Nikki Haley

Nikki Haley Warns Young Conservatives Against 'Owning the Libs'

"I know that it's fun and that it can feel good, but step back and think about what you're accomplishing when you do this-are you persuading anyone?"

|

United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley has issued a warning to young conservatives about their social media habits.

|||Twitter/austin_m18
Twitter/austin_m18

On Monday, Haley spoke with students attending the High School Leadership Summit at George Washington University. According to The Hill, Haley asked the students to raise their hands if they ever "posted anything online to quote-unquote 'own the libs.'" As reported, many of the students raised their hands.

"I know that it's fun and that it can feel good, but step back and think about what you're accomplishing when you do this—are you persuading anyone? Who are you persuading?" she continued. "We've all been guilty of it at some point or another, but this kind of speech isn't leadership—it's the exact opposite."

Haley then presented the students with a different approach. "Real leadership is about persuasion, it's about movement, it's bringing people around to your point of view," she said. "Not by shouting them down, but by showing them how it is in their best interest to see things the way you do."

The idea of "owning the libs" has turned into a social media rallying cry among young conservatives determined to get a reaction out of liberals and progressives. Many times, however, the efforts descend to a level that reflects much more poorly on conservatives, as satirized by cartoonist Matt Bors.

The high school summit was hosted by Turning Point USA (TPUSA), whose members have gone to extreme lengths in an attempt to paint liberals and progressives in a negative light. In October 2017, for example, students from TPUSA's Kent State chapter dressed up in adult diapers and toddler clothes and laid in a simulated playpen. This demonstration was reportedly done to poke fun at safe spaces, but quickly turned into jokes about the group's personal fetishes.

After the demonstration received intense backlash, TPUSA created new guidelines to avoid a copycat incident.

NEXT: Here's Why Rep. Justin Amash Was the Lone Vote Against a Suicide Prevention Bill

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Haley is a much more attractive version of John Bolton and yet that is less of a concern than the fact that she disapproves of “own the libs”.

    1. Everyone loves a pretty girl.

    2. Reason: Stop Owning Us So Hard, Please

  2. I maintain that there is no libertarian substitute for persuasion. Everything else involves us seizing the levers of power and inflicting libertarian policies on the American people using the coercive power of government. Our only mission is to create a society in which individuals want libertarianism.

    That may sound daunting, but communism and Christianity started out with less than what we have available today in terms of outreach resources. Also, we have the truth on our side. Violating people’s rights, be they property rights or otherwise, has a detrimental impact on our quality of life, and the moral argument for respecting people’s rights is compelling on its own.

    All that being said, there’s a place for pwning the left.

    The people we reach need to be reachable, and it’s hard to do that when people are locked into thinking stupid things because their ideas haven’t been challenged. Some people simply aren’t persuadable until after they’ve been pwned.

    Using the same tactics on everybody is a mistake. Some tactics work on some people better than others. Few of us were born libertarian. We were persuaded by somebody or something. Before we saw the light, especially when we were in our teens, we may have been quite adamant in our incorrect beliefs–thought they were too obvious to question, even. Somebody probably shocked us out of that.

    Thank goodness for the obnoxious jackass that showed me the light.

    1. RE: James Gunn and others like him who were on the side of the mob until the mob turned on them. These moments are far in between, and the lessons very short lived though and usually revolve around the general popularity of the person accused.

      Or, shorter version, mob rule is fickle and mob rule is what is currently in vogue.

      1. And mob rule never stops until the mob turns on enough people that society collectively decides to put a stop to it.

        1. I’m not convinced that is true but assuming it is, I see no reason why libertarians or libertarian-sympathetic conservatives or liberals (there are some out there!) need to join the fray. It seems like a much better idea to sit this one out.

          1. Bake the cake.

            1. I’m interpreting this as what happens when you get drawn into the fray anyway. To which I would say, you defend your rights to the end, and you articulate why. But you don’t go out and pick a fight.

              1. As long as that defense doesn’t get too icky or something.

          2. That is nice but you don’t get to decide if you sit it out. You may not be interested in the mob, but the mob will eventually be interested in you.

      2. James Gunn and others like him who were on the side of the mob until the mob turned on them.

        Do any of you actually believe this?

        James Gunn is only against the mob that’s out to get him–once they subside, he’ll be picking his pitchfork back up and lighting his torch.

        1. Gunn is a progressive and as such remembers everything but learns nothing.

        2. I believe it’s at least possible they might notice that mobs are bad, but I agree that you’re far more likely to be correct Azathoth.

          It was just a timely example, and even if Gunn ‘learned his lesson’ they’re only one person against, well, a mob.

    2. That may sound daunting, but communism and Christianity started out with less than what we have available today in terms of outreach resources.

      Yes, but they both started out with a whole lot more force.

      1. Jesus started with 12 guys and a traitor. He was going up against the Roman empire.

        He didn’t even have the printing press!

        Within a few generations, Christianity had become so pervasive in society, you couldn’t even be the emperor unless you were a Christian. And that’s after Christians had been declared enemies of the state.

        We can do that. Just gotta get out there and preach the libertarian gospel.

        1. You think Imperial and Medieval Roman Catholicism represented a success for the message of Christ? What are you smoking?

          1. You think Imperial and Medieval Roman Catholicism represented a success for the message of Christ?

            Well, if you edit out everything but “Render unto Caeser,” it works.

          2. If libertarianism ever has as much influence on government and society as Christianity did, we’ll have been wildly successful.

            If you don’t see Barack Obama trying to convince people he’s really a Christian–2,000 years after Jesus was born–as evidence of the persistent and pervasive influence of Christianity on our culture, then you’re being willfully obtuse.

            Yes, I hope our influence on society becomes as persistent and pervasive as Christianity.

            1. I see. Perception and appearances = reality for you. If, 500 years from now, the statists have to insist they are actually libertarians in order to win an election, you will consider that success.

              1. “If, 500 years from now, the statists have to insist they are actually libertarians in order to win an election, you will consider that success.”

                I think I see the source of the misunderstanding.

                If the American people become so libertarian in the future that the statist politicians feel it necessary to convince voters that they’re actually libertarians, then we will have been wildly successful in spreading the libertarian gospel.

                The politicians pretty much only react. They’re not the means to a libertarian future–or any other kind of future.

                MLK didn’t rally protestors in the streets to demand equal rights because the politicians were leading the way on desegregation. Rather, the politicians eventually jumped all over themselves in an attempt to show that they were more against segregation than the other guy–in response to MLK rallying people in the streets. In just a few years, in fact, Mr. “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” changed his mind and campaigned against segregation. The politicians are always the last on board.

