BurnedOut
Beloved Antichrist
DISCLAIMER : This is an official guide to 'How To Be An Asshole. The key to survival in a world where you are rejected before being given a chance.'
PS:I like dark humour. If anyone starting from 18/4/18 till 0xFFFFFFF gets butthurt by my posts, I don't care.
I personally prefer using optimal amounts of facts and logical deductions to tear down arguments. Stats work great notwithstanding their actual validity. I have developed this habit of destroying someone's point of view significantly by using the 'courtroom' style of arguing. When facts and logic is presented clearly, which I always recommend for both debating, arguing and studying, things suddenly make quite easy to comprehend.
I'll recommend seasoned debaters and charmers to read thinking fast and slow to hone your skills even more. I'll list down some common bullshitting-tactics people/experts use :
1.I believe in most debates people end up worshipping their hubris, fall prey to using
**social validation to their pov and references to run down their opponent's argument**
Eg. " At least everyone agrees with me, what about you ? It's not even practical/appealing and hence it's bullshit per se"
This is clearly a 3-line bullshitter. Firstly, psychology plays a huge role in this phenomenon, analysing the context and questioning the people who have rife opinions about a leverage they have against you, you'll end realising that it's nothing or too illogical. How does people agreeing with your argument makes it stronger and from where does practicality spring up suddenly when the whole debate is itself **Hypothetical**?
2. The argument of practicality.
A proper point, or at least a logically sound one, requires some amount of thinking notwithstanding your intellect but directly correlated with your **nitpicking skills** and **conditioning-to-arguments**. By that I mean, the more seasoned you are with debates and spotting differences frequently, you will have an upper hand tearing down arguments. This is especially (acc. To me) true with coders, philosophers, mathematicians or any professional who has to deal with analytical things.
The argument of practicality arises as the third-last defence while defending your pov in vain. It says, #Assuming minimal efficiency, creativity, how well does your argument fare in terms of highly-conventional context ?# Obviously as you can see this is a predecessor to the another bullshitting-tactic of **oversimplification**. Eg.
Context : The person you are talking to has bought an expensive dress, is wearing it and getting compliments about it. The day before, you see one of her friends glimmering her newly bought grandilo-smartphone to everyone in her group. You bump into that girl, she snides at you for #crumpling her newly-bought 500000000000$ dress and explicitly tells you about it and you get angry and an argument ensues. This will be from my pov, as a good debater :
Me : Well, I saw your friend shining her 1mil smartphone. Quite a strange yet ubiquitous coincidence you seem so lovely today !
She : So what ? What the fuck do you mean ? You nearly ruined my neatly ironed dress and not even apologizing for it. Moreover you need to stop getting paranoid. Really. How does my buying of dress end up getting related to her cellphone ? Why do you think everything is connected ? Stupid fuck.
Me : Errrrr...Weren't you busy yesterday, prepping for today's paper ? I suppose under *quoting with two fingers**statistically normal circumstances, a person is unlikely to go shopping***unquote*. Maybe, you should perhaps grab a bite of selfesteem. It works a lot.
She : 'Ever heard of free will'? Are you suggesting that I became jealous of her ? Hell no, you are being hurtful right now. And no, I did study, I had to go shop for the party I am planning to attend.
Me: *Sighs* *Snides* *Laughing inside*
She : I knew you wouldn't say a thing. BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE ANY ARGUMENTS. Your theories simply don't work in reality and they are crap.
Me : *Finally Agitated* """Enter all the relevant args needed to explain my point **bluntly**"""
Usually, I do pick on people for their typical-ass behaviour. Not because I feel jealous but because they keep on denying about truth, not politely, in a rather pompous way that is bound to get on my nerves. Moreover the above argument is an analogy that I face on quite a periodic basis during personal fights. As you can see, the female continues to :
1. Try to use the term 'free will'
2. Overpopulate the argument with 'feel' words
3. Deliberately act ignorant
4. Be histrionic
Believe me or not, bystanders often end up supporting the histrionic person once the person plays the card of 'free will' and 'you-are-paranoid'
Easiest way to crush these arguments :
1. Use logic and target the histrionic behaviour. If you are well versed with body-language and microexpressions, that's better but you may seem weird while employing these tactics ( for socially conscious INTPs)
2. Use logic and throw psychology. Use the faculty of theorising, speculation and hindsight 20/20 tactic to bring down the argument
3. The moralistic argumentative bullshitter:
These ones are the biggest pain in the ass, both during tete-a-tete and socially-populated-situated-arguments. This is most commonly used by bullshiters to support their fallible arguments, most commonly to justify an action which dominates someone and religious debates and while protecting their admired socialite. The most commonly used used words here is 'feelings', 'but', 'understand','intention', 'care', 'purpose'. Once these words start popping up too frequently when the person is exhausted of logic, be prepared, you are up against a histrionist again.
