Skip to main content

Using Insults and Personal Attacks to Win an Argument When "Trust Me Bro" Fails

 

Granted, I'm not a fact checker and I'm just here to blog on facts over gossip. I've noticed that dealing with idiots on Facebook can be tiresome. I'll confess I've lost my cool many times when it comes to insults. What I foolishly never realized is that if people start to be disrespectful and throw insults--it could be a clear indicator of being a disgraceful loser. That kind of behavior is very common in the Trust Me Bro crowd. When asked for a source, they're most likely to say, "Just trust me, bro." If they feel they're losing the argument--they start getting disrespectful and start making insults. They can go from name calling or any form of Ad Hominem or personal attack.

I remembered how often I lost my cool. I could remember whining, crying, or acting like a child. However, if there's one thing worth thinking about, shouldn't I be laughing instead that my opponent is insulting me? It's because if my opponent starts insulting me like calling me names, saying I'm this or that, then the ground is very shaky. Their position is rather shaky when they start to hurl insults at me. It's because they feel threatened. They start throwing insults at me like a cornered cat. They want to win, and they want to feel to win, but deep within, they know they're cornered so they act like cornered cats.  

There were many arguments I could read on Facebook. I could remember a certain political science graduate. Another was a withered dancer in his early 60s (he was 24 in 1986, do the math). Both still insisted that the Marcos Regime in the 1970s was parliamentary. I kept citing the benefits of the parliamentary system. The political science graduate called me stupid and an animal. The withered dancer kept saying I was crazy and I should get my injection. I asked for empirical evidence. Instead, they gave me insults in hopes that they could "win" the argument.

This is the classic case of cognitive dissonance. The whole issue of using insults to win an argument is because they lost the argument. One of those fools I've argued with even said, "I'm just here to expose to people how stupid you are. Hahahahahahaha!" Does the hahahahahaha at the end even validate the argument? I wanted to punch the person. Instead, I was told why not laugh it off? Why not let the person enjoy his blunder?

We also have the classic case of the Duning-Kruger Effect. This is where people of low ability have the tendency to overestimate their ability. Being stupid is one thing. Not knowing you're intellectually stupid is another. That's why there's a proverb that says, "The empty container makes the most noise." The constant use of insults and personal attacks from such people can be empirical evidence of one's own foolishness. 

Popular posts from this blog

What's the Use of Complaining About Celebrities and Political Dynasties Running for Politics While DEFENDING Presidential and Rejecting Parliamentary?

2025 is just around the corner for the midterm elections . People keep emphasizing the need to "defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines" for any amendments whatsoever. If that were true then we really need to remove Article XVII entirely if the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines was meant to be set in stone (read here ). Several camps whether it's PDP-Laban supporters, Liberal Party of the Philippines supporters, Uniteam supporters, etc.--I can expect social media mudslinging at its finest . I keep talking about the need to amend or even replace the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, they keep acting like it's the best constitution in the world, they cite Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (and others like the Monsods) to idolatrous levels , and when I talk about the parliamentary system--I can expect the whole, "Boohoo! It will never work because we already tried it under Marcos! The proof was Cesar Virata!" However, I wrote a refute on that ...

The EDSA Revolution of 1986 Would've Never Happened if People were Stuck in Nostalgia

  It's something that I read crybaby comments online where people are saying, "Making EDSA a special working day is making us forget the glory of EDSA." Please, let me remind people that even 10 years later , neither the late Lee Kuan Yew's birthday nor his death anniversary has become a national holiday in Singapore! Singapore simply honored LKY's birthday by working on that day. I was laughing at the toxic Facebook page called We Are Millennials. What truly made me think that these people are stuck in nostalgia is that EDSA 1986 would never have been possible if the Filipinos were stuck in nostalgia . I remember talks about how the first Marcos administration was built on these two pillars. The first pillar was information control . The other pillar was toxic positivity. I remember back in 1995 when the social studies teacher talked about how he thought that Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was a "good president" due to the long holidays. However, the holidays ...

No to Cha Cha Because of EDSA?

Back when I was in elementary, we were told that EDSA 1986 was a good thing. I don't want to deny the well-documented human rights abuses of the first Marcos Administration . The repeated call to amend or reform the constitution has unfortunately been demonized as if it's always a bad thing. I guess that's a result of people with poor reading (and listening) comprehension for so long . If only people started to read in-between the details of Philippine history, if only people read through the book From Third World to First and not just quote the late Lee Kuan Yew about the Marcoses, they'll see that using EDSA to demonize charter change is really a bad move. Startling facts during the Marcos Years that may have been ignored by anti-charter change proponents What happened during EDSA was practically a revolutionary government . Above is a video of the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy. I confess that I do tend to admire Ninoy, especially with his Los Angeles sp...

[OPINION] Why Do Some Filipino Boomers Insist that the Marcos Years Were Under a "Parliamentary System"

  This is a screenshot I got on Facebook. The Tweet is courtesy of Raissa Espinosa-Robles, who I hear is a marites or a gossiper. I'm not denying that there are some truths in what she said. It's true that the Marcos Years have their well-documented human rights abuses. However, Mrs. Robles still continues to insist in the myth of a parliamentary system under Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s regime. It's not just Mrs. Robles but also some Filipino boomers who keep saying, "Are you crazy? We had a parliamentary system under Marcos."  I could show them some evidence like Marcos' severe lack of legitimacy to disprove the parliamentary systme. I even wrote about the snap elections because Marcos was a president with powers (read here ). Under a parliamentary system, the president is purely ceremonial. The president is just a door opener and credentials receiver! Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. and Salvador "Doy" Laurel both challenged the legitimacy of Marcos...

Why EDSA Should Be a Reason to Support, NOT Oppose Cha Cha

  I don't doubt that the EDSA Revolution left a legacy to the world. Yesterday, I wrote a piece where I asked if EDSA should be a reason to say no to cha-cha . It was a peaceful revolution though it's often argued that the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. didn't want to further ruin his already  tarnished image  in front of the world. How true was it that President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., in his younger days, wanted to run over the protestors? However, consider EDSA wasn't really one of a kind. The Indian pacifist Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi, and his  writings inspired the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy . also led a similar revolution against the  unjust  British occupation of India during that time. Gandhi may have been dead by the time Ninoy read about Gandhi. However, Gandhi's peaceful protests left a legacy that was probably not so well-known before. Today, the Indian economy has been doing better than the Philippines. I even consult...