              2. The truly inconvenient truth is that the reason we don’t have a more libertarian society is because most Americans don’t want a libertarian society. If they did, we’d have one. The statists we already have in Washington would be falling all over themselves to make things more libertarian. The reason we don’t have a more libertarian society is because we have failed to persuade our fellow Americans to want that.

                If and when the American people become as libertarian as they were once Christian, our government will change to reflect that–as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. Politicians are a weather vane–not the wind. When we see a president trying to convince people that he’s a libertarian too, we’ll know that the wind is finally blowing in our direction.

                1. You have an extremely na?ve and superficial view of history and politics.

                  1. There’s nothing naive about the observation that things are the way they are because that’s the way people want them. If we inflicted an unpopular libertarian position on the American people, they’d simply vote in someone else to change it.

                    The war on marijuana didn’t start dying because politicians lead the way. That change came from the attitudes of the American people changing. If the people of California and Washington state hadn’t wanted recreational marijuana to be legal, it wouldn’t be.

                    There is something naive to the idea that the way to change society is through politicians. Wouldn’t it be great if we could just vote for the right politicians, and everything would come up roses? The world just doesn’t work that way. Change enough people’s minds, and the politicians will change, too. That’s not naive. That’s the way the world works.

                    There’s something naive about the suggestion that we can change the rules however we like, and people will just accept it and live by that, too. ObamaCare is dying because the American people didn’t want it. The part about preexisting conditions will probably survive–because the American people do want that. Whether they should want that is another question entirely.

                    Not being able to tell the difference between what people want and what they should want is probably a good indication of being naive,

    3. Christianity started out with less than what we have available today in terms of outreach resources.

      Christianity was violently fractious and disorganized until one faction got the power of the Roman Empire behind it. Bad example.

      We were persuaded by somebody or something.

      And I think that is a particular problem with reaching young people with libertarian ideas. What persuades most people in a libertarian direction is suffering being thwarted by having government stand in their way, or seeing that happen to others they care about. Unless they had the experience of Planning Commission ordering their treehouse torn down, or the Health Department shutting down their lemonade stand when they were young, most adolescents and college students have not yet suffered from being blocked and interfered with government. At least, not that they’ve noticed.

      1. “Christianity was violently fractious and disorganized until one faction got the power of the Roman Empire behind it. Bad example.”

        You seem to be missing the point that the object is to get the power of the state behind libertarianism (or vice versa). 2,000 years after Jesus was born, the POTUS still thought it was important that people thought he was a Christian.

        If we achieve that kind of success, it will be amazing. Success is when the president is worried that the swing voters don’t think he’s sufficiently libertarian–even thousands of years after our philosophy effectively captures the state (or vice versa).

        1. You seem to be missing the point that the object is to get the power of the state behind libertarianism

          You seem to be missing the point of libertarianism.

          1. I am not an anarchist, if that’s what you mean.

            The only legitimate purpose of the state is to protect our rights. We have police to protect our rights from criminals, courts to protect our rights from the police, a military to protect our rights from foreign threats, . . .

            Getting the state behind libertarianism (or libertarianism behind the state) is the goal.

            1. Most of the state would have to go to institute libertarian government. They’re never going to “get behind” it. They’ll have to be kicked out.

              1. And before that happens, we’ll need to persuade the American people to want that.

                It’s a prerequisite.

                There is no way forward but persuasion.

                I suggest starting with your friends and family.

        2. Success is when the president is worried that the swing voters don’t think he’s sufficiently libertarian–even thousands of years after our philosophy effectively captures the state (or vice versa).

          If the analogy is with Christianity, I think you have to add the qualifier that “in this scenario the ‘libertarianism’ to which the president is sufficiently adhering is a state-centric philosophy with only superficial resemblance to the basic tenets of its founders.”

          Which is a limited definition of “success.”

          1. If libertarianism came to mean so much to so many Americans that the president felt it necessary to convince people that he’s a libertarian in his 9r her heart of hearts like they are, then we will have been wildly successful–by any reasonable definition.

            Again, libertarianism is not spread by using the coersive power of the state. We have to convince people to want freedom and demand freedom. That is the only way forward to a libertarian society that doesn’t include the invention of a warp drive.

  3. This is my favorite kind of ‘journalism’ The ‘look at what these assholes are doing’ genre. So relevant to my daily life.

    1. Is there any other kind? Especially for a libertarian site? Well, libertarian journo articles can be categorized into two types:
      1. Christ, What An Asshole and/or This Looks Like A Recipe For More Prison Rape
      2. Libertarian Moment MacGuffin

      1. If you couldn’t look down on people doing things you find objectionable, why would anyone read the news at all?

        1. “Thank goodness that wasn’t me”?

      2. “2. Libertarian Moment MacGuffin”

        Nick went full “No True Communism” on Twitter. Does that count?

  4. Well, I mean arguably those idiotic tactics have been highly successful for the left so…why wouldn’t ‘conservatives’ use those tactics to get their way?

    I mean, from a utilitarian standpoint it seems their only option is to rid themselves of their principles which, if you’ve been paying attention, is at least one exact reason why the Rules for Radicals was written.

    1. I’d ask can conservatives use those tactics to get their way. Or could such tactics be counterproductive to certain social goals?
      It depends on what you mean by conservative. If you just mean the Republican/right wing tribe, sure. But one meaning of “conservative” is someone who adheres to certain traditional social values and conventions. And among the important social values that ought to be conserved, in my view, are not being an asshole in all of your interactions with people who disagree with you, being open to at least hearing what others have to say and being polite (as much as possible, some people make it rather difficult). I don’t think it would be good to see that strain of conservative devolve into tribal fight-to-win bullshit. You can’t win a culture war by giving up on the culture you are defending. If everyone adopts the radical left’s tactics, we all lose. And conservatives and libertarians aren’t going to help keep centrists and less insane leftists away from the lunatic radical fringe by behaving like them.

      1. The problem Zeb is that Progressives are relentless and intent on imposing their set of values on everyone by any means necessary. The controversy with Gunn is very instructive of the problem. I agree with you that this bullshit of ruining people’s lives over some old statement or even current statement is terrible and not the kind of society anyone should want to live. And if you could convince me that standing up for Gunn would cause Progressive to reconsider their desire to create such a society, I would be all for it. Sadly, that is very unlikely to be the case. Standing up for Gunn is just going to cause Progs to further internalize their rationalizations for why it is different when they do it and do nothing to stop them from destroying the next guy whom they don’t like. The only way to get them to stop is to make the rules apply to them. As long as they are allowed to rationalize how it is different when they do it, they will continue to pull this kind of nonsense.

