How to argue with teenagers?

[TRS]

OK, I've just moved to university, and I've been experiencing a lot of skeptisism towards my anarchist ideas. Normally, it's only a small challange to out-argue most relativly intelligent people. However, with people my own age or younger, i've hit a brick wall. Most of them solidly refuse any sort of vailidity of my arguments, and almost all of them seem stuck in the "human beings are shite and under any sort of anarchist/communist system, they won't do anything" mindset.

Halp?

[Manifesto]

The High School Commie's Guide (http://www.revleft.com/vb/high-school-commie-t22370/index.html) should have something but it has many pages in it. But you could try to explain how Communism would be more automated than Capitalism so less people would NEED to work.

[Tatarin]

Well, one answer to the "won't do anything in communism" question is to simply ask them what they do in their free time, and why they spend time and money on their various hobbies. Hobbies can vary very much from person to person. Some people are mathematicians at home and at work, for example. Then, we need food and water, homes, and so forth. So no, people will never not do anything. If we were that lazy, none of us would be writing here.

Also, try to ignore them and concentrate on a 1-on-1 confrontation. Then later on you will be two, then three, and so on. Better to have a friend who is just as committed as you than a group who nods without knowing why.

[Il Medico]

If the teenagers your talking to are set in the conservative mind set as you describe, perhaps you should shout louder. (That's how conservatives argue, they scoff at such primitive techniques such as reasoning)

[thecoffeecake1]

But you could try to explain how Communism would be more automated than Capitalism so less people would NEED to work.

thats seems like an interesting argument. Expound?

[Black_Flag]

OK, I've just moved to university, and I've been experiencing a lot of skeptisism towards my anarchist ideas. Normally, it's only a small challange to out-argue most relativly intelligent people. However, with people my own age or younger, i've hit a brick wall. Most of them solidly refuse any sort of vailidity of my arguments, and almost all of them seem stuck in the "human beings are shite and under any sort of anarchist/communist system, they won't do anything" mindset.

Halp?

I'm in a very simliar position. In my second year at uni, but so far trying to explain an anarchist position to anyone usually results in them saying "i think communism is a good idea but it just wouldn't work" etc, or some sort of shit social democrat argument, which is nearly as bad because they think they're somehow socialist in their ideas but are generally liberals trying not to get into a proper argument with me by taking a "socialist" position. I can hold my own in an argument but it sometimes feels like i'm not taken seriously. Hopefully if i learn more and get a more soild foundation for my views things will change.

Sorry i couldn't offer any good advice but i'm just letting you know that our not the only person who expriences this.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

If the teenagers your talking to are set in the conservative mind set as you describe, perhaps you should shout louder. (That's how conservatives argue, they scoff at such primitive techniques such as reasoning)

I hope this is a joke; this is precisely what we should NOT do. We should not yell or scream at people with backward ideas. Perhaps we won't convince them through reason, but other people around the conversation are much more likely to take those of us seriously that act rationally and act as though we are interested in liberating folks instead of just winning an argument.

[Budog]

:rolleyes: Argue with teenagers? Good luck... They know everything. I wish I knew now in mid life what I thought I knew then.

Budog. :blink:

[Durruti's Ghost]

You don't. Instead, just be a generally nice, intelligent, grounded person and break their negative stereotypes of anarchists and communists. Then, when eventually they do start to question their beliefs on their own, they'll be less likely to dismiss anarchism/communism out of hand.

[Pogue]

You don't. Instead, just be a generally nice, intelligent, grounded person and break their negative stereotypes of anarchists and communists. Then, when eventually they do start to question their beliefs on their own, they'll be less likely to dismiss anarchism/communism out of hand.

This, and I learnt it too late.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Teenagers vary as much as adults do, and despite popular misconceptions, are just as stubborn (not more so). I think the suggestion about presenting a "clean" image of yourself is definitely a safe bet. If you want to engage in a debate with anyone, in fact, try to remain relaxed. And yes, I speak as a hypocrite.

[Il Medico]

I hope this is a joke; this is precisely what we should NOT do. We should not yell or scream at people with backward ideas. Perhaps we won't convince them through reason, but other people around the conversation are much more likely to take those of us seriously that act rationally and act as though we are interested in liberating folks instead of just winning an argument.
Yeah it was a joke satirizing how conservatives and liberals a like respond to our arguments, they just shout about how evil Stalin was and how communist hate freedom and..blah blah blah. I completely agree with you.

[hugsandmarxism]

You don't. Instead, just be a generally nice, intelligent, grounded person and break their negative stereotypes of anarchists and communists. Then, when eventually they do start to question their beliefs on their own, they'll be less likely to dismiss anarchism/communism out of hand.

This. I'm constantly getting into conversations about communist theory, history, and the like with my peers, and being nice and approachable about it can work in your favor. The first thing in any debate is to define your terms. Most people don't even know what communism and anarchism actually are, just what the typical bourgeois narrative has told them about totalitarian dictators and molotov-chucking ruffians. Breaking through that narrative is your biggest priority in those conversations, and if you seem in any way hostile, it'll work against your efforts.

[Budog]

:) I work at a large residential facility for "at risk youth". Arguing is counter productive and usually ends up leaving both parties frustrated. However an intelligent, civilized debate can be a productive learning experience for both. For me one of the keys to mentoring and teaching my residents is to build relation and rapport with them first. If a person has misconception it is helpful to find out why they have that opinion. Many times it is an ingrained belief passed down from parents etc. Usually changing of perspective doesn't occur immediately but is a process. Use logic, it is hard to argue with truth and logic... With my residents I also use a process called REBT (Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy) which was made by Dr. Albert Ellis. It puts the ownership of a persons beliefs and action on the person, the ball is in their own hands... It also helps to them to see an alternative to their beliefs or opinion and how their life could be different without their current perspective.

Budog.

[Manifesto]

thats seems like an interesting argument. Expound?
Sure, well with Communism there would not be the competition for products to be sold or rather distributed so less to do and technology would be more automated but more workers would be out of a job so that cannot happen in Capitalism to put it simply.

[LOLseph Stalin]

These things can certainly be difficult to argue. I have tried it in the past. It's like somebody trying to argue with a conservative Christian that not all Muslims are terrorists.

[Искра]

You don't. Instead, just be a generally nice, intelligent, grounded person and break their negative stereotypes of anarchists and communists. Then, when eventually they do start to question their beliefs on their own, they'll be less likely to dismiss anarchism/communism out of hand.
I agree with this.
But, teenager are the most reactionary and the stupidest part of population. For them everything must be cool or fashion and only then they'll join. They pretty much don't care about politics and they know shit about it, as you can see on revleft. They also don't have any will to learn something and to work on themselves. They will accept anything that someone older is talking, just because that person is older...
I personally, don't argue with teenagers. I find that a waste of time. When I talk with them I'm trying to keep siltation under control and to destroy them with arguments. They don't need to be anarchists or communist they just need to reach a point when they don't know what more to say. Then those who are clever will try to read something.

[hugsandmarxism]

But, teenager are the most reactionary and the stupidest part of population.

Do you have more than a vitriol laden anecdote to back up this assertion?


For them everything must be cool or fashion and only then they'll join. They pretty much don't care about politics and they know shit about it, as you can see on revleft.

Really? Because I've talked with very informed anarchists, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyists, and the like on this website as young as 14 who've been able to contribute very well to conversation and have demonstrated incredible growth.


They also don't have any will to learn something and to work on themselves. They will accept anything that someone older is talking, just because that person is older...

If that were true, considering the reactionary and capitalist societies we all tend to live in, boards like this would have no members under 25.


I personally, don't argue with teenagers. I find that a waste of time. When I talk with them I'm trying to keep siltation under control and to destroy them with arguments. They don't need to be anarchists or communist they just need to reach a point when they don't know what more to say. Then those who are clever will try to read something.

Trying to "destroy" people in arguments tends to alienate those who might actually have the capacity to learn to identify with your position. It isn't about winning ideological bouts (at least it shouldn't be). The purpose should be to help others develop a more heightened consciousness about the predatory nature of capitalism, and the most effective means of opposing (and ultimately doing away with) it.

The problem here is one of attitude. I sympathize with how hard it can be to talk to the youth nowadays, but if we treat them as petulant children with no hope of becoming progressive, then they will continue to be petulant children with no hope of becoming progressive. To analyze from a stereotypical stance is to reinforce the stereotype, and if we approach adolescents with this mindset, we will ultimately be putting them off. It can be difficult, sometimes a fruitless endeavor, but it can also yield great results. Food for thought. :)

[punisa]

Teenagers? Why even argue with them?
These young people need to get down and dirty with the other proletariat class and then they will appreciate your ideas.
Of course, many teens work instead of educate. But for majority of those in high schools (or even colleges) your ideas won't be interesting.

If you have an urge to discuss your leftist ideology, try talking to the workers. Leave the teenagers be for a few more years.

Instead of trying to tell those kids that binge drinking is not the meaning of life, after your classes go down to the harbor and cruise some bars (shadier the better), you'll find a lot of angry people down there.

[punisa]

I agree with this.
But, teenager are the most reactionary and the stupidest part of population. For them everything must be cool or fashion and only then they'll join. They pretty much don't care about politics and they know shit about it, as you can see on revleft. They also don't have any will to learn something and to work on themselves. They will accept anything that someone older is talking, just because that person is older...
I personally, don't argue with teenagers. I find that a waste of time. When I talk with them I'm trying to keep siltation under control and to destroy them with arguments. They don't need to be anarchists or communist they just need to reach a point when they don't know what more to say. Then those who are clever will try to read something.

Amen (lacking a better expression) brother ! :cool:
But do be careful, I tried to express a very similar viewpoints some months earlier and experienced a very harsh reaction !
I believe you can conclude what that logical process means, right?

step 1) person A criticizes teenagers on a website
step 2) large group B attacks person A
step 3) therefore, this particular website mainly consists of:

a) roman catholic bishop fans
b) nuclear scientists
c) teenagers

:cool:
:cool::cool:

[A.R.Amistad]

I am a high schooler and I write for my school paper (mostly music reviews, but the occasional editorial is allowed in ;)) and I encounter very much the same problem. I am actually pretty well hated in my school for my ideas and beliefs, and also because people see me as "elitist" because I utilize knowledge openly. I know exactly what its like to deal with the apathy, pessimism and esotericism of adolescents. In fact, today we were watching a news article for current events which dealt with a polluted river in a rural community in the Midwest. The pollution was caused by a paper mill located upstream. They not only interviewed the local people (most of whom worked in the unhealthy condition of the plant) but also some water salinity experts. But, the class completely dismissed the article, saying it was "too biased" because the paper mill company was not interviewed. I'm all for objective journalism and analysis, but there is a point when it goes too far and you just miss the point. Of course, it followed with the whole class yelling at me and alienating me as usual. :p This is a serious problem I have encountered with teens. They claim to be looking for objective reasoning, but in reality they simply turn toward the reactionary. If they had been faced with the atrocities of the Holocaust, they might say "well, I'm not going to try to stop the Holocaust because I don't know the Nazi's side of the argument." This is my two cents on the matter.

[Искра]

Do you have more than a vitriol laden anecdote to back up this assertion?
Please use some metamohores which I could understand.
I do have a lot of anecdotes on this one, and since you are Marxist-Leninist I'll tell you about my conversation with Marxist-Leninist (who is actually nationalistic left liberal) who's on this forum. I went to a highschool with him.
So, he wanted to be smart and to talk with me (which I refuse, since I don't like philosophers or similar people which like to listen themselves talking) about anarchism and communism and differences. So, he was talking how anarchism is only about individual freedom, and how communism is about "destruction of individuality" in which he advocated that people don't have privacy and if they want it you go to Goli otok. Also, he said that private property is good, that state is good, that human rights (in liberal view) are good, that working class sucks etc. So, he was a pain in the ass. I proved him that he's no communist and he joined socialist workers party (Punisa correct me if I'm wrong about the party's name, I'm talking about SRP) just to prove me that he's right. Even those people kicked him out, because he's being to liberal.
Also, I had a lot of anecdotes of talking with "anarchist" who were nothing but stupid liberals, and didn't know why does my organisation fight for working class when working class doesn't exist.
I don't have to mention you my collages from collage (I study Politics) and our discussions in classes where they consider me as Marxists-Leninist :(
Those people are all liberals and a waste of time.


Really? Because I've talked with very informed anarchists, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyists, and the like on this website as young as 14 who've been able to contribute very well to conversation and have demonstrated incredible growth.
Where they only internet marxists talking to you wow, how smart are you or they actually did something which wasn't related to log in into revleft?



Trying to "destroy" people in arguments tends to alienate those who might actually have the capacity to learn to identify with your position. It isn't about winning ideological bouts (at least it shouldn't be). The purpose should be to help others develop a more heightened consciousness about the predatory nature of capitalism, and the most effective means of opposing (and ultimately doing away with) it.
Maybe, but to destroy dosen't mean to scream: you're stupid, you're stupid! It means to destroy every their stupid argument why liberalism and capitalism are good. That what I'm doing on classes.

I personally do not care about kids who are interested in anarchism (or communism) just because that look's cool for them or that you know righteous. I'm tired of that, as I'm tired of punx and similar political idiots. I'm not old, I'm teenager also, but I don't wanna be stuck with apathetic idiots who are calling themselves communists or anarchist and their only activity is to log in on forum and to read books. I'm tired of that, as I'm tired of idiots who see Food not Bombs as method.
I want people who are willing to work. Theory is something which they can learn from practice. I'm not saying that theory isn't important, I'm just saying that the most important thing is will. If person has that he can do anything and read whole Capital at the same time.
I like when I get in contact whit teenagers who are willing to work. My comrade from MASA is 16 years. He translated half of Anarchist FAQ section A in Croatian for 2 months, he organised discussion group in his town, and he's working on organising MASA's local group. He's also very active in our other actions. That's kind of kids I admire and that's kind of kids I call my comrades.

