TexasCHLforum.com

wil wrote:

Allons wrote:

wil wrote:what can we do?

1. stop using the terms 'gun control' 'anti-gun' 'pro-gun'

2. use the proper term: 'civil rights' as that is what the 2nd is, a civil right. Secondly use the proper term for what they want, 'unconstitutional and hence illegal civilian disarmament' and 'unconstitutional and hence illegal infringement of our civil rights"

It is why the left uses the previously mentioned terms, to hide the truth of what the 2nd is and thier ultimate agenda and achieve the appearance of moral superiority in regards to their agenda.
By using the terms 'gun control' and other such terms it also forces us to engage the left in the culture war on terms of engagement they set. Those being they have the appearance of moral superiority, hence being right in thier claims, and ourselves being morally wrong in the truths we stand for. The result being it gives the left the political power to continually push the lie they use to cover thier real agenda.

Ever heard the saying: 'speak truth to power' ?

Power is achieved and maintained at the political level through deceiving the public via lies, "the big lie" as it is properly referred to. Speak the truth to that lie, as in this case, and it forces the advocates of the lie to defend it. Which they cannot do. Consequently the public begins to know the truth.

Wow! Never thought of using civil rights instead of gun control and you are right that does has power!

That is why the left use tactics such as this, which is alinski 101. People do not think through what is being done and why, these tactics being a predatory tactic designed to prey on the normal human instincts. Intimidation is likely the best word, people are afraid to respond due to not wanting to appear as being morally wrong for taking a position against the lies of the left. Consequently their inherent reaction is to attempt to defend against the accusation via logic, truth, etc.

They also function on the basis of people not wanting to admit to themselves that they were not thinking things through as to what these tactics amount to, and how to deal with them effectively.
Essentially people being fooled by the 'trap' these tactics consist of and not wanting to admit it to themselves consequently they attempt to respond in the usual fashion, attempt to defend against them rather than forcing the left to defend the lies.
As mark twain said: 'it's far easier to fool people than to prove to them they've been fooled'

A simple example "so when did you decide to stop beating your wife?"

What is an individuals immediate instinctual response? "I've never done any such thing in my entire life, ask my wife"

Therein is the wrong answer, why?

Because the accuser can now say: "PROVE IT, PROVE YOU'VE NEVER DONE SUCH A THING!"

The correct answer? "what basis of validity do you have for this question / accusation / etc?

Why the correct answer?

Because now it allows for the response of "PROVE IT, PROVE I'VE EVER DONE SUCH A THING!" regardless of whatever answer they give to your initial question.

Dont think this is what is going on?

"so when did you decide to become a racist?"

" so when did you decide to become an islamophobe?"

" so when did you decide to stop caring about public safety and argue against 'gun control' ? "

" so when did you decide to stop caring about less fortunate people and keep the people trying to cross the border who're just seeking a better life from crossing the border?"

"so when did you decide to not care about the less fortunate in our society and argue against the taxes we should pay to help the less fortunate?"

"so when did you decide to stop caring about the children?"

All of the std leftist accusations fit right into the very same format of the previous example as it is the same thing just using different accusations and / or different wording.

And without fail when people attempt to defend the truth because of the aforementioned reasons as well as an attempt to genuinely debate the left, it appears trying to defend a morally wrong position.

It is not a 'debate' we are attempting to engage in. A debate is simply an effort by two or more individuals to achieve a consensus of truth. What the left does, again, is to deliberately use our inherent desire to debate on a basis of logic, facts, truth, etc, to force us into defending against the lies of their accusations. It is why they use the previous example and why they've been so successful in forcing thier agenda onto us via the culture war.

Answering them with a question forces them to defend the lie of their accusation, which they cannot do.
The term for this is: 'the socratic method of debate.' It is real and it is the way to beat them politically and in the culture war, which is no more than winning the hearts and minds of the public which are still mentally and emotionally reachable.

That being hitting them with the socratic method of debate to expose the lies for what they are and discredit the left in the eyes of the public, also to help people not feel intimidated by the left.

the most recent and effective example of this is what Trump did the weekend the 'groping' tape came out.
It was the weekend of the second debate with hillary, Trump held a press conference that sunday and did something specific. Anyone paying attention to it will know what he did, why he did it, why it worked, and why it fits exactly into what I'm saying here.

wil wrote:what can we do?

1. stop using the terms 'gun control' 'anti-gun' 'pro-gun'

2. use the proper term: 'civil rights' as that is what the 2nd is, a civil right. Secondly use the proper term for what they want, 'unconstitutional and hence illegal civilian disarmament' and 'unconstitutional and hence illegal infringement of our civil rights"

It is why the left uses the previously mentioned terms, to hide the truth of what the 2nd is and thier ultimate agenda and achieve the appearance of moral superiority in regards to their agenda.
By using the terms 'gun control' and other such terms it also forces us to engage the left in the culture war on terms of engagement they set. Those being they have the appearance of moral superiority, hence being right in thier claims, and ourselves being morally wrong in the truths we stand for. The result being it gives the left the political power to continually push the lie they use to cover thier real agenda.

Ever heard the saying: 'speak truth to power' ?

Power is achieved and maintained at the political level through deceiving the public via lies, "the big lie" as it is properly referred to. Speak the truth to that lie, as in this case, and it forces the advocates of the lie to defend it. Which they cannot do. Consequently the public begins to know the truth.