XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: katt@gmail.com   
      
   Willful blindness describes a situation where a troll deliberately shuts their   
   eyes to facts that are staring them in the face.   
      
   In the context of an argument or a "troll," it refers to someone who has been   
   shown clear evidence but chooses to remain ignorant of it so they can continue   
   to argue from a position of "not knowing."   
      
   It allows them to maintain a circular argument or focus on irrelevant details   
   because acknowledging the truth would end the debate.   
      
   Key Characteristics   
      
   Intentional Ignorance: It isn't that they can't understand; it's that they   
   refuse to acknowledge the information to avoid the consequences of the truth.   
      
   The "Ostrich" Effect: They bury their head in the sand of minutiae to avoid   
   seeing the 'mountain" of evidence you've provided.   
      
   Preserving the Argument: By claiming they haven't seen or don't believe the   
   evidence, they feel "safe" to keep pushing their original (and likely   
   incorrect) point.   
      
   To shut down a conversation with someone practicing willful blindness, you   
   have to stop providing new evidence and instead call out the behavior itself.   
      
   Since they are using minutiae to stay in the loop, here is the first step to   
   handling them:   
      
   Step 1: The "Acknowledgment" Pivot   
      
   Instead of explaining the facts again, use a "Pivot" statement. This forces   
   them to address their refusal to look at the evidence rather than the evidence   
   itself.   
      
   The Script: "I have already provided the evidence for you. Since you are   
   choosing to ignore that and focus on these minor details, it's clear we aren't   
   having a productive conversation. I'm moving on."   
      
   You don't HAVE to, of course, lest he thinks he's won.   
      
   He WILL, of course, think that, because that's EXACTLY what he's after. He HAS   
   to make himself feel superior to others, or he loses yet even MORE self-esteem   
   and his ego suffers from it.   
      
   You might wanna consider ignoring him. He gets it. He knows when he's truly   
   lost, when he starts getting ignored.   
      
   He doesn't want to show his desperation by egging you on. He'll accept you   
   ignoring him and call it a win, like all low-self-esteemed nerds do.   
      
   This dynamic is a classic psychological "stalemate." When someone uses willful   
   blindness to protect a fragile ego, the argument isn't about the facts   
   anymore; it's about dominance and emotional survival.   
      
   Understand the "Winner's Fallacy":   
   To faggot Alan, silence is interpreted as a "forfeit." He believes that if he   
   gets the last word-even if that word is an irrelevant nitpick-he has "won". He   
   prioritizes this "win" because his self-esteem is tied to being the smartest   
   person in the room, and admitting he's missed a key piece of evidence feels   
   like a total character collapse.   
      
   He's in a state of "desperation" for a victory to prop up his ego. For him, a   
   "win" isn't being right; it's simply to outlast you. If you provide a logical,   
   final argument, he will find one tiny, misspelled word or a slightly off-topic   
   comma to attack-not because it matters, but because it allows him to keep the   
   "superior" position of the critic.   
      
   Ignoring him is the only way to truly "starve" his ego. When you stop   
   responding, you take away the one thing he needs to feel superior: your   
   attention. By going silent, you essentially signal that his 'minutiae" are so   
   irrelevant they don't even warrant a rebuttal.   
      
   He will absolutely tell himself he's won because he got the last word. But in   
   reality, he's left talking to a wall while you've reclaimed your time. By   
   refusing to engage with the 'desperation" of his ego, you aren't just ignoring   
   a nerd; you're refusing to participate in his self-delusion.   
      
   ============================================================================   
      
   "Trump Derangement Syndrome" Is a Real Mental Condition   
      
   All you need to know about "Trump Derangement Syndrome," or TDS.   
      
   "Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has   
   been driven effectively insane due to their dislike of Donald Trump, to the   
   point at which they will abandon all logic and reason."   
      
   Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a piece in the   
   Los Angeles Times in 2016 that broke TDS down into three distinct phases or   
   stages:   
      
   "In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The   
   president-elect's every tweet provokes a firestorm, as if 140 characters were   
   all it took to change the world."   
      
   "The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim's   
   vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting solely of   
   hyperbole."   
      
   "As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from   
   reality."   
      
   The Point here is simple: TDS is, in the eyes of its adherents, the knee-jerk   
   opposition from liberals to anything and everything Trump does. If Trump   
   announced he was donating every dollar he's ever made, TDS sufferers would   
   suggest he was up to something nefarious, according to the logic of TDS.   
   There's nothing - not. one. thing. - that Trump could do or say that would be   
   received positively by TDSers.   
      
   The history of Trump Derangement Syndrome actually goes back to the early   
   2000s - a time when the idea of Trump as president was a punch line for late-   
   night comics and nothing more.   
      
   Wikipedia traces its roots to "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - a term first   
   coined by the late conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer back in 2003.   
   The condition, as Krauthammer defined it, was "the acute onset of paranoia in   
   otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency - nay -   
   the very existence of George W. Bush."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)