[Искра]

Amen (lacking a better expression) brother ! :cool:
But do be careful, I tried to express a very similar viewpoints some months earlier and experienced a very harsh reaction !
I believe you can conclude what that logical process means, right?

step 1) person A criticizes teenagers on a website
step 2) large group B attacks person A
step 3) therefore, this particular website mainly consists of:

a) roman catholic bishop fans
b) nuclear scientists
c) teenagers

:cool:
:cool::cool:
No need to worry :)
I'm training krav'maga I can handle with anyone :)

[hugsandmarxism]

I personally do not care about kids who are interested in anarchism (or communism) just because that look's cool for them or that you know righteous. I'm tired of that, as I'm tired of punx and similar political idiots. I'm not old, I'm teenager also, but I don't wanna be stuck with apathetic idiots who are calling themselves communists or anarchist and their only activity is to log in on forum and to read books. I'm tired of that, as I'm tired of idiots who see Food not Bombs as method.
I want people who are willing to work. Theory is something which they can learn from practice. I'm not saying that theory isn't important, I'm just saying that the most important thing is will. If person has that he can do anything and read whole Capital at the same time.
I like when I get in contact whit teenagers who are willing to work. My comrade from MASA is 16 years. He translated half of Anarchist FAQ section A in Croatian for 2 months, he organised discussion group in his town, and he's working on organising MASA's local group. He's also very active in our other actions. That's kind of kids I admire and that's kind of kids I call my comrades.

I'm entirely sympathetic. I just think blanket dismissals of an entire age demographic aren't helpful. That's all I was trying to communicate ;)

[the last donut of the night]

I've found that it depends on who you're talking to exactly. Are you arguing with workers, disenfranchised youth, and poor people in general? Or are you arguing with middle-class, or even rich, intellectual types and people?

See, from past experience I've found that talking to the wrong class youth is extremely time-wasting. I go to a school were a lot of kids are rich snobs, and I've recently discovered that there's no point to intellectual discussion with rich people. Accepting our ideas would destroy their way of life. They would know that basically, all they have is built on blood and oppression.

Thus, argue your point to more ordinary people, people who are facing tough times. After a couple of talks, I'm sure you'll hit a chord.

EDIT: Sorry If I seem arrogant in this post.

[RotStern]

Teenagers make me lose faith in humanitys future.
Just look at the MTV and Much Music they seem to worship so much.

[Искра]

I'm entirely sympathetic. I just think blanket dismissals of an entire age demographic aren't helpful. That's all I was trying to communicate ;)
I'm not dismissing whole age demographic. I'm dismissing the MOST of teenagers. ;)

Also, teenagers in Croatia (but I think that that's case all over the world) want only:
a) get wasted on weekends
b) go shopping
c) talk about sex because no one wants to fuck whit them
d) beat somebody up, because that cool

It's idiotic behaviour which is certainly brought up with consumerism. Problem is how to get those people interested in anything? I don't think that there's only one way and that to work hard until your organisation becomes part of mainstream (I'm not talking about changing your strategy or beliefs, but of being well known and popular option in your country). Then we will be cool.

[punisa]

I proved him that he's no communist and he joined socialist workers party (Punisa correct me if I'm wrong about the party's name, I'm talking about SRP) just to prove me that he's right.

Yep, you're correct. SRP would roughly be translated into "socialist workers party".
It does contain some strange people, but that's another topic all together :lol:

[Искра]

Aslo, I just remember one thing :D
It's funny but "the best anarchists" (aka. anarchist which are not hippies and which want to work and participate in class struggle) are ex-Bolsheviks :) I'm talking only to Leninists and then they become anarchists. I scored 3 of 4. They are teenagers, of course.
And those people used to vote for SRP and New Left, and that coalition of dead partisans :D

[A.R.Amistad]

Aslo, I just remember one thing http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif
It's funny but "the best anarchists" (aka. anarchist which are not hippies and which want to work and participate in class struggle) are ex-Bolsheviks http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif I'm talking only to Leninists and then they become anarchists. I scored 3 of 4. They are teenagers, of course.
And those people used to vote for SRP and New Left, and that coalition of dead partisans http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

When it comes to teenagers, communism is one thing, but anarchism amongst the youth is usually the worst. Of course, probably the majority of youth would be attracted to it based on the falsehood of "no rules rebellion." These are often the worst because they start out as poser anarchists, than are faced with real anarchism and turn to anarcho-capitalism and then grow up to join the Ron Paul wagon.

[Искра]

When it comes to teenagers, communism is one thing, but anarchism amongst the youth is usually the worst. Of course, probably the majority of youth would be attracted to it based on the falsehood of "no rules rebellion." These are often the worst because they start out as poser anarchists, than are faced with real anarchism and turn to anarcho-capitalism and then grow up to join the Ron Paul wagon.
Why to do you think that communism and anarchisim amongst the youth are different? I think that they are quite the same. Many of them don't know the difference. Like anarchists in Tito T-shirts :)