        1. Yeah, I don’t know what the answer is. It just makes me sad.

          I like to think that most people still aren’t nuts and will eventually realize that the crazy left is crazy and are peddling dangerous nonsense. I know enough people who are definitely not conservatives or libertarians who are getting pretty fed up with a lot of the nonsense creeping into mainstream culture that I have hope.

          1. In answer to your question, no, conservatives probably can not use these tactics to ‘win’ with conservative positions but at this point they’ve been so effectively tarred and feathered that this may be one of the few avenues left unless suddenly everyone starts paying attention to guys like Jordan Peterson, which seems pretty un-fucking-likely if we’re being honest.

            But, then again, Progressivism took almost 100 years to entirely fuck us over so perhaps it’ll take that long to regain ground. I guess the real question is, do we think the country has 100 years left with progressives in control?

        2. As long as they are allowed to rationalize how it is different when they do it, they will continue to pull this kind of nonsense.

          No matter how much you try to apply their rules to them, they will ALWAYS rationalize how it is different when they do it. Heck, YOU are rationalizing how it is different when YOU do it. “I will do bad things because the only alternative is something worse” – that is the rationalization both tribes have arrived at. The only way to stop this nonsense is not to continue down the same path, but to break free of the false choice fallacy.

          1. No I am not. It is not different when I do it. It is the same thing. You as usual completely miss the point. The only thing different about me doing it is that it is forcing them to live by rules they claim to want. And that doesn’t make it better. It just makes it more likely to give them a reason to stop.

            The only way to stop this nonsense is not to continue down the same path, but to break free of the false choice fallacy.

            Yes, there is another way if only we wish hard enough. Life doesn’t owe you a good choice you half wit.

            1. It is not different when I do it. It is the same thing.

              Oh but it is.

              THEY do it because they are bad people.

              YOU do it because you are just trying to teach them a lesson. Not because you’re a bad person.

              Right?

              1. It doesn’t matter why I do it. The act is the same. The fact that I do it because I feel it is the best of bad options is mitigation for me. It doesn’t change the nature of the act.

          2. “I will do bad things because the only alternative is something worse” – that is the rationalization both tribes have arrived at.

            I even think you can even reduce it to a good-old-fashioned “They started it!”

            1. Sure. If I come up and start beating the shit out of you and you respond by beating the shit out of me, “he started it” is a pretty good explanation for why you beat the shit out of me. You act like “they started it” is never a good answer for something. It is .

              1. You act like “they started it” is never a good answer for something. It is.

                But as anyone with kids knows, there is a good deal of room between “never” and “always.”

                Is it never the case that the other kid “started it?” No. But there’s usually more to the story than that.

                1. My observation is the opposite. In most families, classrooms, and other places where kids gather, there are certain kids who almost always “start it” and the others are made to share the blame if they defend themselves. Parents and teachers failing to distinguish between aggressors and victims is an injustice that the majority of kids who rarely or never “start it” have to suffer every day.

                  1. I was thinking of siblings and other family relationships more than public contexts. There are all sorts of dynamics going on in public places where kids gather.

                    In my experience with public schools, as an example, certain kids are given a pass and even though everyone knows “Kid X is a problem child who is likely the source of whatever conflict is going on in the vicinity” the statement “Kid X started it” is inadmissible and you move on to “well, what did you do, since Kid X isn’t responsible for his own behavior?”

                    But generally (again in my experience), “he started it” is a substitute for “I didn’t see anything wrong with what I was doing!”

                    1. And again in my experience, “there’s usually more to the story” is just an excuse for blaming the victim. Because it’s easier than getting to the bottom of things, and relieves adults of accepting responsibility for making the call.

          3. Commie boy doesn’t see the difference between punching, and punching *back*. Why am I not surprised?

            1. Yeah. Fuck “conflict resolution”.

    2. I mean arguably those idiotic tactics have been highly successful for the left so

      I’m shooting from the hip here, but let me throw out the possibility that the left hasn’t been successful because they attack heretics, they’ve been successful because they have convinced a large enough number of people (and people in especially important positions) to adopt their sense of the sacred, so to speak. Attacking heretics follows from that, not the other way around.

      1. By expunging any dissent from all institutions they come to control. Let’s dispense with the canard that this has all been gentle suasion.

        1. That doesn’t explain how progressivism has come to dominate a lot of decentralized, emergent aspects of the larger culture.

          1. You mean aside from controlling the majority of the media outlets of course.

            1. While media certainly has some impact on larger culture, I don’t believe it controls it. Things develop more organically than that. If progressive media wasn’t appealing to something already in the zeitgeist it wouldn’t be successful.

              1. Progressivism takes Christian ideals (basically, “altruism”) to an extreme and simply dresses it up differently. God becomes Government. Clergy becomes journalists and professors. Original sin becomes slavery (racism). “The meek shall inherit the earth”, becomes social justice and the welfare state. That’s the American context. Fascism and Communism, subsets of progressivism, do the same thing with minor tweaks. Class or nation instead of race (proletariat, Aryan). Ultimately, it’s the promise of an earthly utopia brought to you by Top Men in control of central planning and authority. Dogma is handed down and accepted because it is much easier to follow habitual routine than routinely make independent decisions. The New Man is something that everyone can simultaneously aspire to and pretend to be.
                So you take the dominant structure of Western civilization and reword it, then apply with zealous force as you take over all forms of media (entertainment, news, education) – the Long March through the institutions. Within the familiar moral framework, it’s easy to replace tradition with time and technological advancement. Development of civilization insulates Man more and more from the natural environment, thus allowing him to operate according to erroneous fantasy without facing immediate and dire consequences.
                Progressivism is appealing because it’s a bastardization of the original bastardization, monotheism.

                1. Further, progressivism emphasizes the superficial. The superficial is easy. Race comes to be identified as color, labels are created and liberally applied. And with the advent of electronics, the spiritual urge is drowned out by bright, flashing colors and ADD inducing static.

                  1. Progressivism is thus the sanctification of all the anti-naturaling facets of civilization.

      2. They’ve been successful enough that conservatives are using their rhetorical style, but I’m not saying you’re wrong either. Progressivism has taken about a hundred years, give or take, to get us to where we are today. Over the objections of both ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’, so…lets say I’m unconvinced. One can only hope their end game is revealed to enough people before it’s too late, I guess.

        When reason and discourse have failed, what’s usually the next option? Maybe violence, but maybe not.

        1. When reason and discourse have failed, what’s usually the next option?

          Emotion. Seriously, I think that’s a major reason why both progressives and conservatives dominate American politics. I know libertarians like to think of ourselves as thinking and rational and that that’s a strength, but I think we’ve developed a blindspot to people’s need for emotional resonance and deeper meaning (or sacredness, for lack of a better term). If those things are incompatible with libertarianism then libertarianism is probably incompatible with the bulk of humanity.

          1. Well I’ll give you this, what you said here is one reason why I don’t label myself as libertarian. It’s not the only reason, but it’s definitely one of them. It’s a bit too purist to survive contact with reality, in my view.

            1. The idea that libertarians are beings of pure logic and unemotional is given lie continuously in these pages. Laws should be followed until we don’t like the outcome is about as emotional as it gets.

    3. from a utilitarian standpoint it seems their only option is to rid themselves of their principles

      This is extremely funny

    4. their only option is to rid themselves of their principles

      No, they don’t rid themselves of principles. They just embrace the idea that principles do not apply to everyone equally. There are two Sides in the world, and the right way to treat the Good Guys is different from the right way to treat the Bad Guys.

  5. That comic is awesome.

    1. Yep. In theory, “owning the libs” should be like stealing candy from a baby. Instead, these morons are shooting themselves in the foot to prove that they don’t need gun control.

      1. It’s like when people praise Ben Shapiro because “he is so good at arguing with liberals”. Liberals are retarded and often crazy. Winning arguments with them is hardly a notable accomplishment.

        1. I don’t really follow particulars of him, but the whole concept of “winning” arguments with your opponent is broken. People believe that their guy won the argument no matter what. Usually it’s because he was a bigger and more obnoxious dick. At the end of the argument, they haven’t changed their mind and this proves that their guy won the argument.

          1. That is exactly right. I enjoy arguing as much as the next person. But I do it because I enjoy it and occasionally learn something and am smarter and have better ideas because of it not because I think I am convincing anyone.

          2. That’s why there’s a debate format of measuring whether, and in what direction, the audience’s viewpoint shifted after the debate.

            As some guy said, some men you just can’t reach.

            But there will be some fence-sitters and other persuadables, and their shifts of position can be measured.

            1. Yep. That format interests me and I’m usually curious about the results. But, most of the “owning the libs” or “democrat destroys Trump!” argument are just idiots yelling at each other. Sometimes on twitter, sometimes FB, sometimes real life. But, just yelling at each other.

              There’s never anything resembling an established baseline of agreed facts and assumptions. Never any serious attempt to change someone’s mind. Just playing to your own supporters. If you walk away from the argument and your supporters are red-faced and extra pissed-off at their moron opponents: you won!

              1. I find that people get snarky and nasty whenever you make a point that they don’t have a good response for.

                1. I tend to find that too. People dont really respectfully listen anymore and say something like “oh, I didnt think of that” or “that’s interesting” if they dont have a good response.

                  People on here have more time to craft a response or just never respond to avoid being shown up.

                  Tony and Butthole just call people racist rednecks and run away letting their diapers leak.

                  1. Some people shout “Nanarchist!” when they have no good response.

                    1. Among lefties…

                  2. Sarcasmic just runs around NOT being sarcastic and NOT being upset.

              2. And I bet a lot times both sides leave arguments like that thinking they have “owned” or “destroyed” the other. Not terribly productive.

  6. “I know that it’s fun and that it can feel good, but step back and think about what you’re accomplishing when you do this?are you persuading anyone?”

    Assumes facts not in evidence – that “Libs” are rational actors, rather than psychotic religious fanatics completely blinded by the cult of Progressivism, rigidly devoted to strict dogma.

    Nervous breakdown occurs when the subjects cognitive system is so erroneous that it becomes dangerous to the subject and is overwhelmed by stimuli that it cannot assimilate. Breakdown is necessary so that pathways harmonious with reality can be built in their place. The subject doesn’t always survive breakdown, and that is the question.

    “Libs” must be put to the test or they’ll never change.
    Persuasion… will not be a gentle process with Progressives, necessarily

    1. No it will not. The best weapon against a fanatic is humor and ridicule. They are as you say immune to reason. But they are always earnest and have no answer to ridicule.

      1. Saul Alinsky’s Rule #5 for Radicals: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon
        “It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

        1. Note that, in this case, the oppositions reaction is exactly what’s being cited and that it’s because they’re infuriated.

      2. The problem is the hard Left has absolutely no sense of humor about themselves and go off the rails even if mildly challenged. It is difficult to avoid the temptation of mean spiritedness if you are going to be called every name in the book for even a gently presented argument.

        1. It’s not a problem, it’s an opportunity.

      3. Humor and ridicule are absolutely the best response, you’re correct.

        My point was more the pointlessness of trying to persuade the psychotic, and the process required for the psychosis to be “fixed”.

        I don’t try to convince progressives, I merely confront them (at times) with the absurdity and inconsistency of their faith. Or I ridicule. It can be fun to poke the sheep.

    2. Of course, you are completely different.

      1. I speak from firsthand experience. I lived that fundamental psychosis. Ever hear the expression “takes one to know one”?
        It’s often true

        1. “psychotic” lol

    3. And this is why you fail.

      Approximately half of the country is some form of liberal. Many of them MUST have good reasons to think that way. Speaking calmly and rationally will on most occasions get people to agree, or at least modify their opinions.

      With very few exceptions, I’ve never seen ridicule convince anyone to change their minds. In each case, it was a very specific barb about a very specific stance that caused them to consider what they were doing on that specific topic. To my knowledge, general insults have never once caused people to change their minds.

      Remember, Liberals want to help people, Conservatives want to allow people to help themselves. Neither of these approaches are inherently wrong (although some have more problems than others). There are a few loons that are very loud and take up a great portion of the media. However, the vast majority of people are reasonable. Talking as adults might get support for what you want to do.

      1. In some cases, but progressivism actually breeds insanity. You can reach a friend; strangers are lost. It’s basically a form of psychotherapy, and lots of trust is needed. The devout (a growing proportion) must be confronted to the point of, best case scenario, breakdown. Not necessarily attacked, but confronted. The combination of Obama and Trump has started that process on a collective level.
        You only really learn what you think of yourself. That’s how viable neural pathways are formed. It’s literally painful. Pathways can be imposed, conditioned – but there will always be dissonance between instinct and imagination in the psyche with such cases.

