r/skeptic • u/FuneralSafari • Feb 21 '25
đ© Misinformation I created a working document on how to adequately dismantle MAGA arguments. The majority of MAGA arguments, are some form of what is listed. I will update it as I hear new MAGA arguments.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-157430576?source=queue185
u/helpmegetoffthisapp Feb 21 '25
I applaud your efforts and thank you for sharing, but at the risk of sounding fatalistic I'm inclined to quote Thomas Paine - "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the deadâ.
124
u/FuneralSafari Feb 21 '25
As someone who does TikTok debates, I am doing it for the audience to show them these people aren't debating in good faith, at all.
-67
u/know_comment Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
I'm exactly the type of person that you're describing as MAGA, and it's the false strawman construct I see used against me by neoliberals, constantly.
the only reason it's offensive (a troll technique) to call me a Trump supporter is because I'm not one. so that's a bad faith argument off the bat. you're attempting to inoculate against a critic by attacking their identity, which you've invented and imposed on them/me.
and that's how you've set this entire framework up. what you're really talking about is the wide range people who have left the democratic party due to their educated and thoughtful criticisms of the neoliberalism that Democrats are aligned with.
after that straw man, you're mostly just inoculating against being called out on your own hypocrisy. you basically just describe the rhetorical and psychological techniques of every neoliberal debater, and you've projected it onto the critics of neoliberalism who you inaccurately frame as "MAGA".
edit: look at the comments below me, so far- they're ALL bad faith troll techniques.
u/AdeptFisherman7 immediately blocked me upon making the comment, so I could neither read it not respond to it. that's rule 3 of this sub (no weaponized blocking).
u/amazing didn't present an argument at all, just dismissed my claim that I'm not MAGA, exactly like OP has suggested.
u/GrowFreeFood ad hominemed the entire identity of Republicans, calling them bigot, which isn't a even relevant argument because im not Republican and OP seems to be talking about independents, specifically. that's how I interpreted it because those are the people who criticize both sides, and that's what I would be if I wasn't still a registered Democrat.
I think this is all in line with OP's working doc, which seems like a guide for trolling as opposed to informed and informative debating.
70
u/AdeptFisherman7 Feb 21 '25
if youâre dedicated to opposing and kneecapping the opposition to trump and the party heâs ideologically captured, you are in effect a trump supporter. his open embrace of authoritarianism and bigotry should be sufficiently disqualifying to prioritize opposing realistically, well above whatever issues you have with the democratic party. the rest is sealioning.
43
u/GrowFreeFood Feb 21 '25
Never met a republican that wasn't a bigot. Still searching for that unicorn.
-43
u/ginandtonicsdemonic Feb 21 '25
Black Republicans are bigots?
Trump wants to annex my country, and even I wouldn't say something so nonsensical.
49
u/GrowFreeFood Feb 21 '25
Anyone can be a bigot. There's no race immune from hate.
-34
u/ginandtonicsdemonic Feb 21 '25
I didn't ask if they CAN be bigots. I'm asking g you to clarify that all Black Republicans you've ever met have been bigots?
I'm also wondering, if you accept systemic racism as a fact, why you're so comfortable as a white person in America calling a large group of black people bigots.
28
u/GrowFreeFood Feb 21 '25
Never met a black republican. But if i ever did I could ask if they support gender discrimination. Then I would likely know.
-34
u/ginandtonicsdemonic Feb 21 '25
If you've never met a Black Republican, I'm gonna assume you don't really associate with black people since they exist.
Maybe you should try stepping out of your bubble to learn more about the world.
Or continue posting nonstop on Reddit, I'm sure it feels better than talking to real people.
Like many redditors, You've turned your misanthropism into a positive value by dressing it up in politics. When the fact is you just don't like most people, and feel they're all too dumb for you.
31
u/GrowFreeFood Feb 21 '25
I don't need to be lectured by a troll defending discrimination.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Secret-Reserve-1733 Feb 22 '25
I can tell by the insults and name calling that you have a valid point/s
20
16
u/Morbidly-Obese-Emu Feb 21 '25
Ok, so youâre not MAGA. Who did you vote for in the recent presidential election?
-13
u/know_comment Feb 21 '25
primaries, I wrote in on my Democrat ballot because they admitted that it wasn't going to be a fair primary. the prior 2 primary elections I voted for Bernie. (Bernie supporters, by the way, make up a large proportion of who OP is targeting with this troll technique document)
the past 3 general elections I've voted 3rd party for president. different candidates, because the Democrats sue third party candidates off the ballots.
for my local elections, I believe I voted straight ticket or mostly all Democrat.
I live in PA, by the way. so vote is one of the few that actually counts (great system... one of many reasons that I vote against the duopoly).
and now, to borrow from OP's strategy, is the part of the conversation where you shift the discussion to talking points about how my vote was wasted and I'm essentially voting for MAGA in an attempt to punish the Democrats, and how I must be either an idiot or a maga in disguise. and since I've inoculated against that, it's hard for you to continue as planned. so the next best thing is to give a short response and let me wallow in my long one.
10
u/Masbig91 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
Please help me understand your point of view. You clearly are okay with Dem policies since you voted for them locally. I too voted Bernie in the last 2 primaries where he was an option and I wish that was the direction the party was going.
When I look at the bigger picture and take a step back, from my perspective, stopping MAGA was paramount. This isn't your average George Bush/Romney republican. I wouldn't be happy with someone like that either, but I think their impact would be nowhere near as destructive to the nation as Trump and can understand voting third party in those cirucmstances. There are many things in the Dem platform that I wish were different. Palestine, voting reform to include more parties, medicare for all, prison reform, police reform, the list goes on and on.
But to me specifically in this election since those were not an option, I voted to stop Trump. Do I wish Dems were better? 100% Do I wish there was a third option that I could vote for that had a shot at winning? Absolutely. When it came down to voting those were not the options. In my opinion the choice was for Trump or against him. I wish it was different and there was a third option that was better and had a chance at winning. There wasn't one. This applies to the last election too. I can understand voting third party the first time he ran since we didn't know how bad he would be and so the risk of him taking office were not yet as concrete.
