content: Account Deleted By User All statements made online, which proport to contain information that can be used to justify social-change, should be analyzed meticulously. If every single word of a statement is not combed through, the possibility of a verbal trojan horse slipping through undetected exists. These trojan horses can later be used to deploy faulty logic and sabotage discussion.  Practices like pointing out “strawmen” or “ad-hominem” are good, in theory. However, lately some people have begun to treat these words as mere buzzwords. Stating that one has used the strawman concept can be done maliciously, to divert attention from a potentially valid argument. For example. A: “This pen is clearly a Y, that means all pens are Y”  (a stated over-generalization is turned into a rule) B: “Brother, that is a strawman”  (the validity of the statement is called into question, using the available buzzword) A: “What? You think you can own me like some “libtard/conservacuck/buffoon?” “  (subject A, again, diverts attention from the actual debate with the newly introduced buzzword. In this case, the word strawman is mocked because of its connection to controversial “Libtards rekt #3030” type YouTube videos) B: “What? No I merely meant tha-“ (subject B has reacted to the call out. This is often all that is needed, for this strategy to work) A: “I don’t wanna do that endless argument any more” (Subject A doubles down on their position and declares the entire debate moot.) After this subject A abandons the conversation, having nullified the potential of defeat in debate. In this scenario, they do not need to admit that they have been wrong. It is for this reason that we believe, that in-depth linguistic analysis should be used to assert one’s counter-argument more effectively: A: “This pen is clearly red, that means all pens are red”  (over-generalization noted) B: “What are you referring to with that?”  (the basic rule that enables to over-generalization is queried) A: “Umm you know, the fact that all pens are red“  (an argument is given) B: “So, because one pen happens to be red, clearly all pens must be red?“  (A’s use of logic is verified by B) A: “Yes, exactly”  (A confirms their stance: ALL PENS ARE RED) B: “What about blue pens?  (Subject B challenges the rule with a perceived anomaly) A: “Ugh, that’s not what I meant”  (A wish to correct their statement of: ALL PENS ARE RED) B: “Are you saying blue pens exist?”  (The anomaly is applied to the proposed rule) A: “Yeah duh.”  (The anomaly is accepted as valid) B: “You just stated that all pens are red”   (The initial over-generalization is stated again, to demonstrate the falsity of the initial statement’s logic) Subject a either ignores this and displays their stupidity even further (a form of social defeat) or accepts defeat, either verbally or with body-language cues = victory. HOWEVER, NOTICE THAT THE QUALITY OF THE PEN IS RED. RED IS A NON-SUBJECTIVE VALUE. MOST OF US CAN PERCEIVE THE RED, EXPECT FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE COLOR-BLIND. What if the argument had been like this? A: “This guy’s a goober, all guys are goobers” B: “Well, I’m not?” A: “Well maybe in your opinion”  This^^ argument has been seemingly ended, by stating that one may not see themselves as a goober, but may still very well be one. Somehow A can state that B is a goober, while also admitting that they may not be. This would imply that A’s initial statement has been a gamble of sorts.  Non-physical judgement adjectives should never be taken as a valid, for this reason. Example 1: A: “John is big” B: “Yes, he is” C: “Is he really? I’m bigger” A: “Well, compared to Sammy he is” C: “Oh yeah. He’s a big goy” A easy to demonstrate physical adjective used Example 2: A: “This guy’s a total goober” B: “Yeah, he sure is, boss” C: “Ohhhhh, wait a second, how’s he a goober?” A: “Ey ohh you know, he’s does stupid things” C: “I sometimes do stupid things, does that make a GODDAMN GOOBAH?” A: “Oohh no that’s not what I meant Vinny” C: “Oh, so you just call some, not ALL, people GOOBAHs, when they make mistakes? How mighty selective of ya” A: “Yeah that’s right” C: “How’s that not a nickname?” A: “Oh, yeah I prefer calling him that, I guess” Goober is subjective in value Referring to someone with words like goober, republitard or libcuck serves no argumentative purpose, other than perhaps displaying one’s own subjective opinion of a person. Using these words also risks the continuation of the discussion,   Therefore, one should always challenge the usage of adjectives in statements made by people. One should also strive to avoid using adjectives when making a point. TRUMP EXAMPLE “It’s going to be a big beautiful wall”  (making a declaration about the existence of a **beautiful ** >(see goober) future wall) A: “Well walls aren’t beautiful, no no no” B: “Yes, they are” [subjective debate over the beauty of walls continues] *alternatively: A: “A **big **wall eh? Compensating for something?” B: “Ehh? N-no…” COMPARE ABOVE TO THIS SIMPLE STATEMENT “it’s going to be a wall”  (simply stating that a wall will exist) A: “Why do we need one???” [insert statistics] An opponent over-using descriptive adjectives speaks volumes about their desire to control the audience’s perception of matters. Feelings often do not care for facts.  (1) “Look at this poor helpless refugee!” a picture of a muscular tanned man holding an iPhone is shown “Awwwwww”  -	-   (2) “Look at this refugee!” a picture of a muscular tanned man holding an iPhone is shown “What the fuck that looks like our bartender?” Now imagine a scenario where (1) is used to justify the following statement: “Well not all refugees are poor, come on. They’re just like you and me” <- according to the logic displayed in (1) = TRUTH.  (2) lacks the covert exploitable emotional element of (1).  You are free to use emotionally manipulative language, however, remember that because of the** unspoken underlining social-narrative** society exists within: only certain things are widely accepted as being sad, for example. In the mind of the viewer the bad guys are “ASSHOLES!” TL:DR  When debating, use less adjectives and question the validity of adjectives used. Instead debate like a cold and calculating psychopath. Call out people who debate unfairly with their (((high verbal IQ))), tee-hee. Stick to the bottom-line. Fortune 500 company CEOs don’t care about feelings and they’re making a shit load of profit. Maybe it’s time you started thinking like them, when it comes to arguing with faggots over the internet? NIGGERS.