      2. The bit people get wrong about Rules for Radicals is that it is expressly for when there is a power differential. Ridiculing some slob online wins you no concessions while ridiculing politicians is absolutely mandatory.

        Also, being able to admit some concessions to the other side is the best way to get good-faith negotiations. Even if it is something small like conceding LGBTQ doesn’t have the same access to the protection of law is a step in the right direction, and maybe getting to the larger point that force isn’t the best way to obtain accommodation.

        I’d even go so far as libertarians attempting the thought experiment of designing the best damn welfare state in the world. It makes clear which points are fungible and which parts are completely non-negotiable (much in the vein of Hayek or Freidman), but apparently many are more content to wait for the libertarian messiah to leads us into the holy land.

      3. “Remember, Liberals want to help people”

        The Left wants to rule by force, preferably while you struggle underneath their boot.

        It is insanity to attribute good intentions to those who *continue* to cheer for the policies that stacked corpses 100 million high.

    4. Assumes facts not in evidence – that “Libs” are rational actors, rather than psychotic religious fanatics completely blinded by the cult of Progressivism, rigidly devoted to strict dogma.

      I think it also ignores the fact that the goal of “owning the libs” isn’t, directly, actually owning the libs. It’s demonstrating how wrong they were to as yet undecided third parties.

      1. It depends on how this is done. If it’s just calling someone an idiot, nitpicking, or dumb public displays (as the article describes) then it only makes your arguments look weak. If it’s reasoned debate where the opposition’s points are dismantled and shown to be terrible, then it works. I’ve seen a lot of shit given to Shapiro, Yiannopolous, and others who do the latter to a varying degree. Sometimes you have to point out how foolish a belief is before the fanatic or the crowd can start being introspective

  7. You can’t use logic and reason to persuade liberals, because they don’t think. They emote.

    1. All humans emote. Don’t kid yourself by thinking you are some kind of rational demigod wielding logic cleansed of emotions.

      1. Your logic is entirely driven by the assumptions that it is based upon. And those assumptions are generally values and values are generally based on emotions.

        1. and values are generally based on emotions

          I dunno. Take Bastiat’s The Law for example. The assumptions are pretty clear, and don’t seem to be based upon emotion. Not to me anyway.

          1. Not everything is based on emotion. But a lot is. And there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is to figure out what is and what is not.

            1. The problem is to figure out what is and what is not.

              It’s not that difficult of a problem. My original point was that with the left it’s all based upon emotion. They wouldn’t know a rational thought if it bit them in the ass.

            2. Thought itself is an emotion – it’s the most malleable form

      2. Sure we all emote to a certain extent.

        However some people don’t think at all. Everything is an emotional reaction. It feels true so it is true.

        Those people are liberals. And you can’t reason someone out of a position that they arrived upon by emotion. It can’t be done.

        1. Anarchists like Sarcasmic emote.

          Sarcasmic hates Libertarianism but hangs here to reply to Fist’s staff comments and links.

          1. Sarc is an anarchist! Neener neener!

            Sarc hates libertarianism! Nanny nanny boo boo!

            Dude, you need some new material. Maybe some that’s actually, you know, true?

            1. Everyone knows you’re actually a Nanarchist.

  8. United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley has issued a warning to young conservatives about their social media habits.

    Wait what?

    1. Nikki’s trying to get a message through to Donald

  9. I find Nikki Haley to be very attractive. I am not sure if it is her East Indian features or the fact that she always looks like she is about to stab someone whenever she is on the floor of the UN. Whatever it is, she really works for me.

    1. I won’t ask why stabbing someone makes the stabber more attractive.

      1. Because there is no sexy like crazy sexy. It is the same reason why fast cars are attractive.

        1. John, how many times you been admitted to the ER for “crimes of passions” committed against you?

        2. I get it. Been there. But there’s a reason why “Don’t stick it in crazy.” is a good rule of thumb.

      2. It is on the UN floor, so at least she’s choosing appropriate targets.

        …Not a real threat if Phreet is looking in

  10. The only way to win is to own them and own them and own them again–and keep on owning them until they’re too beaten to even think. THEN something you’ve said might trigger a brain cell.

    1. Keep flapping those arms, and some day you will fly.

      1. Keep clutching those Pearl’s.

      2. Chip, can I call, you Chip? Sure I can, you can’t stop me–

        Chip, you’re a fucking idiot.

        Someday, someone will care enough to try to activate that brain cell for you. But it won’t be me, Chip. I’m hoping you’ll walk off a cliff.

        1. You sure pwned him.

          1. He did.
            Azahoth!! is correct.

            I’ll repeat the quote of Kemah, which Azahoth quite effectively paraphrased above (intentionally or not)

            “I’ll tell you what war is about, you’ve got to kill people, and when you’ve killed enough they stop fighting.”

            1. *WTF autocorrect

              Kemah should be LeMay, as in Curtis LeMay

          2. You sure pwned him.

            I know.

            And now you, too–what with you larding in an hour and a half later trying to ‘white knight’ him.

            Sad.

    2. too beaten to even think

      As stated by Sarcasmic above, proggies do not think. They emote.

    3. They became the Left because they were herd animals moved to appease by disapproving opinion.

      We need to disapprove louder, more often, and more viciously until their will is broken.

      They’re snowflakes. Turn up the heat.

      1. They are already cracking. Its why they are seeking further instruction from the narrative mill on how proceed.

        Their world is literally falling apart. The media cannot help them. The president is Trump. Their nanny state cannot help because Trump is tearing it down. Yelling does not work for them. Calling non-Lefties racists is not working. Their talking points are getting shredded. Lefties are losing elections.

  11. Jeez, Michael Hihn needs to puts some shoes on.

  12. IIRC, rhetoric used to be one of the Seven Liberal Arts. Does it still get taught?

    1. It’s taught right after pride and before sloth

    2. It gets taught as an elective.

  13. Now, let us be fair…many campus conservatives (and libertarians) will invite some speaker with a Serious Message, and the speaker might get shouted down.

    (Though I imagine that there must be even more cases where the speaker *doesn’t* get shouted down – but that would be dog bites man I suppose)

    There have to be methods of dealing with an adversary who thinks your message doesn’t even deserve to be heard – highlighting their intolerance would be a great way to win sympathy from normies.

  14. Most Lefties refuse to debate and are even open to persuasion.

    One could play the strategy to own the Lefties until you break them and then wait for them to open up to other political views.