You are not an idiot, and assuming you are being truthful and voted Dem locally you are not MAGA, but the way I see it, you did waste your vote and essentially helped MAGA in an attempt to punish Dems. Like the damage Trump and MAGA would cause was not as important as "sending a message"... and I just don't get that. Can you please explain your thought process on this point? I don't want to speak for you or put words in your mouth. Do you basically think his destruction would be worth tolerating for a new Dem party to hopefully emerge? That he would be all bark and no bite? Both? Something else? I just can't wrap my head around voting Dem locally and then not opposing the MAGA movement nationally. Would love to hear your point of view on this. Thanks.
-3
u/know_comment Feb 21 '25
> Please help me understand your point of view. You clearly are okay with Dem policies since you voted for them locally. I too voted Bernie in the last 2 primaries where he was an option and I wish that was the direction the party was going.
I support democratic VALUES and the social safety net. I support Medicare for all/public option/healthcare as a right. I support public institutions like Parks and libraries and the fire department, that serve the community. I don't see those things being valued by Republicans, typically. unfortunately at the same time my city's democrat party is also a bit corrupt, so we'll see what happens next election. and our "Soros sponsored DA" looked good to me on paper (I like the idea of the DA being combative against police abuse and racial discrimination), but in practice he has allowed criminals to run rampant, which seems thematic, and it's gotten really bad to the point I am frequently witnessing shootings and murders that I do actually blame partially on lawlessness.
> When I look at the bigger picture and take a step back, from my perspective, stopping MAGA was paramount. This isn't your average George Bush/Romney republican.
bush and Cheney have so much in common with the neoliberal Democrats, that they actively supported the Dems. I'm anti-war and see neoconservatism as an extention of neoliberalism. that strengthens my resolve against the Democrats.and seemingly gives me a commonality with MAGA (of course the fact that neocon Marco rubio is secretary of state indicates that MAGA and the neocons probably aren't as different as Trump wants his supporters to think)
> There are many things in the Dem platform that I wish were different. Palestine, voting reform to include more parties, medicare for all, prison reform, police reform, the list goes on and on.
sure, but the problem is that the Dems run on virtue and yet they don't have the virtue to address any of these things. everything you said is what I've traditionally considered to be democratic VALUES, and yet the party and it's supporters don't push those values or turn them into policies. I'm fact, their entire campaign just seemed to be stop trump by calling his supporter bigots.
> But to me specifically in this election since those were not an option, I voted to stop Trump.
right, I know. My opinion is that the lesser of two evils mentality is large part of what stops 3rd party viability. But I also don't have the same fears as you, about Trump. And to be honest, you and I probably vehemently disagree on some big issues- I was an RFK fan until around October 7th when Dennis Kuccinich quite his campaign manager job, I assume for RFK's support of Israel. I also want us out of Ukraine and Ive always believed USAID and NED are money laundering operations largely used to support CIA esque antidemocratic policies under the guise of democratization efforts. I don't think the IRS hiring spree was a good thing for America, and I don't think that gender roles have a role in the workplace outside of supporting biological issues. I don't think those are conservative opinions at all.
And MAYBE (but I haven't seen any impetus for this since Hillary lost) the Dems will actually learn from their mistakes and start standing up for things like workers rights, and against corporatocracy and war, once again. Because I if you're going to lead with principles, you have to show integrity and live your values.
5
u/Masbig91 Feb 21 '25
I appreciate you taking the time to write this. I do agree on your points about Dems in general.
I think it boils down to our differences of opinion on the topics you describe later in your post (Ukraine, USAID, NED, the IRS) personally I do think your positions on said topics align more with conservatives. That's just my personal opinion, not asserting it as fact.
The biggest difference ultimately is "I also don't have the same fears as you do about Trump". You don't think he's a big enough threat to vote against after everything he did in his first term. I do.
We'll have to agree to disagree on his "threat level" (for lack of a batter term). I'm not trying to convince people, I think people rarely change their minds debating online. Just wanted to understand. Thank you for sharing again, it heleped me understand your point of view.
0
u/know_comment Feb 21 '25
> personally I do think your positions on said topics align more with conservatives.
They align more with the Trump wing/MAGA, not with conservatism. Although you could argue they align with the libertarians/paleoconservatives, which is the horseshoe effect. Progressives and the right wing are often accused of being "isolationists" because we believe US imperialism is tyrannical and unhelpful to the people. In terms of the IRS, I'm not fiscal conservative who doesn't believe in taxation, its that I see an issue with bloating a system that seems to be weaponized against the middle class and political dissidents.
I appreciate you listening and discussing respectfully, and I suspect that you and I don't have very different values, just perspectives and solutions.
4
u/Masbig91 Feb 21 '25
I too appreciate the discussion but I do think our values our different. You are okay with someone who tried to overturn the results of an election holding office. I am not.
→ More replies (0)12
u/Classic-Journalist90 Feb 21 '25
First, neoliberalism does not mean what you appear to want it to mean. Second, the tactics described in the OPâs link only work when debating someone coming from a place of bad faith. Iâm not sure why you think there is a problem calling out a debaterâs evasiveness or intellectual dishonesty.
-5
u/know_comment Feb 21 '25
> OPâs link only work when debating someone coming from a place of bad faith.
Then it's a bad faith argument itself, as OP doesn't claim that at all. OP claims that this is how to debate against MAGA, and then focuses on the type of person who says they aren't MAGA and is critical of both sides.
It sounds like you're just talking about how to use troll techniques against trolls. But the people being described as trolls are not, in my experience, trolls.
> Neolliberalism does not mean what you appear to want it to mean.Â
And yet you neither bothered to define how I "appear to want it to mean", according to you. Not did you define it by it's true definition, according to you.
Neoliberalism is a broad term, and given that I'm using it critically I think it's pretty obvious that I'm describing our own government's use of the public private partnership to assist in the worldwide implementation of a "globalist" (i.e. international finance and corporatist led) institutionalization of a world system that use free markets and "open borders" to dominate and homogenize every aspect of trade, investment, rights, and culture.
> The term gained popularity amongst left -leaning academics in the 1970s to "describe and decry a late twentieth-century effort by policymakers, think-tank experts, and industrialists to condemn social-democratic reforms and unapologetically implement free-market policies"
> According to political commentator David Brooks), prominent neoliberal politicians included Al Gore and Bill Clinton of the Democratic Party
> neoliberal policies increase the power of corporations and shift wealth to the upper classes.
