Roy Tang

for some of the people who comment,parang wala na pag asa e. They believe what they want to believe. If you try to provide facts and credible sources, they will ignore it and say you're paid.Someone messaged me asking how much i was paid to be a troll and if I could refer her. 😒

By "breach the divide", I don't really mean persuading others that you are correct, more like trying to find common ground and to learn from each other. At the very least we should be able to agree on certain things like the need to verify information and not simply believe everything we read on the internet or to be respectful to others that hold different opinions, but it seems many people aren't even open to that. It's just frustrating sometimes.

[This'll be really long, sorry. I wish I could be more brief.] Conversation requires both parties' conscious consent. If the conversation is founded on unwavering faith in <a> over faith in <b>, fullstop (instead of reasons for supporting <a> over <b>), then it's going to go nowhere either. Your second line is right in either scenario - it won't be productive, and you'll have to let democracy take its course. In addition, if the well starts poisoned, back off already. I don't just mean name-calling or other logical fallacies either, sometimes the crime is in the intent of the conversation. If either comes off as a missionary (I have the moral high ground, must convert the heathens!), you have the same problem as faith in <a> over faith in <b>, except either or both of you are trying to frame it using each person's logical framework or value systems. These will be different. This is a hard thing to do - clearing up the value system space without getting egos in the mix. But if both parties can get that far, you're well on your way to a productive conversation. Now that we're done with the dead-end-cases. .. I find that most misunderstandin gs are caused by both parties not using the same definition of terms, because of a lack of specific identity name. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're talking about politics, and why people stand for certain people, politicians, political stances and philosophies, etc. A lot of times, people will pick a stance or philosophy (or a person that embodies such) because they sorta believe in it, but not all the way. They might not even realize it is so, though, so you'll have to suss it out from them. [Sort of neutral example follows] It's easier to say, for example, that I am of the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion, and so are my views. Even though the truth might be that I generally believe in the teachings of the FSM religion, but I have exceptions in certain beliefs that they provide, such as using a colander for the holy head gear! It should clearly be a steel pot! Because spaghetti is cooked in the pot, though it is strained in a strainer. [Neutral example ends] It's quite easy to make an argument for and against a general identity by establishing relevant value systems and how they judge*. You don't even need the other person for this. You construct the identity, and hope to whatever you believe in that the identity you've created isn't a strawman, then give it an honest fight. You'll still win every time because you control the value system and judgment* flow. But if you want to really get into someone's head, you gotta know their specific identity, their value systems, and how their judgment* works. Both sides have to be willing to discuss it all the way, and not take things personally, and not try to come into the discussion trying to specifically change the other person (that RARELY works). * Values always have a priority structure in people, though we might not think about them well, and there is a high chance for them to be misstated in conversation. Beware superlatives. They might say things like all life is important, but they weigh things differently in their head from you, because it's much easier to say that than give you a lawyer-style document on the matter.

Why don't we try holding a discussion. We both know we are rational people and we have faced off twice in scrabble top ten finals in UP. You beat me twice but that doesn't faze me as few people ever beat Roy Tang . My advice is don't waste your time with other Dutertrolls who are not in your level. They will waste your time and wish you get raped ten times coz your a drug addict since you don't support Duterte.

Hindi ba pwedeng mag agree to disagree?

They can't afford your rates!

I think this can only happen if both parties are open to discussion. I think some people just believe what they want to believe and not realize that there are other ways of looking at the issue or that the way they are looking at the issue might not be the only way. Parang math- many people only know one way to get to a solution and aren't open to other possible solutions. It boils down to education (where do people get information) and addressing poverty (kung kapit sa patalim kahit ano gagawin for the next meal- even if giving up rights or integrity). It's going to be a long process of change.

We have 5.5 years until the next presidential elections. We need to fast-track the process.

<start> Try to get in their head (non-obstrusive ly) … plant relevant "idea" … let simmer … watch/ wait till they realize-deconstruct their POV and empathize with your POV-assuming you have the better POV to begin with <end> <try a better POV> <start> Try to get in their head (non-obstrusive ly) … plant relevant "idea" … let simmer … watch/ wait till they realize-deconstruct their POV and empathize with your POV-assuming you have the better POV to begin with <end>

Grabe naalala mo pa yung scrabble na yun, may sama ng loob ka ata haha

Grabe di ako makamove on sa MESSIAH. 😜