ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, January 13, 2017

He didn't read Aristotle

From Gab:

Todd Kincannon · @ToddKincannon
Had dinner with a political operative friend last night. He said "I had no idea that all it took to win was to call Democrats and media worthless pieces of shit all the time. I thought you had to be reasonably nice. Trump has shown me the light. Fuck the Left." 

This is an exact quote. 

It's called "the art of rhetoric". See Chapter 10 of SJWs Always Lie.


Left-wingers will only change their minds if they experience enough emotional pain to provoke the desire to avoid it. They are entirely irrational; the more intelligent they are, the more highly developed their facility for rationalizing away any logical inconsistencies is. And that's why those on the Left are always calling people on the Right stupid, racist, and so on, because they are attempting to convince us by inflicting emotional pain and triggering aversive reactions. It may sound like insults, but in reality, that is how the Left makes converts.

Of course, their understanding of dialectic speakers is as poor as the average dialecticals understanding of rhetoricals. It really shocks them when their name-calling has no effect. In fact, that is a good way to discern a right-wing rhetorical; the more they are affected by name-calling, the more they are rhetorically minded despite their protestations.

Labels: , ,

61 Comments:

Anonymous Alt West Warfare January 13, 2017 2:04 AM  

The only way to stop the Leftist zombie apocalypse is to literally burn the zombie out of them.

Blogger Resident Moron™ January 13, 2017 2:06 AM  

It helped Trump's case that the Democrats and the media ARE worthless pieces of shit.

Trump wasn't shooting blind. His aim was true.

Blogger Pseudotsuga January 13, 2017 2:24 AM  

Amen to that.
An acquaintance on social media was white-knighting for people who are so worried that they will die if the ACA gets repealed. I posted that I knew of people who are worried they will die because they can't afford health insurance because of the ACA, and wondered which victim group should we listen to, and why do they so badly want the one group to die?
I was told to F*** off, and then I laughed in a return post, mocking the attempt to make me feel bad. (Others joined in the mocking too.)
They called me names? I don't care, and I have realized that playing nice receives no reciprocity.
Winning beats virtue signaling.

Anonymous joke10 January 13, 2017 2:35 AM  

Have you ever read any Garan Vox?

Blogger Shimshon January 13, 2017 2:41 AM  

That's also why "I don't care" is so powerful. It's even better than Breitbart's "So?" (brought up in a previous post). I've used the Three Words to incredibly powerful effect more than a few times. It literally drives them crazy.

Blogger lowercaseb January 13, 2017 3:35 AM  

Shimshon wrote:I've used the Three Words to incredibly powerful effect more than a few times. It literally drives them crazy.

I remember Roosh's press conference. The first time he uttered "I don't care..." as an answer to one of their question/accusations you could see the look of shock and disbelief in their faces. It stopped their train of thought for a couple of seconds.

Blogger Bogey January 13, 2017 4:06 AM  

I'm not sure how many liberals you know personally Vox but from my own experience dialectic can cause a violent reaction from lefties. Hence the almost fist fight with my own brother when I mentioned that there are IQ differences along the lines of gender and race and the red-faced shouting in the car from a friend when I mentioned that genetically Bruce Jenner could never be a woman.

Socratic dialogue, forget about it. They are just smart enough to realize that they may be walking into a trap. That's why you'll spend more time arguing over propositions than conclusions.

Blogger JACIII January 13, 2017 4:17 AM  

"I don't care" works wonderfully. But it isn't an attack. Attack is key; verbal aggression crafted to cause emotional shock and a defensive posture. Public humiliation works best.

Blogger Pteronarcyd January 13, 2017 4:44 AM  

"[T]he Left are always calling people on the Right stupid, racist, and so on, because they are attempting to convince us by inflicting emotional pain and triggering aversive reactions."

Democrats have been playing the stupid card my entire life. Democrats and Republicans fought over enlisting Eisenhower as their presidential candidate for 1952. After Ike chose the Republican Party Democrats began calling him a moron. After learning this fact I've tuned out Dems' labels of stupidity. In fact, I regard such cries as a compliment.

If the go-to ad hominems for the Left are "stupid" and "racist," what are the best go-to, knee-jerk labels to throw at the Left?

Anonymous Be Deplorable, Not Afraid January 13, 2017 5:14 AM  

@9 "If the go-to ad hominems for the Left are "stupid" and "racist," what are the best go-to, knee-jerk labels to throw at the Left?"