> Neoliberalism is commonly viewed by scholars as encouraging of globalization, which is the subject of much criticism.
> The emergence of the "precariat", a new class facing acute socio-economic insecurity and alienation due to offshoring and a global race to the bottom, has been attributed to the globalization of neoliberalism.
So now to borrow from OP's inoculation techniques (because I've already pointed out that you argued in bad faith by telling me my definition was wrong):
Now youll likely say
"That's antisemitic!" (When people say that they never make an actual argument to support it, they just say that neoliberal or globalism are antisemitic buzzwords.)
Trump/ Elon are doing the exact thing you're accusing neoliberals of doing- have you heard of project 2025? They are enacting austerity and defunding the government and civil society institutions in order to privatize and deregulated.
Yes, you're correct that this type of hyper libertarian strategy IS like the definition of ayn randian liberalization to an atlas shrugged extreme. That's a conversation for another day (actually today- it's pretty important to be talking about it to today, but not in this discussion about rhetorical techniques and bad faith arguments), but it's NOT the neoliberalism that I'm criticizing OP for representing.
11
u/Classic-Journalist90 Feb 21 '25
Your association of neoliberalism with democrats and somehow not republicans is a clear indication you do not know what the term means nor its history. You are trying to make up for that now by providing an expansive definition. Good for you. Itâs about global paradigms primarily not political parties or at a stretch tangentially political parties. OPâs tactics are meant to force someone arguing in bad faith to either argue on the merits or to expose hypocrisy or evasiveness. Requiring someone to be consistent, cite their sources, and stay on topic is not trolling.
-6
u/know_comment Feb 21 '25
> Your association of neoliberalism with democrats and somehow not republicans is a clear indication you do not know what the term means nor its history.
Your continuing to claim that, even when I've clearly demonstrated the association via citation, is by definition a bad faith argument. Neocons are neoliberal, Trump is not. hence the neocons aligned with the neoliberal democrat party.
It's pretty clear who and what I'm referring to, and you have yet to demonstrate any facts to back up your own claims, but you know exactly who I meant when I referred to OP as using a bad faith establishment neoliberal argument.
Let me guess, you really want to say I'm being antisemitic now, right? That's almost always the last ditch effort that I witness when people don't have any actual arguments.
Here's an interesting Stiglitz article from the guardian
7
u/Classic-Journalist90 Feb 21 '25
Iâm Jewish. I generally know when someone is being antisemitic. Is that something you want me to accuse you of? You keep bringing it up. What I am saying and have said is that you are incorrect. You are misusing a scholarly term in order to use it as a pejorative for democrat and demonstrating a shallow understanding of global political theory in order to do so.
-2
u/know_comment Feb 21 '25
it's not a misuse of a scholarly term. You're reifying. It's a very common pejorative used by people on both the left and right to criticize "radical centrist" policies that use markets and corporations to "nudge" and transform culture in an antidemocratic manner. It's the definition of the clintonite wing that has been running the party for 30 years. It's NAFTA, it's the repeal of Glass Steigal, it's the world bank and IMF spreading democracy via loans none of these countries can ever pay back without selling their resources to corporations. It's censoring opinions on social media as "disinformation" because "a corporation can do whatever it wants".
You know exactly what I mean by it and you've seen it used this way hundreds of times. It's true and it's accurate.
And I've seen a million times that when people can't defend against criticism of neoliberalism and globalism, they shut down the conversation by claiming that these words are just antisemitic dog whistles.
4
u/Classic-Journalist90 Feb 21 '25
Iâm not supporting neoliberalism. I have taken no stance on it. I am saying when you use it to stain Democrats and not Republicans you are remiss. That is what I take issue with. Regan, Thatcher, both Bushes and many more conservatives are neoliberals. Most current Republicans are neoliberal. You can argue, and it has been argued, that Trump is trying to break away from the neoliberal paradigm. There are legs to that argument whether I agree with it or not. To extrapolate from that that Democrats are neoliberals and Republicans are not is silly and incorrect and ignores decades of history and political theory.
8
u/FuckwitAgitator Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
I'm exactly the type of person that you're describing as MAGA, and it's the false strawman construct
You can just say "strawman", you don't have to pad it with extra words to make it sound extra intelligent. This is a skeptic sub, not your usual conspiracy sub.
I see used against me by neoliberals, constantly.
You're going to have to define "neoliberals" for us since to put it bluntly, it doesn't seem like you know what it means. Given that you've already used "strawman" in a word salad, it fits that you might have just read the word and assumed it was a cool, smart person way of saying "modern left-wing" -- two things that neoliberalism isn't.
While it's definitely true that some Democratic politicians can be "neoliberal lite", those politicians are not "using this against you" on Reddit.
The number of actual people that support Democrats because they're neoliberal is so microscopic that I'm comfortable saying they're a figment of your imagination.
the only reason it's offensive (a troll technique) to call me a Trump supporter is because I'm not one.
You are the one who said these comments apply to you. Nobody here called you a Trump supporter. Did you use a "troll technique" on yourself and then get upset at everyone else for it?
you're attempting to inoculate against a critic by attacking their identity, which you've invented and imposed on them/me.
Oh, that explains why Trump supporters and enablers make arguing in bad faith part of their identity -- apparently it makes it immune to criticism.
after that straw man, you're mostly just inoculating against being called out on your own hypocrisy. you basically just describe the rhetorical and psychological techniques of every neoliberal debater, and you've projected it onto the critics of neoliberalism who you inaccurately frame as "MAGA".
I requoted that entire paragraph just so we can admire how truly stupid it is.
You're trying to condemn someone for making generalizations about the way a group argues by... making generalizations about the way a group argues and proving the original generalization correct in the process.
But that's not all the "it's fine when I do it" that you've managed to cram into that short paragraph because you're also eagerly, bizarrely and incorrectly labeling people "neoliberal debaters" in the very same sentence as you condemn labelling people being "incorrectly" labelled "MAGA".
The fact that it follows on from you getting upset about "hypocrisy" is just the cherry on top.
u/amazing didn't present an argument at all, just dismissed my claim that I'm not MAGA, exactly like OP has suggested.
I am not a neoliberal. Are you willing to state that I'm not a neoliberal and therefore everything you've said about neoliberals doesn't apply to me?