Understanding these people : It's a common thing for us to resort to emotions on the brink of losing a debate after it hits our self esteem. However this situation should and commonly ensues in situations where no logical reasoning/facts are required in huge quantities ie an emotionally charged fight with two closely-related people. However, people employ this tactic quite early in an argument. Their intention is to emotionally-influence you and the people around you (who are used as leverage) to dissuade you from debating any further by questioning the **practicality²** of your debate. I face these arguments mostly from females when caught deceiving in a situation and from popular (aspirant too) people while arguing who are prone to have a :
1.good reputation of seeming:
1. Naive
2. Empathetic
3. Friendly/Gregarious
4. Influential
5. Intelligent/Wise/gets awesome grades .
Eg.
Context : You are debating about a politician who has done nothing significant but adverting his campaigns about achievements like he has eradicated poverty from the world.
Me : I've read up on this guy, he's mostly a bullshitter. This new law of **allowing immigrants to assume citizenship after getting employed for 1/4th the usual wage** is crap. As far as I know, this is not good for the employment rate of the country and can potentially lead to violent clashes/ a vote of no-confidence being passed against the government. Who wants anarchy for simply cutting-corners to avoid spending too much on wage distribution ? Not to mention widespread exploitation.
He : Are you kidding me ? He has also **promised** to provide with advanced-vocational training institutes for any citizen who were born in the country. A reservation rate is also being discussed for these locals along with subsidising higher education fees.
Me : Do you see any particular gestalt benefit ? I think they should scrap the whole thing. It's crap anyway. This is a pain in the ass for the economy
He : isn't it a common thing to get hated for doing something good ? This guy is helping everyone, the downtrodden illegal immigrants and the locals as well.
Me : Economically speaking...* You stop realising it's futile*
He : you are simply being paranoid. Maybe you should let things take the course and scrap the logic. This guy is a god-send, the past doesn't really matter now. Guys like you are responsible for underdevelopment of the country and eradication of all the good people in the world. Who not join ISIS ?
Me: Good, I'll kill you first with that Kalishnikov.
I'm busy currently, will update this later
Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
PS:I like dark humour. If anyone starting from 18/4/18 till 0xFFFFFFF gets butthurt by my posts, I don't care.
I personally prefer using optimal amounts of facts and logical deductions to tear down arguments. Stats work great notwithstanding their actual validity. I have developed this habit of destroying someone's point of view significantly by using the 'courtroom' style of arguing. When facts and logic is presented clearly, which I always recommend for both debating, arguing and studying, things suddenly make quite easy to comprehend.
I'll recommend seasoned debaters and charmers to read thinking fast and slow to hone your skills even more. I'll list down some common bullshitting-tactics people/experts use :
1.I believe in most debates people end up worshipping their hubris, fall prey to using
**social validation to their pov and references to run down their opponent's argument**
Eg. " At least everyone agrees with me, what about you ? It's not even practical/appealing and hence it's bullshit per se"
This is clearly a 3-line bullshitter. Firstly, psychology plays a huge role in this phenomenon, analysing the context and questioning the people who have rife opinions about a leverage they have against you, you'll end realising that it's nothing or too illogical. How does people agreeing with your argument makes it stronger and from where does practicality spring up suddenly when the whole debate is itself **Hypothetical**?
2. The argument of practicality.
A proper point, or at least a logically sound one, requires some amount of thinking notwithstanding your intellect but directly correlated with your **nitpicking skills** and **conditioning-to-arguments**. By that I mean, the more seasoned you are with debates and spotting differences frequently, you will have an upper hand tearing down arguments. This is especially (acc. To me) true with coders, philosophers, mathematicians or any professional who has to deal with analytical things.
The argument of practicality arises as the third-last defence while defending your pov in vain. It says, #Assuming minimal efficiency, creativity, how well does your argument fare in terms of highly-conventional context ?# Obviously as you can see this is a predecessor to the another bullshitting-tactic of **oversimplification**. Eg.
Context : The person you are talking to has bought an expensive dress, is wearing it and getting compliments about it. The day before, you see one of her friends glimmering her newly bought grandilo-smartphone to everyone in her group. You bump into that girl, she snides at you for #crumpling her newly-bought 500000000000$ dress and explicitly tells you about it and you get angry and an argument ensues. This will be from my pov, as a good debater :
Me : Well, I saw your friend shining her 1mil smartphone. Quite a strange yet ubiquitous coincidence you seem so lovely today !
