Why it felt like Rand was shouting into an EMPTY DARK ROOM

[robskicks]

Persuasion. No matter how much we want it to be about the issues, it's not.

IT'S ABOUT EMOTIONS. Conquer emotions by using persuasion. Here's an example from Scott Adams.

Just to give you a general idea of the things that he does, he likes to pick really visual images, because the mind just goes to visual. It's what you remember. So when Trump talks about his policies, he says, "I am going to build a big, beautiful wall with a door," so you've got this perfect mental image.

If he is talking about ISIS, he doesn't talk about, "Well, we are trying to beat an idea," or anything like that. He says, "They're cutting off people's heads and they're putting them in cages and drowning them." So it is this visceral, visual image.

If you compare that to, say, [Kentucky Sen.] Rand Paul, when he was in the race, it is hard to remember what Rand Paul was for because although his ideas might have been terrific, they didn't have a visual component. What does the Federal Reserve look like? Something, something, the Fed. That's just one example.

 

[acptulsa]

It's a very valid point, and I think his old man was only marginally better at it than he. I find that I get a much better reaction from things like this...

I think what the newcomer to this discussion has the most trouble understanding is the dollar is not a dollar--it's a nickel.

What do I mean? Well, my old man got out of the Army Air Corps after WWII and got himself a good job paying a dollar an hour. How is that a good job? Easy--it was 1946 and the dollar was still a dollar. As in, when he wanted a Pepsi he paid a nickel for it--now it costs a dollar. When he wanted to ride a bus, he put seven cents in the meter, or a nickel and a half--now it costs a buck and a half. When he wanted to sit down and have a cup of regular old coffee, he paid a dime, or two nickels--now it costs two bucks. When he put gas in the car (it was always cheap in Oklahoma), he paid 14.9 cents per gallon, or three nickles--now it costs three bucks. When he was hungry for lunch, he bought a deluxe double hamburger with all the trimmings for a silver quarter, or five nickles--now it costs five bucks. When he wanted to go to a movie, he paid thirty-five cents or seven nickles--now it costs seven bucks. And when he shopped for a new top of the line Dodge Custom with heater and radio and other options, it would set him back two grand, or forty thousand nickles--now it costs forty thousand dollars.

The Pepsi isn't any wetter, the gas doesn't burn any brighter, the double burger isn't any more filling, and the movie doesn't last any longer today (with no newsreel, serial and cartoon, it actually doesn't last as long). So, there's only one explanation. The dollar is no longer worth a dollar. The dollar is worth a nickel. Period.

Why do you think all the five and ten cent stores have been replaced with dollar stores?

...than with theories or with charts. In fact, I think that's why people like Zippy use charts so much--they lend the impression that the person speaking isn't just talking out his ass, but who knows what the chart really shows? All it seems to do is shut down discussion, and leave listeners feeling vaguely satisfied that they saw something tangible, but without having gained any real understanding of the issue.

Johnson, too, is not very strong on the more picturesque speech. I think libertarians, and Libertarians, and the whole lot of us need to take this issue to heart, and stock our verbal arsenal of arguments with less of an eye toward being heavy on theory or 'bulletproof' facts, and more of an eye toward helping people get a 'visual'-quality understanding of what we propose and why it works.

 

[younglibertarian]

The problem is that the problem is complicated and the solution is hard for newcomers to understand. There simply are no one liners.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I think AF is right: people don't want freedom. I think they might want freedom for themselves, but they want other people to be managed. You can't have it both ways.

 

[presence]

"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

 

[nikcers]

This is voting in a nut shell.

[FONT=&quot]Then the most extraordinary rats were those were the electrode was planted halfway between the pleasure and the pain center. The result was a kind of mixture of the most wonderful ecstasy and like being on the rack at the same time. And you would see the rats sort of looking at is bar and sort of saying “To be or not to be that is the question”. Finally it would approach {Pounds on podium} and go back with this awful I mean, the (sounds like franken huminizer anthropomorphizer), and he would wait some time before pressing the bar again, yet he would always press it again. This was the extraordinary thing.[/FONT]

 

[acptulsa]

The problem is that the problem is complicated and the solution is hard for newcomers to understand. There simply are no one liners.

I think AF is right: people don't want freedom. I think they might want freedom for themselves, but they want other people to be managed. You can't have it both ways.

People want freedom. But it really is complicated, and that fact makes it easy to distract them on the way to getting their freedom.

And what better way to distract them than to get them raging about someone who abused their freedom?

 

[robskicks]

The problem is that the problem is complicated and the solution is hard for newcomers to understand. There simply are no one liners.

I think there are ways to present any idea, even a complicated one in a persuasive way.

To take the federal reserve example quoted... what if it was positioned in a visual way

Instead of simply "END THE FED"

"WE'RE GOING TO KNOCK DOWN THE BIG MARBLE FEDERAL RESERVE BUILDINGS THEN TAKE THE INK OUT OF THEIR MONEY PRINTING MACHINES"

this is just an example.

 

[CPUd]

Ron liked to use the Golden Rule, because it is well known and can be used to help explain complex positions.

 

[younglibertarian]

Ron liked to use the Golden Rule, because it is well known and can be used to help explain complex positions.

A good rule at that.

I still remember that time when he got booed for saying we should follow it.

 

[nikcers]

Ron liked to use the Golden Rule, because it is well known and can be used to help explain complex positions.

Yeah but true persuasion is done by people with the loudest voices, I think part of the reason why Ron Paul got so popular was because of people like Jon Stewart. There is a reason why the if you are against the Iran deal then you are for war with Iran stuck with so many people, just watch this modern day propaganda film.



This election cycle the MSM blanketed the airwaves with Trump.