    Another strategy is to talk nice to everyone and hope people listen.

    Another is read you your audience. Sometimes try and persuade and sometimes stand up for yourself and Liberty.

  15. “Not by shouting them down, but by showing them how it is in their best interest to see things the way you do.”

    You mean like persuading them by saying “Don’t feed ICE agents or we’ll burn your food cart down”?

  16. Bors’ comic would be a lot more realistic if the catlady with the problem glasses was screeching like a banshee about “MUH RUSHIN HACKING!!!” or “CHEETO MCHITLERPANTS!!” rather than acting like a relatively disinterested party.

    1. Bors’ comic would be a lot more realistic if the catlady with the problem glasses was screeching like a banshee about “MUH RUSHIN HACKING!!!” or “CHEETO MCHITLERPANTS!!” rather than acting like a relatively disinterested party.

      My thoughts exactly. The MAGA guy is believable, but she needs to be screaming about ketchup being White Privilege and how she’s never going to cook meat again, #RESIST!

  17. Just a thought – those of you saying “progressives are crazy” and “libs never learn” have a view of progressives/liberals that doesn’t align with the actual people I’ve met face-to-face in my life. I work in STEM academia, so nearly everyone is left leaning, and on those few occasions I’ve participated in political discussions, people have been intelligent and respectful once I strike that tone. I’ve only met the crazy fanatics on the internet. I really wonder how much of this “owning the libs” is actually “owning a very specific subset of libs who spend a lot of time on twitter while everyone else just shakes their heads”?

    1. my lefty roommate literally thinks Trump is a fascist, everyone is racist, everything is political, and literally fucking said after someone told him Socialism killed 100 million people, ‘well capitalism has killed people too.’

      Try to start a conversation there

      1. Do you guys agree on anything?

        1. Ask him if they agree on deep dish.

          1. Whoa, we’re trying to *avoid* a civil war, here.

      2. You want to start a conversation by equating belief in a modern Nordic-type welfare state with Stalinism?

        You guys are the fucking problem. Always have been.

        1. fuck off you lunatic. The Nordic Countries are not Socialist, and Stalinism wasn’t Socialism gone bad

          1. Nobody is advocating for genocide by starvation or any other means (except Trumpists, if you get them drunk enough).

            Nobody wants Stalinism (except Trumpists, who thinks academia and art could use a good purge).

            When progressives talk about what type of government they want, they want exactly what we have with a little more of a welfare state. You are not even pretending to operate in good faith and you know it.

            Stop watching Alex Jones. He’s already admitted to being a fraud.

            1. “Nobody is advocating for genocide by starvation or any other means (except Trumpists, if you get them drunk enough).”

              You’re in fine form today.

            2. As par for the course Tony, every sentence you wrote was a lie. Well done. At least you are consistent.

            3. I think Tony is right in the sense that what Progressives tend to want is something along the lines of Western Europe. It’s a little hard to believe that Bernie Sanders is really some Stalin figure in disguise.

              1. And because Progressives want something like Western Europe, when someone starts screeching “progressives are communists and totalitarians!”, normal people just tune that out, because they can see with their own eyes that Western Europe isn’t exactly full of Stalinist gulags.

                If you want to defeat progressives, you have to argue against their ideas, not turn them into some bogeyman that everyone can see is a lie.

                1. Western Europe has a much flatter tax structure than the US. The left definitely does not want westernEurope. They want their fantasy version of western Europe.

                  1. They want their fantasy version of western Europe.

                    Well yes, this goes without saying, which is why I said ‘something like Western Europe’. They don’t want actual Western Europe’s abortion laws either, for sure.

                    1. No it doesn’t go without saying given that the two are very different beasts. As always your charity to the left is boundless.

                    2. Because I don’t view them as Stalinists, that means I’m being charitable?

                    3. Because you always ascribe the most benign interpretation of their motives.

                    4. I think I ascribe a more realistic interpretation of their motives, something other than the hysterical “THEY’RE STALINISTS WHO WANT TO KILL US ALL” crap that our typical Reason Republicans like to repeat. Both the left and the right are composed of individuals, who are at their core not that much different from all of us. I’m fundamentally an individualist and a humanist before anything else.

                      By the way, in case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not exactly calling conservatives “racist Nazis” either.

                    5. They don’t want to kill us all. They want to control us all. Speech will be proscribed. Economic activity will be proscribed. Quotas for melanin will be maintained at all levels of society at all times.

                    6. You’re right! They do want to control us all. Both Team Blue and Team Red want to control us all. So instead of yelling OMG STALIN, why not argue against the merits of their control-freaky ideas. It’s about as bad as when Team Blue yells OMG HITLER when it comes to Team Red.

                    7. And I would add exactly what “idea” are the progressives arguing with ads showing Paul Ryan throwing grandma off the cliff in a wheelchair? Hell even libertarians who claim to be fiscally conservative spend a disproportionate amount of time meaning about defense spending when the only mathematical certainty is that the real welfare state (no, not corporate welfare, kids) is what is bankrupting us.

                2. some of the ‘nordic countries’ are freer economically then the US. I don’t think the left knows what it is asking for.

                  1. Yes we do. Does the right? All I’m getting is “fewer brown people, by whatever means necessary.”

                    1. I have tried to imagine what the ideal Republican society would be like, to the current crop of Trumpist Republicans. The best I can come up with is some cross between 1950’s America, but with less overt racism and lower taxes, and Victorian England, particularly the pride in the Imperial British Empire bit.

            4. Nobody is advocating for genocide by starvation

              Advocating for it? No.

              But Maduro is on his way to conducting one…

        2. Nordic-type welfare

          Huh. It seems as though Tony is capable of distinguishing welfare from socialism, seeing as the Nordic model is that of welfare, not socialism.

      3. You can’t.

        Therein lies the problem.

    2. I’ve only met the crazy fanatics on the internet.

      For the most part this is right. The anonymity of the Internet permits everyone to be as awful as they can be with almost no repercussions. Honestly I think the people who say “progessives are fascists” (or “republicans are Nazis”) are people who have almost no real-life acquaintances of the opposite tribe.

      1. Having lived in the Bay Area my entire life, progressives are fascists. There’s an impulse inside them that wants to control you at the point of a gun and mob you when you don’t fall in line. There’s a reason that ideology has killed 100 million people.

        I’ve talked with progs who straight up that said the feds should have killed Bundy and his entire group for defying the government. There’s no doubt in my mind they hate the 2nd amendment because it’s the one thing preventing them from killing all of their opponents over time. Sure, it starts with Punch the Nazi, but when everyone you disagree with is a Nazi, well….