She : So what ? What the fuck do you mean ? You nearly ruined my neatly ironed dress and not even apologizing for it. Moreover you need to stop getting paranoid. Really. How does my buying of dress end up getting related to her cellphone ? Why do you think everything is connected ? Stupid fuck.
Me : Errrrr...Weren't you busy yesterday, prepping for today's paper ? I suppose under *quoting with two fingers**statistically normal circumstances, a person is unlikely to go shopping***unquote*. Maybe, you should perhaps grab a bite of selfesteem. It works a lot.
She : 'Ever heard of free will'? Are you suggesting that I became jealous of her ? Hell no, you are being hurtful right now. And no, I did study, I had to go shop for the party I am planning to attend.
Me: *Sighs* *Snides* *Laughing inside*
She : I knew you wouldn't say a thing. BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE ANY ARGUMENTS. Your theories simply don't work in reality and they are crap.
Me : *Finally Agitated* """Enter all the relevant args needed to explain my point **bluntly**"""
Usually, I do pick on people for their typical-ass behaviour. Not because I feel jealous but because they keep on denying about truth, not politely, in a rather pompous way that is bound to get on my nerves. Moreover the above argument is an analogy that I face on quite a periodic basis during personal fights. As you can see, the female continues to :
1. Try to use the term 'free will'
2. Overpopulate the argument with 'feel' words
3. Deliberately act ignorant
4. Be histrionic
Believe me or not, bystanders often end up supporting the histrionic person once the person plays the card of 'free will' and 'you-are-paranoid'
Easiest way to crush these arguments :
1. Use logic and target the histrionic behaviour. If you are well versed with body-language and microexpressions, that's better but you may seem weird while employing these tactics ( for socially conscious INTPs)
2. Use logic and throw psychology. Use the faculty of theorising, speculation and hindsight 20/20 tactic to bring down the argument
3. The moralistic argumentative bullshitter:
These ones are the biggest pain in the ass, both during tete-a-tete and socially-populated-situated-arguments. This is most commonly used by bullshiters to support their fallible arguments, most commonly to justify an action which dominates someone and religious debates and while protecting their admired socialite. The most commonly used used words here is 'feelings', 'but', 'understand','intention', 'care', 'purpose'. Once these words start popping up too frequently when the person is exhausted of logic, be prepared, you are up against a histrionist again.
Understanding these people : It's a common thing for us to resort to emotions on the brink of losing a debate after it hits our self esteem. However this situation should and commonly ensues in situations where no logical reasoning/facts are required in huge quantities ie an emotionally charged fight with two closely-related people. However, people employ this tactic quite early in an argument. Their intention is to emotionally-influence you and the people around you (who are used as leverage) to dissuade you from debating any further by questioning the **practicality²** of your debate. I face these arguments mostly from females when caught deceiving in a situation and from popular (aspirant too) people while arguing who are prone to have a :
1.good reputation of seeming:
1. Naive
2. Empathetic
3. Friendly/Gregarious
4. Influential
5. Intelligent/Wise/gets awesome grades .
Eg.
Context : You are debating about a politician who has done nothing significant but adverting his campaigns about achievements like he has eradicated poverty from the world.
Me : I've read up on this guy, he's mostly a bullshitter. This new law of **allowing immigrants to assume citizenship after getting employed for 1/4th the usual wage** is crap. As far as I know, this is not good for the employment rate of the country and can potentially lead to violent clashes/ a vote of no-confidence being passed against the government. Who wants anarchy for simply cutting-corners to avoid spending too much on wage distribution ? Not to mention widespread exploitation.
He : Are you kidding me ? He has also **promised** to provide with advanced-vocational training institutes for any citizen who were born in the country. A reservation rate is also being discussed for these locals along with subsidising higher education fees.
Me : Do you see any particular gestalt benefit ? I think they should scrap the whole thing. It's crap anyway. This is a pain in the ass for the economy
He : isn't it a common thing to get hated for doing something good ? This guy is helping everyone, the downtrodden illegal immigrants and the locals as well.
Me : Economically speaking...* You stop realising it's futile*
He : you are simply being paranoid. Maybe you should let things take the course and scrap the logic. This guy is a god-send, the past doesn't really matter now. Guys like you are responsible for underdevelopment of the country and eradication of all the good people in the world. Who not join ISIS ?
Me: Good, I'll kill you first with that Kalishnikov.
I'm busy currently, will update this later
Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk
Last edited: