You know how Men’s Rights Activists regularly resort to insults and invective when they “debate” with feminists online?
It turns out that they’re not just being assholes. No, they’re actually using a super-sophisticated, scientifically tested debating technique to totally PWN feminist slut bitches and mangina poodle-boy pussy-beggars alike.
By acting like assholes.
Men’s Rights Redditor anonlymouse reveals the secrets to debating like an MRA in a recent posting.
“I’ve been doing this for roughly a decade, and have experimented with a variety of tactics and approaches,” he writes. When he posts polite comments, he says, he gets ignored. When he insults his opponents, they’re more likely to respond.
[I]f I attack them head on, insulting them for posting something that’s so retarded, they listen. …
What’s necessary to debate with feminists is to strike a nerve right off the bat. Say a single sentence that they consider incredulous – or that’s explicitly offensive to them. They get upset, and commit to arguing with you. This is the bait. If you can’t get them emotionally invested, you can’t talk to them.
Yes, it’s hard to ignore someone who gets in your face and says something truly appalling. Similarly, if you literally throw your own poop at someone, they’re likely to respond to that as well, as monkeys have been demonstrating for ages.
If you present a well researched argument in a neutral tone, particularly with a source, they will pretend they didn’t notice it, hope nobody else does and move on to the next thing. They know they don’t have good arguments, so they won’t engage if you open with one yourself.
Or maybe they don’t feel like having a pointless pseudo-debate with an asshole who isn’t arguing in good faith?
Nah, couldn’t be that.
This doesn’t mean you don’t have sources backing up your argument, what it means is you don’t reveal that you have any until they’re really incensed.
Wait for them to demand you provide a source for your claims (you can draw out this demand by gradually making your claims more specific – rather like escalating your bet each round in poker). Once they’ve demanded a source, and you provide it, they’ll actually read through the whole paper looking for a flaw in it that they can attack.
Anonlymouse apparently thinks that actually reading studies is a sign of submission.
A few things will happen here. One, they’ll realise it’s solid, they can’t contradict it and just go silent. They’ll make excuses later about how you’re just stubborn, but they actually did read it and internalised it.
Or maybe they move on because they’re tired of arguing with a dickhead who’s going to dismiss everything they say anyway.
They usually won’t make the same claim in the future, but if they do you can call them out on ignoring what you provided previously, which being a personal attack will get them involved again.
Yeah, well, YOUR MOM is a wage gap.
Two, they’ll find some niggling detail and argue that. This is OK, at this point you switch to the rational debating mode – they’re invested and arguing with you so they won’t walk away so easily – and keep explaining why their objection isn’t valid – or provide another source to back you up.
Yeah, god forbid that you actually take in anything they say instead of reacting with an instictive “nuh uh” regardless of what they actually argue.
Three, they’ll acknowledge that it has some validity and that they’ll have to give it more thought. You’ll never get a complete admission that they were wrong and you were right, but that isn’t so important. You’re influencing their position and they’re going to gradually shift.
Or maybe they’re so tired of debating they’ll say anything to end the conversation.
You can’t escalate from rational to direct attacks; that makes it look like you’re losing. But you can de-escalate from direct attacks to rational – nobody’s going to suggest that you feel you’re losing because you suddenly switched from being incensed to calm, and it makes some of their common accusations just seem ridiculous (which you can calmly point out to them).
Wow. You’ve discovered gaslighting.
Congratulations, you’re well on your way to thinking and acting like an abuser!
In the comments, the always charming DavidByron2 notes that he’s been gaslighting feminists for two decades. He especially likes the “don’t give them sources” strategy.
Make them do some work for it and they’ll have a better emotional relationship with it. If you spoon feed them it’s like a magic trick. They don’t believe the source because it came from you. The best is if you make them Google it for themselves. The more they do the more they accept it, the more you do, the more they reject it.
Huh. I always thought that when these guys didn’t give their sources it was because they were talking out of their ass. I had no idea it was all part of a devious masterdebating plan.
“Debating” MRAs can be an infuriating experience. Apparently, with some MRAs, this isn’t an accident. They set out to be as infuriating as possible — and quite often succeed.
H/T — r/againstmensrights