You should be willing to state that, since you're insisting "If I say I'm not then I can't be" is all the evidence you need for "I'm not MAGA (even though, by my own admission, I behave exactly like one)".
u/GrowFreeFood ad hominemed the entire identity of Republicans, calling them bigot, which isn't a even relevant argument because im not Republican
You seem to understand "ad hominem" about as well as "neoliberal". It's a fallacy to claim "this argument is wrong because the person making it is dogshit". The argument can still be wrong and the person can still be dogshit, the argument just isn't inherently wrong just because it's being made by dogshit.
So calling Republicans bigots isn't an ad hominem attack, it's just a statement. Nobody is claiming their logic is flawed because they're bigots, they're claiming their logic flawed and they're bigots.
and that's what I would be if I wasn't still a registered Democrat.
And of course, you're not automatically correct just because you claim you're not dogshit. Not only is your party registration trivial to lie about and unreasonable for anyone to ask you to prove, it doesn't strengthen your arguments anyway.
I think this is all in line with OP's working doc, which seems like a guide for trolling as opposed to informed and informative debating
You are clearly not an authority on debating and debating isn't even the posts point.
They're providing templates that can be used to counter the firehose of misinformation and flawed thinking that the reactionary movement sprays across the internet every day -- often while pretending they're actually on the same side.
They're not "debating" MAGA because if logic and facts could change their mind, they wouldn't be MAGA in the first place.
-2
u/know_comment Feb 22 '25
> You can just say "strawman", you don't have to pad it with extra words to make it sound extra intelligent. This is a skeptic sub, not your usual conspiracy sub
a strawman doesn't have to be false. Youre thinking of a strawman argument, which is is logical fallacy. It sounds like you definitely didnt know that, so you learned something today! Try to keep up.... (Look at me mirroring you now, do you think it's a sign of respect?)
> You're going to have to define "neoliberals" for us since to put it bluntly, it doesn't seem like you know what it means.Â
I defined it in another comment, maybe you should try reading more before you write an entire thesis.
> You are the one who said these comments apply to you. Nobody here called you a Trump supporter. Did you use a "troll technique" on yourself and then get upset at everyone else for it?
Gaslighting requires that the person you're trying to use it on, respects you... OP's entire premise is arguing with people who say they're not MAGA supporters but criticize Dems (ohh but it's a conspiracy because apparently they are maga supporters!)
> You're trying to condemn someone for making generalizations about the way a group argues
I certainly didn't condemn anyone for making generalizations. This again highlights your massive confusion, probably about a lot of things. Where do you think I said that generalization was the problem?
The policies of Democrats at the national level and more specifically in the white house, are neoliberal. It's the prevailing ideology of the party at the national level. Me calling you neoliberal for supporting establishment Dems is nothing like you calling me MAGA for criticizing Dems more than I criticize Trump, when I've never voted trump in the 3 elections I had the opportunity to. What's you're argument here, again, just claim that I'm lying and it doesn't matter?
There's nothing in here about countering misinformation, so why are you pretending that's what this document is about?
And claiming Republican are all bigots was DEFINITELY used as an argument regardless of you claiming it's just a statement. And I vioisly you know nothing about by expertise and what I'm an authority on.
4
u/FuckwitAgitator Feb 22 '25
a strawman doesn't have to be false. Youre thinking of a strawman argument, which is is logical fallacy. It sounds like you definitely didnt know that, so you learned something today! Try to keep up.... (Look at me mirroring you now, do you think it's a sign of respect?)
Throwing more word salad at the problem isn't a solution, but you do you.
Also, just to be completely clear, I don't have any respect for you, because you've done nothing to earn it. I don't want you thinking that my disrespectful tone was accidental.
I defined it in another comment, maybe you should try reading more before you write an entire thesis
Or maybe you should use words like you know what they mean, rather than requiring people to jump around a thread piecing your drivel together.
Gaslighting requires that the person you're trying to use it on, respects you...
No it doesn't, but don't let being wrong start slowing you down now.
OP's entire premise is arguing with people who say they're not MAGA supporters but criticize Dems
You're adamant that you know what a straw man is, so why are you deploying your own?
This isn't about people criticizing the Dems, it's about combatting far-right sock puppets -- something they've been caught using multiple times, because they're not nearly as good at "mask on" as they think they are, doing things like.. oh I don't know, posting in conspiracy subs that are riddled with reactionaries spouting baseless nonsense and then suddenly deciding they're a skeptic.
Even if you are telling the truth, you're still not worth listening to because you've blatantly caught fleas. Whoever you vote for, you sound indistinguishable from a Trump voter.
I certainly didn't condemn anyone for making generalizations
It's okay, I don't need to convince you, so we'll just watch and see how well that claim holds up with people reading.
The policies of Democrats at the national level and more specifically in the white house, are neoliberal
Sure that's fine, I've said as much myself if you want to go through my comment history.
But they're still not as neoliberal as the Republican party which is why neoliberal voters vote Republican. You know this, but you want to call Democrats names, so you pretend that everyone who votes for them is frothing at the mouth with neoliberalism.
Of course, you're doing exactly the same thing that MAGA sock puppets do (while insisting you're not one) by holding Democrats to a standard you simply don't apply to MAGA; all Democrats are apparently neoliberals but you're deeply offended that someone might be labelled as MAGA just because they repeat MAGA talking points from the MAGA playbook.
What's you're argument here, again, just claim that I'm lying and it doesn't matter?
Sure, that works for me. I don't live in your gullible little fantasy land where nobody lies on the internet.
And claiming Republican are all bigots was DEFINITELY used as an argument regardless of you claiming it's just a statement.
By your own faulty logic, they are. It's honestly surprising to watch you repeatedly undermine your own arguments like this. You've crammed more "its fine when I do it" into your messages than I've ever seen on reddit.
And to cap all that off, by selectively applying that logic, you're proving that you're exactly the MAGA sockpuppet that you're trying to insist you're not.
And I vioisly you know nothing about by expertise and what I'm an authority on.
Nope, I don't. I also don't care, because you'd lie about it anyway. Maybe it's time to fuck off back to your conspiracy sub and soak in content that wouldn't clear the lowest bar of a skeptic.
2
u/AllFalconsAreBlack Feb 21 '25
and that's how you've set this entire framework up. what you're really talking about is the wide range people who have left the democratic party due to their educated and thoughtful criticisms of the neoliberalism that Democrats are aligned with.
