I was speaking to some normies a few weeks ago about some political topics. The topic of prohibition came up, the normie claimed prohibition "didn't work". I demonstrated with ample proof they were wrong, it absolutely accomplished it's objective of curtailing alcohol consumption, production, and distribution. The normie eventually resorted to "but why shouldn't we be allowed to drink??? I should be allowed to drink if I want! I don't believe in prohibtion".
So to the normie, it wasn't ever about if prohibition worked or not. They already made up their mind that they didn't like it, so now they have to pretend like it failed in every aspect. They can't logically consort themselves into recognizing "I may dislike prohibition, but it did work". No, if they don't like something, everything about it must be wrong and bad and a failure.
Same with the use of torture. A friend of that normie claimed torture doesn't work, and the information obtained via torture is unreliable because a person will say whatever to get out of the situation. I pointed out, again, that's false. It is true if a person doesn't know, they'll often try to lie their way out of it... but if the person has the information requested they are very likely to spill the beans under torture. They know that the risk of being caught lying means more torture, and it's best to tell the truth to their interrogators. THe normie eventually conceded that torture made them "uncomfortable" and they find it "immoral"... so again, it was never about if it worked or not, the normie already made up their mind that they were against it and then claimed it didn't work as a post hoc justification.
Apply this logic to Inceldom. Normies have already decided that they don't like us, so they manifest a bunch of post-hoc justifications like that we're "misoygnist" or "don't shower" or "hate women" because they don't like to admit that we may be right. They can choose to dislike us, but they can't deny we're correct.
So to the normie, it wasn't ever about if prohibition worked or not. They already made up their mind that they didn't like it, so now they have to pretend like it failed in every aspect. They can't logically consort themselves into recognizing "I may dislike prohibition, but it did work". No, if they don't like something, everything about it must be wrong and bad and a failure.
Same with the use of torture. A friend of that normie claimed torture doesn't work, and the information obtained via torture is unreliable because a person will say whatever to get out of the situation. I pointed out, again, that's false. It is true if a person doesn't know, they'll often try to lie their way out of it... but if the person has the information requested they are very likely to spill the beans under torture. They know that the risk of being caught lying means more torture, and it's best to tell the truth to their interrogators. THe normie eventually conceded that torture made them "uncomfortable" and they find it "immoral"... so again, it was never about if it worked or not, the normie already made up their mind that they were against it and then claimed it didn't work as a post hoc justification.
Apply this logic to Inceldom. Normies have already decided that they don't like us, so they manifest a bunch of post-hoc justifications like that we're "misoygnist" or "don't shower" or "hate women" because they don't like to admit that we may be right. They can choose to dislike us, but they can't deny we're correct.
