Comment: Depends on your audience

(See in situ)


Depends on your audience

sometimes A (discussing principles, rights, liberty, constitution etc. in relation to events) is more effective, sometimes B(discussing possible conspiracy and compelling evidence of such) is more effective in waking people up. Sometimes a clever combination of the two does the trick. It all depends on your audience.

Personally I lean more towards A. I find it more effective with those with whom I associate. B is useful sometimes if the audience is more receptive to it. B sometimes helps others become more receptive to A as Jiminy points out below. Sometimes vice versa. The key is knowing your audience, knowing your facts and not destroying your credibility by insisting on something that later turns out to be not true.

I have no problem discussing facts, evidence, possible scenarios, possible motives, details, unfolding information, differing viewpoints. I find that all well and good. It's healthy. It's transparent. What I do have a problem with is when that discussion turns to certainty without the sufficient proof to back it up. When people jump to conclusions on very little evidence. When baseless claims are made. When ad hominem, emotion, speculation and egos drive the discussion instead of cold hard facts and logic. That's when it becomes a problem. That's when you lose credibility and you lose effectiveness in promoting liberty.

I believe what makes the DP special among liberty websites (and why I prefer above others) is that for the most part, that sort of thing isn't put up with. You can say what you like but if you can't back it up you will be shouted down with reasonable arguments. If it's particularly egregious the mods or Michael steps in to put a stop to the nonsense. Even still they let quite a bit fly and allow us the opportunity to have real open discussion on quite a wide range of controversial topics and view points. The Dp isnt dry, sanitized or boring like some sites, and it's not the extreme, unaccountable, off in la la land sensationalism you find elsewhere. It's a place where reasonable debate can occur over almost any subject. Yes mistakes may sometimes be made and egos bruised but I haven't seen anything over the top. I also haven't seen anyone else do it better. If you have found such a place, good for you. Enjoy it wherever that may be.

In short, discussing possible conspiracy, fine, not always the most effective or worthwhile depending on your audience, but fine. Claiming "conspira-fact", without sufficient evidence, is potentially harmful and destructive towards your credibility and effectiveness in promoting liberty if it turns out you're wrong. I prefer to drive people more towards the A argument, it's more rock solid than the B argument that is murky and convoluted at best, and doesnt leaves you vulnerable to being discredited and dismissed.