
Generally, capitas are stupid. Stupid capitas will trust their own beliefs solely off of emotion.
I don't understand what the word "capita" means in this context.