This seems like a pretty self-absorbed interpretation. The "wide range of people" who "did this specific thing" for "this specific reason". I honestly mean no offense, but that definitely jumped out. Probably not the best way to start my comment, but I thought it worth pointing out because I do agree with some of your other points.
So yeah, don't agree with all of this, but like I said, I think you do raise some good points. An unfortunate side-effect of this increasingly polarized environment is that any kind of criticism / correction / skepticism, regardless of validity or where its coming from, is met with outrage and villification. It discourages any kind of productive engagement or self-reflection. It's a self-perpetuating cycle that only further entrenches beliefs and erodes critical thinking.
I think the document does accurately identify a large category of MAGA supporters, and a lot of the bad-faith arguments they present to counter certain beliefs. Similar to you, my issue is that there is no attempt to distinguish between someone who is critical of a certain aspect of democratic ideology, but definitely not a MAGA supporter, and someone who is critical of democrats and a MAGA supporter. Then compounding on the lack of distinction, the doc invariably assumes "gotchas" are coming, and encourages preempting / responding with "gotchas" of their own. I mean, what's the purpose here? Self-complacency? There is absolutely no shortage of people who respond to what's presented in this doc exactly as described. In fact, there's usually a bunch of responses that cover all the different options outlined, and a bunch more repeating these same things in a different way. If people can't already distinguish the logical fallacies presented in this document and respond accordingly, they probably shouldn't be engaging in the debate in the first place.
How about a doc on ways to identify logical arguments, recognizing when an inherent interpretive subjectivity â rather than fallacy â is responsible for a difference of opinion, and ensuring engagement remains productive without degrading into bad-faith debate tactics? That seems to be what's actually needed. We still need people to call out misinformation and fallacious reasoning, but it really doesn't seem to me like the problem is a lack of these call-outs. To me, the problem is how these debates usually end up with both sides resorting to accusations, hyperbole, equivocation, and misinformation in their frantic attempts to "win" the debate.
14
u/Harabeck Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
â Jean-Paul Sartre
Replace "anti-Semite" with maga, fascist, etc.
I will add that OP's document is targeting a certain kind of MAGA follower that actually believes they are in the right, not the willful cultists.
12
u/jim45804 Feb 21 '25
Yes, but the only minds it needs to change are those who haven't already made up their minds.
25
u/intronert Feb 21 '25
As well:
Jonathan Swift said,âYou cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.â
6
u/Creek_Bird Feb 21 '25
Everyone should use the 5 call app and resist bot email and fax representatives (especially red ones) and the AGs office!
They are destroying us. Find local protests. Spread the word in your local communities, many are oblivious.
This is the top 1% vs US!
5
u/ilovecatsandcafe Feb 21 '25
Maga will only learn when their own benefits get attacked which is why Bannon himself is already warning them đ
3
u/StaleTheBread Feb 21 '25
I think more effort needs to be put in to informing people who are more in the center.
Like, itâs hard to believe, but there are still people who are uninformed or are of the opinion that âboth sides seem pretty crazy, so I think Iâll stay out of itâ.
Like, thereâs people who view themselves as open-minded moderates, even if they mightâbe already fallen for some BS. I think thereâs some talking points that people need to learn how to explain from first principles, and not assume certain beliefs.
1
53
u/heathercs34 Feb 21 '25
My dad just justified going to war with CANADA because they booed our national anthem at a hockey game. Our brothers and sisters to the north. Iâm done. You want to go to war with Canada? Iâll fight you from the inside, Canadians are our friends.
35
14
u/DjScenester Feb 21 '25
The problem is social media and âfakeâ news.
People will constantly come up with their own evidence.
I mean if I try and argue BIGFOOT isnât real some jackass will just point to countless videos and statements that prove Bigfoot is indeed real.
9
u/baila1 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
Godspeed, but it's the equivalent of arguing with creationists. I gave up a long time ago.
They don't listen to facts, it's not a belief system based on reasoning but hate or cognitive dissonance. It makes them feel good and that's enough for them.
21
u/Conscious-Win-4303 Feb 21 '25
This is one of the most brilliant works I have ever seen on Reddit. It is SO WELL DONE. Informative, easy to read, logical, well-researched, comprehensive and so much more. Congratulations on such an amazing achievement. I hope everyone will take a moment to click through to appreciate and benefit from this! IMHO you should get an agent and approach publishers with this!
26
u/FuneralSafari Feb 21 '25
Ive been debating MAGA for a while now on tiktok and other platforms, and at this point ive realized their arguments are usually flawed. I was in a live a few hours ago and a woman was trying to say that America has the cleanest coal. This is such a disingenuous argument. Coal is the dirtiest, and even when its "clean" its still the dirtiest. They dont want dialogue, they want to be right. I called this out. Blocked.
Thank you.
8
u/Friedchicken2 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25
Just some immediate thoughts of how a MAGA person would respond to these.
Strategy 1: COVID deaths were faked by the deep state, COVID didnât kill nearly as many people (they point to some deaths being counted as COVID deaths yet the patient was also terminally ill, etc).
Strategy 2: LGBTQ stuff has gone too far, thatâs what makes it evil. Even if thereâs a ounce of support I can have for a gay person, trans people still arenât real and theyâre trying to make our kids trans.
Strategy 3: The book banning is overstated and justified because the books are trying to trans our kids, conservatives are just cancelled for dumb things by radical feminist Marxist mobs.
Strategy 4: Deep. State.
I like the general points you made but what youâre highlighting is either delusion or bad faith behavior.
I canât logically argue with someone who believes all the COVID numbers are fudged. Theres just no way I can convince them out of that position myself.
Per bad faith debate, itâs the same issue. Thereâs no way I can reasonably argue against someone who so willingly simps for the other side. This happens all the time in Reddit spats I get into.
Leading up to the election conservatives constantly whined about inflation and cost of living, guzzling Trumps lies about how heâd âend inflation day 1â. Now, theyâre silent. All of the sudden Trump isnât so powerful, is he? They grade him on a curve.
Not one peep about prices. Prices are still high, cost of living still sucks, and not one of them care that Trump is too busy signing 99 executive orders about other shit instead. Thereâs no accounting for his past statements and claims. When I bring that up to them, they now grow a charitable brain.