        1. Same here. I remember one telling me ‘absolutely the government should force people to not be retards and not vote against their interests’.

          Something is broken inside of them.

          1. the attitude of ‘but why did you do X, it’s totally against your interest!’, tells you all you need to know about the progressive left.

            1. ‘but why did you do X, it’s totally against your interest!’

              This type of argument is not unique to “the left”.

              1. I’ve never really heard the right say the words ‘voting against your economic self interest’, like the left does constantly. At least with the mainstream right, can’t speak to the far right

                1. Republicans have been complaining that minorities have been ‘voting against their interests’ for a long time now. It is the whole “they’re staying on the plantation” narrative that they have adopted.

                  1. good point, agreed.

              2. Not unique to them but they’re willing to use violence against personal agency much more than any other group.

        2. I’ve talked with progs who straight up that said the feds should have killed Bundy and his entire group for defying the government.

          If you try to look at it from their point of view, this is not an unreasonable conclusion, if you start from the premise that the Bundys were breaking a legitimate law and using armed force to resist law enforcement’s attempts to bring them to justice. Which is frankly how I think the whole situation was viewed outside of the libertarian/conservative community. Ask them if they still think the Bundys should have been killed if they hadn’t resisted with armed force. I’m willing to bet you will get the answer “no”.

          There’s no doubt in my mind they hate the 2nd amendment because it’s the one thing preventing them from killing all of their opponents over time.

          I don’t believe this for one second. In my experience, progressives tend to view gun owners not as some deterrent force against the might of the state, but as a bunch of yahoos and idiots running around doing stupid shit with deadly weapons. They openly mock the idea that the Second Amendment is a deterrent against tyranny.

          Respectfully, I don’t think you are truly listening to their arguments, and are instead filtering them through your own lens of disgust towards them.

          1. Respectfully, I don’t think you are truly listening to their arguments, and are instead filtering them through your own lens of disgust towards them.

            They openly mock the idea that the Second Amendment is a deterrent against tyranny.

            Sorry, what were you saying about listening to arguments?

            1. Did I say that I agreed with them on their view on the Second Amendment? No. But I’ve chatted with enough of them to know that they don’t really view gun owners as a deterrent against government tyranny.

              1. So that would mean that they aren’t listening to the arguments, wouldn’t it? Let me guess, they ARE listening but they reject the argument, whereas esteve7 isn’t listening because reasons. Something like that?

                1. Oh whatever. This is another one of your stupid little games. When I read esteve7’s comment of “they hate the 2A because it stands in their way of the gulags they want to make”, that doesn’t sound like what progressives actually believe, it sounds more like what a conservative imagines progressives believe. I can only speak from my experience, and I have never had anyone tell me “if it wasn’t for all of those well-trained private gun owners resisting government power, we’d be able to create the socialist worker’s paradise that we all dream of!” Now maybe I’m wrong, maybe progressives really are just Stalinists waiting to purge every last conservative. But I’m going to require more evidence other than “esteve’s crazy roommate said so”.

                  1. Bitter clingers ring a bell?

                    But hey above you know exactly what the ideal society is in the minds of trump republicans because, um, just one of those stupid little games I guess.

                    1. It’s like trying to argue with a sponge. You keep bringing up all this irrelevant shit to throw dust in the air and obscure the conversation.

                    2. Consistency is a bitch.

                    3. I give up. You’ve “owned” me. Obama’s “bitter clingers” comment totally meant that he was afraid of all those gun owners thwarting his plans to create gulags. You got me.

          2. No, they would have been just fine if the Bundy’s resisted without armed force and were shot instead.

            They don’t give a shit when that happens to those low on their progressive stack. When I brought up in real life with a progressive about the one guy was basically executed by police a few months ago (reason reported on this), the reaction wasn’t that it was a bad thing, it was ‘well so what that this ONE White guy got killed…’. Just like their reaction to Asians getting discriminated against in college is a boo hoo item, because anyone not in their tribe can fuck off. Principals, not principles.

            There are a number of people on the left that do have the view of guns you spoke of, but I’m talking about leftists, not liberals. The thing I love about leftists is they are so radical but so honest about it at the same time. They’ve flat out told me they want to confiscate all guns, and that anyone who still has one should be shot. They’ve told me freedom of speech is just a tool of the white capitalist system, and that it’s completely acceptable to riot when Ben Shapiro spoke at Berkeley (when words are violence, you can counter then with violence), and on and on. I do listen to their arguments because that’s all I ever hear over here.

            1. Well all I can say is that your experience is very different from mine. I haven’t met anyone on the left who said that they wanted to confiscate all the guns. I have met people on the left who said that they want guns registered and heavily regulated.

              1. See that’s not REAL socialism and there certainly has never been any regulatory creep on gun control. I mean why did Heller even bother with such silliness?

                1. Well, you could argue against what they actually propose, or you could argue against what you imagine that they propose.

                  1. What they actually propose and have made law.

                    What the most recent democratic candidate for the presidency said.

                    But I’m sure you’ll try to play the semantic game and claim that’s not total confiscation.

                    1. Do some progressives want to confiscate all guns? I suppose there are.

                      Is that what is currently being proposed or discussed or enacted, by anyone with any amount of power? No.

                      So when they propose some “common sense gun control”, which we know is just one more step down the path to confiscation, and if my reaction were to be OMG THEY’RE COMING FOR MY GUNS, normal people are intelligent enough to see that what they are actually proposing, as of right now, is *not* gun confiscation, *even if* that is their long-term goal. So I would come off looking like some paranoid nutter, and their proposal looks sane and rational in comparison. I’d be playing directly into their hands by going directly to OMG CONFISCATION as my reaction. So the way to defeat “common sense gun control” proposals, is not to screech about confiscation, but instead to point out why it’s a bad idea on its merits.

                      I am on your side here. I don’t want gun control any more than you do. The way to stop it is to be the adult in the conversation and argue against their ideas as they stand, on their merits. THEY are the ones who are being emotionally driven by pitching ‘solutions’ that wouldn’t have solved anything with regards to any recent mass shooting event. WE shouldn’t come off as even more hysterical than they are.

              2. I believe you. And I hope and wish that most people are like that. But I’ve had too many face to face conversations with people in the bay area that has shown me otherwise.

