One of the things red pill men will encounter in arguing against feminists and their enablers is a whole toolkit of shaming tactics that are employed to try and stop the arguments. These femtards do not want the truth of what they are saying to try to come out. If anything the fact that they are using this kind of strategy to stop the argument should tell you something about them. That is the fact that they regard the flinging of shame and name calling to be an effective tactic means that returning fire upon them will have a much more devastating effect.
The silencers are by nature herd creatures. They need to feel part of the in group to be able to believe that their arguments are effective. Your strategy is to find ways to separate them out from the herd. For more information take a look at http://www.anonymousconservative.com/.
The reason I say part 1 is that the silencing/shaming tactics are many so it will be useful to develop a toolkit over time. I often have thoughts on how to deal with these underhanded tactics and believe that lovers of truth should be given the tools to send these silencers packing.
So lets deal with the first silencing tactic. This one is especially common in the Christian community. Suppose you say something negative against a person or a group of people regarding their behaviour. We’ll take the favourite whipping boy of Christians in general i.e. homosexuality as an example.
FM(Father Marker) “Don’t you know that homosexuals will never go into the kingdom?”
LC(Liberal Christian) “You shouldn’t be judgemental”.
FM “Are you saying that I’m being judgemental?”
LC “Yes I am”
FM “Are you serious about that?”
LC “Indeed I am”
FM “So please explain to me how you’re allowed to judge that I’m judgemental but I’m not allowed to be judgemental.”
At this point they may denial that they have indulged in any kind of judgementalism of their own in which case you can ask them how they managed to determine that you were being judgemental without using some kind of standard against which to judge that you were being judgemental. Lets face it the accuser of judgementalism is being just as judgemental as the person they are accusing.
The reason that you continue to question the seriousness of their claim is that libtards have developed a new strategy once you corner them. i.e. deny the seriousness of their claim by trying to claim that they were only joking. It is a lot more difficult to back out of a claim of only joking when you have caused them to assert the seriousness of the viewpoint that they have utter. However even if they are able to back out of their claim through the “only joking” path that presents them with a new difficulty. If they ever try to do that your immediate response is to question them by asking them “So if you’re joking as you are now claiming then how can I take seriously anything else you say in dialogue?”
Adventist Red Pill Men 