That's a good question. If they don't like "I don't care," then perhaps "whatever" would work. Or maybe "grow up," or "put on your big boy/girl pants" or such?

Blogger Matt January 13, 2017 5:16 AM  

"If the go-to ad hominems for the Left are "stupid" and "racist," what are the best go-to, knee-jerk labels to throw at the Left?"

Aa Vox said, they're projecting. Theyre the real racists and idiots. They're also depraved and amoral. They protect pedophiles in high positions and seek to normalize it in their disgusting publications. Simply telling the truth about them should suffice.

They mention Catholic priests? Say they were infiltrated by sick depraved homosexuals and leftists. No normal straight man would have sex with a child, let alone a male child.

Blogger JACIII January 13, 2017 5:28 AM  

Use the same things they deploy. Maybe rephrase a bit. They use certain things because they are felt to be nuclear level attacks by our opponents. They deploy what they fear.

Blogger chris January 13, 2017 5:55 AM  

"what are the best go-to, knee-jerk labels to throw at the Left?"

Cuck (for men). Ugly Whore (for women).

Blogger James Dixon January 13, 2017 5:56 AM  

> I had no idea that all it took to win was to call Democrats and media worthless pieces of shit all the time.

Why would he think that? It's what the left has been doing since at least Nixon, and it's worked for them.

> I'm not sure how many liberals you know personally Vox but from my own experience dialectic can cause a violent reaction from lefties.

And yet the examples you gave weren't perceived as dialect by them.

Anonymous the management January 13, 2017 6:22 AM  

Pteronarcyd wrote:

If the go-to ad hominems for the Left are "stupid" and "racist," what are the best go-to, knee-jerk labels to throw at the Left?


"Pussy" or "coward" for men, "foolish bitch" for women. These strike at self-image and classic insecurities.

A simple "liar" or "snake" if you want something gender neutral.

'Hypocrite' is most accurate when they are trying to push one of their double standards on you, but much too dialectical for them to be triggered.

Anonymous Athor Pel January 13, 2017 6:54 AM  

"9. Blogger Pteronarcyd January 13, 2017 4:44 AM
...
If the go-to ad hominems for the Left are "stupid" and "racist," what are the best go-to, knee-jerk labels to throw at the Left?
"



If you're face to face all you have to do is look at them and pick something. As Heartiste says, "physiognomy is real".

Blogger VD January 13, 2017 6:56 AM  

"what are the best go-to, knee-jerk labels to throw at the Left?"

Whatever they throw at others. Remember, they always project their own vulnerabilities and weaknesses.

Blogger APL January 13, 2017 7:16 AM  

"what are the best go-to, knee-jerk labels to throw at the Left?"

How 'bout; fascist, racist, bigot, sexist, misogynist bla bla...

Anonymous the management January 13, 2017 7:22 AM  

VD wrote:Remember, they always project their own vulnerabilities and weaknesses.

"So, Grasshopper, do you now see the earth from which the trees grow?"

"Aaahh, yes, master, that's what I was searching for."

Anonymous the management January 13, 2017 7:28 AM  

"Aristotle, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!!" - VD

Blogger Deplorable Gaiseric January 13, 2017 7:49 AM  

Pteronarcyd wrote:If the go-to ad hominems for the Left are "stupid" and "racist," what are the best go-to, knee-jerk labels to throw at the Left?
What are you trying to do? I'm mostly interested in getting leftists to shut up and getting onlookers and spectators to hold them in derision. I kinda like traitor and pervert, but I don't do go-to labels so much as ones that are appropriate to the situation at hand.

For feminists, I almost always go with ugly, angry and lonely.

Blogger bosscauser January 13, 2017 7:51 AM  

We won you lost! Really pisses them off!

#PresidentTrump

Blogger SouthRon January 13, 2017 7:52 AM  

@Be Deplorable It's always put on your big girl panties even for a "man". In a sentrance you've told them grow up and stop acting like a whiney little girl you coward.

Blogger CYPHER January 13, 2017 7:56 AM  

Childish, retarded, simple?

Blogger wreckage January 13, 2017 8:19 AM  

"Don't be absurd." is my personal favourite.

The Left fear Trump because their power base is illusion and illusory. When he demonstrates what can be done, it will be nearly impossible to prevent it from continuing.

Border security, revitalized capitalism, a commitment to actually putting his own nation first, where it belongs?

All of these things have been slowly fenced off, pushed away, buried in innuendo, lies, and a deliberately cultivated sense of helplessness and worthlessness, made to be socially impossible.

Trump is here to fuck that shit right up.

Anonymous Hortons January 13, 2017 8:24 AM  

Great in theory, unfortunately rhetoric only works on the converted or those who already agree with you. It doesn't make converts, and it often alienates genuine neutrals. How many people are we now hearing about who became disenchanted with the Left because of their insane rhetoric and insults. And yet instead of learning from this, we seek to emulate it.

Tactically, it might work for the moment, but its poor strategy.

Trump tactics work in this moment in time because right now everyone is disillusioned with the establishment, so establishment trashing behavior is exactly what's needed.

Other times, other places, Trump would get nowhere.

Rhetoric always needs to be highly limited - when it begins to dominate your movement, as it did with the Left, you are on your way out.

Blogger wreckage January 13, 2017 8:41 AM  

The problem with the Left was that there was nothing BEHIND the rhetoric.

Abandoning a useful tactic because it is not a strategy.... is not strategy.

No tactic should be exclusive or inflexible.

And of course, real strategy is logistics. Immigration is one logistical concern. The glut of Lefties with lifetime sinecures is another. Rhetoric, and even strategic thinking, are meaningless if we can't uproot our opponent's infrastructure, as they undoubtedly, effectively, and without any fear of retaliation, have done to ours.

Back to the point: Rhetoric doesn't need to be a strategy.

Anonymous Hortons January 13, 2017 8:42 AM  

Also, causing someone deep emotional pain is a reliable way to make them hate you, not join you, but i wouldn't overestimate the ability of rhetoric (i.e insults), to cause deep pain.

The psychology just isn't sound here.

The kind of insane rhetoric we are seeing today everywhere is a symptom of cultural decline and the final breakdown of all communication between all factions as they dig into their positions and fight it out.

Aristotle described rhetoric as attractively packaging truths - i.e there is a dialectic core. What we are seeing today is where pure emotional appeal takes center stage and indeed there is hardly anything left.

It represents the the final breakdown of communication, hence the loss of the ability to convert anyone, the alienation of neutrals and waverers, and the drawing of a line in the sand.

Blogger dc.sunsets January 13, 2017 8:46 AM  

What I read here is this:
1. Higher IQ people have more horsepower to rationalize their beliefs. (I knew that.)
2. Rhetorically-minded people are more easily persuaded by insults (or the threat thereof) so they are more likely to be leftists when the Dominant Narrative is leftist. (I didn't know this.)

Combining the two, I see why smarter people automatically assume those with whom they disagree are stupid. The subgroup in which they run (smarter people) by definition is more prone to herding, and thus for the last 50 years of Leftist/Progressivist Cult Theocracy (a Narrative so dominant it is as pervasive as is Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia) they are THE most zealous of its cultists.

Lightbulb moment here for me.

Blogger dc.sunsets January 13, 2017 8:51 AM  

@28 Hortons Aristotle described rhetoric as attractively packaging truths - i.e there is a dialectic core. What we are seeing today is where pure emotional appeal takes center stage and indeed there is hardly anything left.

It represents the the final breakdown of communication, hence the loss of the ability to convert anyone, the alienation of neutrals and waverers, and the drawing of a line in the sand.


I think you're missing the point. For 50 years there was a trend away from visible, objective reality in favor of structuring society to chase Utopian fantasies.

Metaphorically, for 50 years people insisted on adding invisible clothing to their closet. One thing led to another until we have people running round completely naked, insisting that visible clothing is a social construct and nothing more.

What "line in the sand" is it to point at such folly and call those espousing it true names?

This is back to the analogy of poop yogurt. Today's cultists insist poop be added to yogurt, while the Rightists insist only fruit or other wholesome foods be added to yogurt.

The appropriate action is NOT to compromise, or do you feel differently?

Blogger VD January 13, 2017 8:53 AM  

Great in theory, unfortunately rhetoric only works on the converted or those who already agree with you. It doesn't make converts, and it often alienates genuine neutrals. How many people are we now hearing about who became disenchanted with the Left because of their insane rhetoric and insults. And yet instead of learning from this, we seek to emulate it.

You're wrong. Stop cucking, cucky. We have learned from what works and what doesn't. You're just preaching the failed tactics of the last 50 years.

