we do so much of it, yet talk so little at how to get better.
in the areas of:
political strategy
media management
running a political group and engaging members
social media and encouraging p2p influence
rhetoric
combating false information and poor public perception
post any resources you have, anything you have seen working, and anything relevant
.... Go on
we used to make them infographics that were convincing. They often had citations for refuting and counterargument.
but shit posting is more fun.
This is will come in handy, 10 points to op
I would add a few basics of mach-pollitic, roughly and in brief
the objective is to position yourself among a number of groups in a way that maximizes the damage they do to each other
common manifestations are
1. bait and bleed: encouraging two groups to fight one another
2 .balancing: creating alliances to ensure mutual survival
3. hegemony: creating a system where groups you dominate do your work for you
on a small scale this is done most easily by enciting two groups into an ugly conflict and standing clear, best done early in a campaign
joining or merging with similar groups to make a council or alliance, this from my experience is best done on an official level where it's controllable, tie in with another groups marches and protests and you risk being bundled in with them in a way that's hard to avoid
always remember that you're fighting over the opinion of the majority, not against the opposition
attack too widely and you will quickly alienate your group
Remain calm through the debate. That's the only advice you need.
on public speaking
successful leaders have created a "personal brand" based on characteristics
mao was a father figure for instance
hitler was a strong man, but also good natured
churchill was gruff and good natured
trump was a comedian
your "personal brand" will likely devlop on it's own, and is difficult to pick; it's more a matter of acknowledging your brand so as to play to it's strengths
this can be used to make you likable, and explain away unpopular decisions you make to some extent
"trump lacks sources and redebility, but that's ok because he's only joking"
"Churchill was slow to seek allies, but he's a prick so what would you expect"
"moa is very authoritarian, but he is doing what is best for us"
remember it's public perception that is the game here, not what you actually do
>>55480073
this was a personal charicteristic of obama, his cool head was notable
but some leaders were known to come out with fire and brimstone, and it worked for them
more emotional figures tend to endear more support, if people feel your wins and losses they are more likely to be in your corner
remain cool headed all the time and you have more authority,and appeal with "thinking people" but less appeal with people who arn't as engaged, or are stupid
Name calling is not an aspect of debate. If someone calls you a kek it's just to express disdain.
>>55479410
Nice edit, it's undeniable truth that posting a picture of a smug anime girl beats everything
As I said in an earlier thread:
Ideally, try to debate someone using their own philosophy and frameworks. Arguments are based on premises, if your argument does not work with the premises of your audience, it will not work. This is where a lot of those of a nationalist bent fail, for instance; they take it for granted that national unity and pride are goals to strive for for their own sake. Instead appeal to utility if, for instance, you are arguing that European migrant policy allows too many, or that US immigration policy should be tightened. It is said that people are illogical, and while this may be true, many instances of illogical thoughts and actions are a matter of differing premises, not differing logic.
On Pathos, try to offer a "light" to strive for with everyone. The core reason /pol/ is, well, /pol/, is that our positions are considered hateful, bigoted, etc. And frankly, when it's commonplace to see anons saying that kikes should be gassed, niggers should be sent back to nigger Africa or enslaved, women are parasites (looking at you cunt-spammer), that's not altogether unreasonable, "muh feels" aside.
While some positions inevitably require a certain harshness in their execution, and shitposting is all fine and dandy, try to argue your positions as an advancement for all involved, in terms of utility and dignity. And, in this process, also consider your own positions in light of this. Mexicans may need to be deported for the good of America, but maybe expanded international business could help them gain the wealth they jumped the fence for without the problems associated with immigration. American blacks have historically performed much better than today in many pre-1964 contexts, so while you may advocate segregation there may well be a way up for blacks after all. Again, some harshness is innate, we live in an imperfect world, but people are hesitant to consign others to hell. Offer one to heaven instead, however harsh it may be.
on campaigning:
campaigns are almost universally acknowledged to be better when they are simple
"single issue politicians" have an advantage for that reason, but are hurt badly in the long run because they often loose supporters as their responsibility broadens and they have to from coalitions as a necessity
in australia the "motoring enthusiasts party" a single issue pro-car owner group actually managed to gain a seat, but when faced with non-motoring issues (of which there are many) floundered, finding the oppinions of their supporters too mixed to cater to. they lost support with every "non motoring" move they made
they were sought out as easy allies because of their need, but it was hard to justify alliances with a group so narrow, and the broader public saw it as a transparent grab for a vote; which ultimately hurt the larger partys that courted with them
ideally you have "core values/policy" that link in with other issues
anti-immigration ties well with nationalism, unemployment concerns, public service burden, religious issues etc, so as a campaigner continues they have leeway to shift in response to events and emphasis
in contrast, the motoring enthusiasts party had only "roads" "petrol prices" and "motorists concerns" to go on, and found themselves irelevant for most of the ampaign
you must avoid irrelevance at all costs, for this reason most major parties take a very very broad core belief
in the final days of a campaign, if your "core belief" was firm in the mids of voters through the campaign, you can use it with more effect; especially if you plan on closing with a possitive self message
eg "I always stood for motoring enthusiasts, right throughout the campaign, and you can trust me to do so in the future" would be a very strong message for the people it resonated with (in this case, very few)
>>55480468
ah, you are dead wrong their friend
name calling is not an aspect of LOGIC, but it's a large component of PERSUASION
you can totally use name calling, slurs, negative language, unfair generalizations, misrepresentations etc in a campaign
in fact I would go so far as to say that every logical fallacy in the sticky is actually a political tool
you can claim your opponents argument is fallacious, but if people don't believe you, or more often they don't care; good luck winning support
>>55480708
>to argue against someone in their own framework
I really have to object to this
what you end up doing is not only letting your opponent pick the battle ground, you actually validate their process subliminally
you end up fighting a crocodile in the pond
it's wise to presume your opponents are more practiced in what they do than you are, you don't want to set yourself up for a loss
if they provide statistics, presume it's their forte
if you bring your own statistics, they may well shoot you down
what makes that worse is that you are saying to everyone "I believe in the thing that just beat me"
you are better off telling people "ignore the statistics and focus on what it means individually to you"
vs. "the personal risk is overblown, look at the statistics"
"ignore what third parties say, it's for us to decide"
vs. "look at the direction everyone else is going"
just something to think about
do we have lurkers?
I know I'm posting hard here, but I just want to get some things out to keep shitposting to a minimum
>>55481328
I should clarify that, unless they're fundamentally self-contradictory, you're going to bring in some points of your own. Mainly I'm trying to caution against arguing from a completely different perspective; i.e using fundamentally religious arguments against an atheist, or appealing to a utilitarian with virtue ethics. Naturally there is a game of risk management involved; go too far in to their assumptions, they'll outargue you by sheer greater knowledge and footing, while arguing using your own alien belief system will simply be talking past them.
Much of arguing is about contradicting your opponents points, and the sharpest contradictions of all are obtained with their own points.
As a casual fan of arguments I'll add two points I have learnt about certain fallacies.
1. Identify when someone is straw-manning you and stop it ASAP by differentiating yourself from said strawman.
2. The slippery slope is NOT a fallacy. There can be clearly defined ideological connections between one argument, and another argument. It's hard for me to explain but I feel very strongly that this is used a lot to create a false separation between a current ideological goal, and a foreseeable similar one in the near future.
Ben Shapiro is worth a listen to as well.
>>55480689
He's right
>>55482066
I hear what you're saying, but remember the fundimental
you're not trying to persuade the opposition, this isn't a negotiation it's politics
you want to persuade the majority, often even speaking the same language is a disadvantage
if it's a religious argument, using athiest language when speaking to the atheists is going to make you less credible in the eyes of your supporters, and you won't have much credibility in the eyes of atheists
you're speaking to the broader public, try to get them using your terminology, your phrases
it sets them up to see your perspective
don't validate your opponants methodology, their argument structure, anything they do
Christians have won debated because their arguments are largely unreachable by the opposition, they didn't use statistics, public good arguments, they made their own language, and refused to enter into debate any other way
see I don't think it's about contradicting opponents points, thats debating rules
easier to stop people caring than it is to stop them agreeing
easier to say "look a this stupid language they use" than to try to use it yourself
when the army speaks they invented ther own voice, with it's own language full of euphemisms
people knew soldiers died, but they cared less because they were "casualties"
in respons the anti war movement took the line that "the army is covering up it's actions with vague language"
every time the army used vague language, they softened some of the public, and angered another part
but it was the anti-war groups that drew that line, and to the degree is was usable it worked
>>55482752
part of the straw mans effectiveneess is that it's really hard to deferneciate yourself from one that is well constructed
for one if the right says "the left are stupid", the left can't even speak to the supporters of the right effectively
seems to me it's better to say
"we are strong" than to say
"they call us weak, but we are strong"
don't even repeat their slanders
>>55482889
points for editing speed
>>55479410
shut up shitposter
xDDDDDDDDDDDD
>>55479410
hmmm, reminds me of chomsky vs harris email thing
on gaining influence
it can be hard to build a following if your suporters feel their vote is wasted, their money is quandered, or their efforts are ignored by the community
it's vital that action follows thought, or you will have no momentum and end up like so many anarchist/communist groups that just sit around writing and re-writing party documents
in a democracy, it can be really hard for small groups, because even with votes they can't get action taken without larger parties approval
what I would suggest
1. provide regular feedback on how funds are being spend, it's important that this is %100 accurate or you are well into scandal territory
world vision took this approach and was highly successful, people saw their money going to work
2. gain influence outside of the democratic system
buisiness councils, church groups, advisory bodies, lobbies etc
have your people put one foot in everyone elses door that won't pull them in
it's easy to look like you lost after voting time, but easy to make it look like you're winning if you are playing many games at once
this broad base of support is vital, it means you can act anonymously, deflect criticism, and disperse factions to stop them fighting
court the wealthy, it's a dirty game but you have to play it
they will laugh at bribes and offers to put their face on your organization, but will trade for introductions to other people worth knowing
invite them to open functions for instance, where they can meet new people
3. start your own projects
nothing says "we will do this" like a group that is already doing it
get community involved, in events related or unrelated to the group
plant some trees, help the elderly, have a group lunch in a public park
that's community building, get the community used to seeing you
4. reach out to the community, offer to help smaller groups with "goodwill" tasks in a genuine way, on a regular basis, build partnerships
it's a great way to get new members, and train new ones
>>55484782
cont
5. allow people to reach out to you
everything you send out overtly should have your contact details on it
make room for people who arn't members to get involved, make your organization open, don't clamour over new people or groups
let the community come to you with their concerns, nothing enfranchises more than when they feel like they owe you, or when they have put their hands up themselves
try to separate "hardcore" elements from new members, keep your hardcore supporters busy with regular work, and regular recognition
members that are too extreme in their support hurt you, remember that
it's better to just bore them until they loose interest, to stop friction within the orginisation
don't put too many new members in the same place at once, you don't want them veering off in the wrong direction, or being poached by other groups
and you REALLY don't want new members to feel pushed or restricted
start it as a friendly discussion, ask them what they care about, from there build teams