âWell reducing prices takes time and Trumps gonna drill baby drill so prices will come down eventually!â
And, âwell actually they had to cull 15 million chickens so thatâs why egg prices are so high due to bird flu.â
Like why couldnât they apply this same generosity to Bidens presidency coming out of a fucking global pandemic?
Because theyâre bad faith hypocritical freaks.
-2
u/LegendTheo Feb 22 '25
I can tell you why Biden didn't get the benefit Trump is. For one thing Biden's policies caused economic problems for several years, that continued to get worse. Trump has been in office like a month. Even at the time Republicans were saying that Biden's policies would cause economic problems and then they materialized. Instead of trying to do something to fix them Biden doubled down and then had the government claim actually the economy was good and people didn't know what they were talking about.
Republicans are smart enough to know that inflation is the rate buying power gets reduced. Inflation is low right now, it was low at the end of the Biden admin too. Except Biden caused most of the inflation.
Republicans are also smart enough to know that it'll take time, probably years to really move the needle. The thing is they believe that republican policies will do that even if it takes time. They can also understand that egg prices are probably mostly related to the bird flu right now, but they're also a lot higher than they used to be before the flu happened because of democrat policies.
If you'd like I can specifically articulate what the Biden admin did to cause massive inflation and screw our economy as COVID ended.
1
u/Friedchicken2 Feb 22 '25
This is the 80th time Iâve had to explain to some regard on Reddit that Biden nor Trump were not the sole causes of inflation.
Both Biden and Trump approved massive stimulus into the economy, which in turn wouldâve contributed to inflation. However, what likely contributed most to inflation, like with literally every other country at the time, was supply chain issues.
Thatâs it. Supply chain issues. People not being able to get their shit and send it around. Services were slowed/halted.
Theres virtually nothing the world could have done to avoid that imo.
Biden did avoid a recession and while inflation was high, the economy as a whole was actually quite resilient. If you want to argue his messaging couldâve been better to be more empathetic to people, thatâs fine.
But to pretend that just because you can lie your way into office saying youâll address everyoneâs grievances and then sign 99 executive orders within your first month that doesnât even address anything people want is ridiculous.
0
u/LegendTheo Feb 22 '25
Biden and Trump were the sole causes of inflation. You hit the two things that caused it, what you've ignored is the supply chain issues were also caused by the government. They were a direct result of the lockdowns. The lockdowns that the democratic party extended far beyond any semblance of reason. The lockdowns that Trump started pushing against before he even left office because he saw the damage they were and would do.
The entire world could have avoided almost all the negative effects if they'd stopped the lockdowns a month or two after they started when we realized that Covid was not NEARLY as deadly as the assumed lethality that spurred them. When they initially started the lockdowns they though the mortality rate was like 10%. By two months in it was clear that it was less than 1%, though how much less was still unknown. Nobody in government would have recommended the lockdowns for a long or as severe for a mortality rate less than 1%.
Just because everyone does something doesn't make it good idea. Yeah the whole world did it too, and their economies have suffered massively from it too. It wasn't amazing leadership from Biden that kept our economy higher than the rest of the world, it was because in a world wide recession the country that owns the world reserve currency fairs better.
We leaned on that reserve currency status hard. That created another major issue where BRICS got a ton of leverage to try to get countries to move to a different reserve currency.
The economies were more resilient than expected, because it's the first time in my knowledge that the governments of the world caused massive inflation through terrible policy.
This doesn't even touch on the insane amounts of money that the government has had to print to support all of the illegal and asylum seekers that the Biden admin let in.
1
u/Ok-Kangaroo-6380 Feb 22 '25
Inflation wasnât just caused by Biden and Trumpâit was a global issue. Almost every major economy saw high inflation after COVID, so itâs not as simple as blaming U.S. policies. Supply chains were a mess worldwide, demand surged after lockdowns, and energy prices spiked.
Lockdowns definitely played a role, but they werenât the only reason for supply chain issues. Even countries with fewer restrictions (like Sweden) still had economic struggles because global production was disrupted. And the idea that âDemocrats extended lockdowns too longâ ignores that Republican-led states had restrictions too.
Saying we should have ended lockdowns two months in ignores what was happening at the time. Sure, the initial 10% mortality rate was wrong, but hospitals were still getting overwhelmed. Countries that reopened too fast, like Brazil and India, saw worse outbreaks and economic damage.
The U.S. didnât avoid a worse downturn just because of the dollarâs reserve currency status. Strong job recovery and high consumer spending played a huge role. And other reserve currency countries (like those using the Euro or Yen) still had inflation problems.
Government spending contributed to inflation, but it wasnât some brand-new phenomenon. The 1970s oil crisis and post-WWII spending caused inflation too. COVID inflation was a mix of supply chain chaos, demand surges, stimulus spending, and external shocks like the war in Ukraine.
And blaming inflation on âprinting money for immigrantsâ is just misinformation. The biggest drivers were supply chain breakdowns and stimulus spending. Plus, immigrants contribute to the economy, especially in industries with labor shortages.
At the end of the day, inflation wasnât just about U.S. leadership. It was a mix of global and domestic factors, and pretending there was some easy fix ignores reality.
2
u/Friedchicken2 Feb 22 '25
Donât bother arguing with this guy.
Iâve done this one too many times on this app and theyâre all the same. They never accept the factual realities.
They never accept that no economist consensus states that the presidents were sole causes of inflation.
They never accept that lockdowns were probably necessary to curb infection rates until vaccines could be rolled out.
They literally would prefer more people to get sick and die than be told what to do. Itâs impossible to argue with a person like this because they live in a completely separate reality from us.
The first time in the 21st century that we have a global pandemic and my dude is really trying to sum up inflationary conditions to âgovernment policyâ. Like lockdowns or not, if people continued to get sick and not go into work, whoâs working to produce the hat that then gets shipped by workers to the US, thatâs then received by an American company with workers and distributed by another company with workers?
Jeez, I wonder why supply chains were disrupted. Itâs not like we had millions of people across the world get sick for weeks multiple timesâŠ.
1
u/LegendTheo Feb 22 '25
You seem to be purposely obtuse here. I never said Biden and Trump's policies caused global inflation. It was the primary driver in the U.S. the rest of the world saw the same issues because they did the same stupid policies to nearly the same extent.
The U.S. has a massively larger economy than Sweden. If the U.S. had decided to end the lockdowns we would have been affected by other countries slower economies but not nearly to the same degree Sweden was.
The statement that "Republican states had restrictions too" does nothing to counter my point that the Democrats held lockdowns far too long. Republican states also stopped or reduced their restrictions much faster. As Democrats were constantly jumping on to try to claim worse health outcomes at the time.
Brazil and India have nothing even remotely close to the healthcare infrastructure the U.S. does. That's not a valid comparison. States that did reopen early did not have drastically different health outcomes then ones that did not. The other issue is that in metropolitan areas the lockdowns did little to prevent spread as at the time COVID was airborne and most people lived in near proximity to each other. This was also known a couple of months in, though the government lied about it at the time.
Let me be more specific about the reserve currency statement. The U.S. dollar is the largest reserve currency, attached to the largest economy in the world, and outside of BRICS the default currency for petroleum sales. That's the difference. Part of the stronger economic recovery was because of the industry in all the red states that opened back up early, against the wishes of Biden's government.
The government at times has caused limited amounts of inflation by over printing money. They have never done that while also forcibly curtailing production though. War time economies print money but expand industry.
I never blamed all inflation on illegals and immigrants, I merely said it was another at least moderate factor in it. People working getting free money for food and housing are not offsetting it by working. That money is either leaving the country or not enough to cover their expenses.
I never said there was an easy fix, everything is a tradeoff, but it would have prevented most of the horrific inflation we saw over the last couple of years. Inflation in the U.S. was primarily driven by U.S. leadership. In fact I bet other countries would have followed our lead if we'd done what I suggest and therefore reduced the overall global issues.
17
u/yojimbo1111 Feb 21 '25
The arguments don't need to be dismantled, the entire subculture and the billionaire money that funds it needs to be dismantled
20
u/FuneralSafari Feb 21 '25
I agree 100%, but one of the ways to fight disinformation and propaganda, while we still have a voice, is push-back and proving people wrong so people have to confront their flawed argument.
1
u/ItsAllInYourHead Feb 23 '25
The second part of what you said is true. But without the first it's not possible. Unless you plan on providing some other way to go about it?
4
Feb 21 '25
[removed] â view removed comment
3
u/FuneralSafari Feb 21 '25
Im going to add this along with some links that ultimately provides sufficient evidence for it
3
u/WoollyBulette Feb 21 '25
This is fantastic, but people need to be aware that you donât debate people like thisâ you aggressively drive them out. Ban or block.
At some point we fell into the trap of instinctually characterizing every online interaction as some sort of formal debate. But you donât debates with fascists; their goal isnât a discussion, itâs a mental exercise designed to cause stress, fatigue, and despair in their victims so we donât have the energy or drive to fight back when they attack irl. Itâs designed to blur the truth until we no longer exist in a shared perception of reality.
You donât debate fascismâ you eradicate it. Thereâs no slippery slope when you curate your spaces in such a way that you drive out fascistsâ you specifically and exclusively target them. The only gray appears when they soften their message or mask it in order to escape eradication and build strength, and that starts with asking you to engage them âin good faith.â You donât gotta do that with people whose goal is genocide and authoritarianism. You have to make them literally afraid to identify themselves, convene in groups, or cape for fascist leaders. Youre not going to bring them around to human ideals, theyâre the antithesis of such a thing. Just block, ban, or bully until they vanish.
6
u/JetTheDawg Feb 21 '25
Awesome! Great work, itâs a shame that those people are completely incapable of growing emotionally or intellectually. All of these talking points will fall on deaf and dumb earsÂ
2
u/fox-mcleod Feb 21 '25
Can you add anchor links?
Iâm going to bookmark this and from now on when I see this behavior, Iâm just going to link directly to your explanation of what theyâre doing.
1
u/Harabeck Feb 21 '25
I agree, an outline with anchor links would make this excellent content much more accessible/useful.
1
u/FuneralSafari Feb 21 '25
I haven't used the substack app, but on the website, there is a table of contents on the left side.
1
u/Harabeck Feb 21 '25
You're right! I never though to click that area on the left. And you can right click the table of contents to get the anchor link too.
2
2
2
2
u/turdferg1216 Feb 21 '25
Thank you SO MUCH for doing this! Seriously canât tell you how much I appreciate it. Iâve been searching for something like this and so happy to have found your post!!!
2
u/usrlibshare Feb 22 '25
That's nice.
The problem is: Rational debate requires that both participants are rational, and agree on the reality they exist in.
2
u/PainGray Feb 22 '25
Yesterday, I heard 2 maga defend Trump in regards to the switch from pro Ukraine to pro Russia. A son and father - the sons new girlfriend was "super pissed and confused that Trump is choosing to go against Ukraine". She was considering breaking up with the son for continuing to be "an idiot", backing Trump. Essentially, the dad referred back to Russias own internal propoganda at the beginning of the invasion. Citing that Ukraine was full of neo nazis, pedos, and a hub for human trafficking. "Ukraine needed to be liberated from all that." I was under the impression those aspects had already been debunked when it was fresh. The justifications for any action are astonishing!
1
u/Bustabusnow Feb 21 '25
Hey just wanted to thank you for this. Like other people said this makes a lot of my thoughts feel real and valid. Stuff like this is a game changer. Itâs so hard when you can see what these assholes are doing but canât explain it or put it into words. Just wanted to let you know this is awesome and appreciated!
1
u/FuneralSafari Feb 21 '25
You're welcome, stranger. I got tired of seeing people who aren't good at debating lose arguments even when they're right. Some people want to inform, so they jump on a panel of tiktok debaters and then get crushed completely.
1
u/Ging287 Feb 21 '25
Thank you OP, appreciate the effort in dismantling nonsensical, asinine arguments that do nothing to further the marketplace of ideas. They haven't won any argument, they like a parrot just shits on the chessboard, throws pieces around, and proclaimed they won.
1
1
u/Big-Delay4111 Feb 22 '25
So how do we insert a Virus into the Hive to disrupt and Destroy maga once and for all?