                Here, they are so far left and so in their bubble (not saying being radical / in a bubble are unique to the left), that they really don’t filter what they say at all. It started years ago when I had someone tell me they want to tax gasoline so it costs $9 a gallon to save the environment. 90% of people would never say that, even some who actually believe that.

              3. I haven’t met anyone on the left who said that they wanted to confiscate all the guns.

                I could introduce you to a couple on Facebook…

          3. “They openly mock the idea that the Second Amendment is a deterrent against tyranny.”

            That’s an argument only in Progtopia.

      2. For my part, I actually do know and associate with many progressives who are fascist. Outside of their radical views on government and society, they’re not terrible people.

        1. On what specific basis do you think your progressive associates are “fascist”?

          1. Fascism is a type of Progressivism.
            Communism is a type of Progressivism.
            Progressivism is the belief in and desire for a utopian New Man (Soviet Man, ubermensch) that is brought about through central planning and authority.
            It’s fundamentally misanthropic and resentful, seen currently in the push for open borders and realization of the (illegal) immigrant. The Other is appealing because The Other is a product of your imagination, while the people you actually know are so disappointing.

            1. I view it a bit differently.

              Progessivism is just one of many flavors of collectivism. So are fascism, socialism, communism, nationalism, etc. All of them devalue and debase the individual, and serve to mold the individual to conform to the wants and needs of the collective.

              1. Sure, I guess that could be an accurate description at the shallowest of levels. Doesn’t say much though, and it shows you haven’t really given the subject much thought. But hey, if going with the feelz works for you, do you.

    3. And how many of them believe that #Russia gave the election to trump? How many believe that the 1% don’t pay their fair share? How many of them believe that Medicare for all is affordable? How many believe that defense spending is the cause of our debt? How many believe that diversity of melanin content is the only kind that matters?

      They may be slightly less strident, but that’s about it.

    4. I’ve only met the crazy fanatics on the internet.

      I’ve often had the opposite experience. IRL in the context of local government policy debates, I have argued with “progressives” who were straight-up, diagnosably delusional.

  18. Sure debate is preferable. But when the other refuses to or is incapable of debate, mockery will suffice.

  19. Duck that shot! FUCK THAT SHIT INCRHE ASS!!!!!

    YOU ALL AREXALL RETARDED!1!1!1!!1!1!1’qnq

  20. Haley then presented the students with a different approach. “Real leadership is about persuasion, it’s about movement, it’s bringing people around to your point of view,” she said. “Not by shouting them down, but by showing them how it is in their best interest to see things the way you do.”

    Just off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single revolution that depended on persuasion rather than bashing heads for its success. I mean, old TJ wrote a pretty persuasive letter to King George but I don’t recall that all those pretty arguments had a damn thing to do with the colonies gaining their independence, it was killing the shit out of the King’s soldiers that turned the trick. Persuasion only works on people willing to listen and debate and possibly reconsider their position, it doesn’t work on somebody who’s trying to bash your head in with a baseball bat.

    1. I mean, old TJ wrote a pretty persuasive letter to King George but I don’t recall that all those pretty arguments had a damn thing to do with the colonies gaining their independence,

      George III, at that time, was descending into insanity. Besides, the Declaration wasn’t addressed to the English monarch. Jefferson was trying to change “the opinions of mankind.” The increased support of the people of the colonies, and eventually the assistance of France, seem to indicate he was successful.

      I can’t think of a single revolution that depended on persuasion rather than bashing heads for its success.

      I can think of several. Jackie Robinson breaking into Major League Baseball springs to mind.

      1. I would say the dramatic drop in infant mortality in the 20th century due to women around the world improving sanitation and neonatal care would be another example.

  21. What are you talking about conservatism in America is totally at its intellectual pinnacle.

    1. How can you possibly know this?

      Even by your Tonyatic standards that’s some matzah ball.

      1. It happened today in fact, when Trump said something like “We say the name of the enemy–radical Islamic extremists. You have to know their name to beat them!”

        Has George Will been reincarnated??

        1. Anthony, when you choose the red pill and have your #walkaway moment please let me know.

          I will personally fly out to where you are and buy you a drink.

  22. There is indeed a lot of garbage on the internet about some prog being “owned” on some picayune issue, and it’s usually hype. Is it mostly a function of so called conservatives in California gasping for air under one party rule? This is a wrong approach: progs are more like a disease in need of quarantine. Put differently, who the hell wants to “own” the likes of Sean Penn or Whoopi Goldberg [to pick a couple well known faces]? They emanate negativity at every turn and are more of a pain in the ass than an entertainment source. I disown them, because they disown the freedoms that made the country great.

    1. And civility given how violent Penn is and Whoopi’s retarded behaviour recently on TV.

  23. When I see something like the cartoon above, I just laugh, roll my eyes, and scream all at once.

    Either side acting like they’re the adult in the room would be adorable if they weren’t running the fucking country.

  24. But who owns the night?

    1. Lady Antebellum?

      …or at least they DID at one point.

  25. ‘…are you persuading anyone?”

    Is she?

  26. Well, I understand how “owning the libs” might be fun for young folks. But it’s really unnecessary and kind of dumb considering that progs already comically overreact to almost everything entirely on their own. A chunk of elemental sodium dropped in water doesn’t require a lit match for hilarity to ensue.

    That being said, that there cartoon is funny. I don’t care who you are.

  27. Persuade? How do you persuade someone that keeps repeating “hate Trump, hate Trump, hate Trump”. It’s hard to change the subject.

    I am coming to realize that if someone does not agree with my point of view then I ask them to expound on how they view the topic at hand. If the person I am addressing is from the far left they can’t. They are programmed to say “I hate Trump, I hate Trump”.

    So, if you want to stop a heated political disagreement and your opponent is from the left, ask him/her what their view on the topic is and why yours is wrong. They can’t – end of heated debate.

    1. I was trying to have a civil discussion about ICE and the situation at the border, and all I kept getting was “Internment Camp Internment Camp Internment Camp”. When They couldn’t prove it was one, they kept referring to it and couldn’t get to anything else. Except for Fascism Fascism Internment Camp Fascism.

  28. “Never ever win” – The Cuckservative Choice for 2024

  29. Bombing alone has yet win a war but it sure helps.

  30. Safe spaces need to be poked with fun because they are so childish. But dressing in diapers and playpens is a step too far. It minimizes the effect of any definition or articulation of their point of view.

    But they ARE high school students so I’d give them a break. High school students are open for most anything in fun.

  31. Best part:

    “We’ve all been guilty of it at some point or another…”

    Nikki Haley admitted that she has owned libs sometimes! LOL

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.