1
1
Feb 25 '25
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 25 '25
Direct links to sites with too much unchecked misinformation or outrage farming are banned. Use an archival site (e.g. archive.is) or screenshot site (e.g. imgur.com) instead.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
0
Feb 21 '25
10-Minute conversation with Chet CPT, you can debunk any mega argument, only because chachubt is able to understand the layers of their argument, for instance, it being a straw man argument most of the time
1
0
u/SheepherderThis6037 Feb 23 '25
I mean, I only got down to the first arguments part but the problem with this is that a lot of what youâre saying hinges on your perspective and assumptions that donât pan out.
Like, you list MAGA damage as COVID deaths, economic crashes and voter suppression.
Less people died of COVID then initially predicted, and the vaccines being lied about was a huge contribution to the public distrusting the medical community. Democrats also stuffed COVID patients in retirement homes and refused funding from the federal government to spite Trump.
Bidenâs economy was widely seen as awful and his party is currently in histrionics because we arenât blowing billions of dollars on straight nonsense.
The concerns about the 2020 election were completely dismissed and demonized to the point it really seems like thereâs some fire to the smoke.
Like, these arguments youâre making work on Reddit, not in real life.
0
u/Ok-Presence7075 Feb 28 '25
You lost me at idiot. I am kind and respectful, I think carefully, and try always to stay civil.
I read, blogged, and debated this topic for the last year of Madeleine Albright's tenure and the first year of Bill Richardson's. I have never put myself forward as an expert. If I were an expert, I would not be in this conversation.
I stopped reading your post at idiot, but there is a glaring flaw in your reasoning in paragraph one.
Please don't heckle me with more replies. They won't be read. There are way too many nice people on Reddit to waste another second on you.
If you're depressed, get help.
-6
u/Shot-Measurement8197 Feb 21 '25
This is hilarious! How To Argue With MAGA for Dummies!!! Dems are so lost! No leader, no ideas, all you have is 'destroy Trump'. Let us know how DEMS can help our country, that's all you need to do! Leave the name Trump out of your conversation and just give us your bright ideas!
7
u/FuneralSafari Feb 21 '25
Its not about destroying trump, its an overall point that you guys engage in cult-esque responses not actual dialogue.
-8
u/Shot-Measurement8197 Feb 21 '25
It's ONLY about destroying Trump! You guys prove that everyday, all day. We are not cult-esque, we are believers in his agenda and we trust him to make this country great. It's as simple as that. When Democrats have a leader and an agenda to better the people of the country, maybe people will actually listen. All the gatherings and singing and foolish protests going on now are just noise.
3
u/lohonomo Feb 21 '25
"We are not cult-esque, we are believers in his agenda and we trust him to make this country great. It's as simple as that."
Is this satire?
1
u/LegendTheo Feb 22 '25
What's satire? That's literally the reason to vote for a politician. Because you like their policies more than their opponent and trust them to do those policies.
If you don't vote for politicians for this reason, how do you decide who to vote for?
1
u/Lighting Feb 22 '25
We are not cult-esque
Really? Ok one quick question:
Who started the war in Ukraine?
1
1
Feb 22 '25
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 22 '25
Direct links to sites with too much unchecked misinformation or outrage farming are banned. Use an archival site (e.g. archive.is) or screenshot site (e.g. imgur.com) instead.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-3
u/Shot-Measurement8197 Feb 22 '25
Your question has nothing to do with this topic. It is about the How To Argue With MAGA guide! I commented that it's hilarious....BTW, President Trump is working diligently to bring a peaceful end to this war but Ukraine is spoiled after Biden showered him with billions of our tax dollars! Ukraine's so called leader wants the war to continue but of course, he's not fighting in it.
1
u/Bonespurfoundation Feb 22 '25
Seriously? Soap operas?
I canât think of a better way to prove youâre a dim witted loser.
0
-10
u/Ok-Communication1149 Feb 21 '25
Wouldn't the time be better spent finding ways to make Democrats winners again?
MAGA didn't elect Trump. Harris did by being such a shitty candidate.
8
u/Trapped-In-The_90s Feb 21 '25
MAGA did elect trump, in the primaries and in the election. They hold all responsibility.
And any person not actively trying to dismantle our democracy would have been a better candidate than Trump
-7
u/Ok-Communication1149 Feb 21 '25
Political extremists make up only about 25% of each party.
You'll have to check your bias if you want the objective truth.
The fact is that Kamala won Trump over two million votes somehow. MAGA had nothing to do with it
0
u/lohonomo Feb 21 '25
One thing fascists and leftists agree on is that kamala lost because she was a shitty candidate with a terrible strategy.
0
u/Ok-Communication1149 Feb 22 '25
Eight million Americans plus the ones like me who voted for her just to vote against Trump knew Kamala ran a shitty campaign.
It's astounding to see the idea that farmers, racists, MAGA, Joe Rogan, Elon, or whatever is to blame for it.
I just hope Democrats don't get comfortable in their bubble chamber for future elections.
-17
u/Turbulent_Work_6685 Feb 21 '25
I feel like I just read the work product of a 6th grade "debate club".
7
4
2
-2
-4
Feb 22 '25
How do you argue with me when I donât take you seriously and ignore you? Itâs funny yall need a manual. Yall basically have to be told what to believe and in which manner.
-4
-14
u/the_truth1051 Feb 21 '25
Sounds like a narcissist that knows everything. But keep track for us, it's good reading
1
u/lohonomo Feb 21 '25
You didn't even read it lol
0
u/LegendTheo Feb 22 '25
Well I read a good portion of it. I don't totally agree about the narcissism, but the blanket assumption that Republicans are just wrong certainly points that way.
What it does look like is heavy projection from someone who embodies all of the things they claim Republicans do. I'm not saying there ain't Republicans who do that, there are. The OP clearly is guilty of basically everything their accuse Republicans of based on the responses provided in the examples.
134
u/fox-mcleod Feb 21 '25
Well that was cathartic.
I feel seen.
As someone who spends their time debating these people to try and understand how they work, I can tell youâve been doing the same.
Back when this all started, Masha Gessin wrote a price for the Atlantic austensibly about Russian culture under Putin - but in an interview, it became apparent he was making a prediction that Trump would win and how his supporters would behave.
He said something I literally could not understand at the time. He was asked, âbut what do they actually think about Putinâ.
He replied: âNo, youâre not hearing me. They do not think. They listen for what they are to say, and they repeat what they hear.â