Rhetoric always needs to be highly limited - when it begins to dominate your movement, as it did with the Left, you are on your way out.

That's deeply stupid. Since MOST people only speak rhetoric, rhetoric needs to be the primary language of any political movement.

Also, causing someone deep emotional pain is a reliable way to make them hate you, not join you, but i wouldn't overestimate the ability of rhetoric (i.e insults), to cause deep pain. The psychology just isn't sound here.

Psychology is bullshit. You are empirically wrong. I, and others, have utilized this tactic with great effect.

Aristotle described rhetoric as attractively packaging truths - i.e there is a dialectic core.

No, he didn't. You have it backwards and there is no relationship between rhetoric and truth, except that the more truthful the rhetoric is, the more effective it is likely to be. Dialectic is a subset of rhetoric, rhetoric is not a subset of dialectic.

Blogger Sagramore January 13, 2017 8:53 AM  

@17 Remember, they always project their own vulnerabilities and weaknesses.

Of any of your three rules, this has done the most to improve my mental health being around them.

Blogger Robert Coble January 13, 2017 8:59 AM  

@20 Hortons

Did Hortons just hear a "Who, who, WHO ARE YOU, CUCK?"

Are you drawing that "line in the sand" with a red pen?

As for causing deep emotional pain in those who live by inflicting it: kill them all and let God sort them out. Rhetorically speaking, of course. . .



Blogger SouthRon January 13, 2017 9:00 AM  

Horton Hears a Who wants to virtue signal and tell us all what we can't hear. We are better than that. We can't stoop to their level or we're no better than they are. Rhetoric may be fun in the short run, but it will lose the war.

And he is wrong.

When you tell the one guy in your platoon that's whining, bitching and slowing everyone down to get the sand out of his vagina you are encouraging him to man up, do his job and join the rest of the team on the mission. I don't care why he does his job, only that he does it and stops being an impediment.

When you use rhetoric to trigger, shut down, put fear into the enemy and drive them in the right direction, you're fighting the war on your terms and winning.

Nobody ever won a war by reasoning the enemy into withdrawing from the field unless it was first met with overwhelming force, pain and bloodshed so that they know that there is no sense in continuing to fight.

And still he's utterly missing the true psychology of the amygdala triggered. If it causes them pain, they will avoid it. They may hate the pain, but when they are later shown the nice, soft, comfortable and safe warren that's been built, they will gladly join it and live out their days in peace barely remembering it was the Trump-rah and his forces that bloodied there nose so many years ago.

Blogger James Dixon January 13, 2017 9:03 AM  

> Great in theory, unfortunately rhetoric only works on the converted or those who already agree with you.

When you start with an obviously incorrect statement like that, why would you expect us to listen to what you say?

> It doesn't make converts,

We're not trying to make converts of the other side, we're trying to defeat them.

> and it often alienates genuine neutrals.

That depends entirely on how much truth is contained in the rhetoric. True rhetoric convinces, false rhetoric doesn't.

> Rhetoric always needs to be highly limited - when it begins to dominate your movement, as it did with the Left, you are on your way out.

It doesn't dominate our movement. It's a tool.

> Also, causing someone deep emotional pain is a reliable way to make them hate you, not join you...

They already hate us. If you don't understand that, you haven't been paying attention. What part of irredeemable basket of deplorables went over your head?

> The kind of insane rhetoric we are seeing today everywhere is a symptom of cultural decline and the final breakdown of all communication between all factions as they dig into their positions and fight it out.

And your point is? What else have we been saying? There's been an identity politics war going on since the 1960's. Only our side wasn't fighting it. Now we are.

> ...and the drawing of a line in the sand.

I wish people would use that term properly. The whole point of the phrase "a line in the sand" is that such a line is ephemeral. The first good wind blows it away. There's nothing ephemeral about the lines that are being drawn.

Blogger modsquad January 13, 2017 9:15 AM  

The reason the phrase "I don't care" is so effective is because they suffer from personality impersonation. They haven't created a personality for themselves, by themselves, so have chosen to create themselves as others should see them. When you say "I don't care", you're saying "I don't see you."

They've let others create them to the point they're a ghillie suit persona, eventually invisible to everyone but themselves. They can't even make an enemy out of you because you're telling them they don't exist. Which they don't.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 13, 2017 9:23 AM  

Name calling, shname calling. BLAME them

Anonymous Longtime Lurker January 13, 2017 10:18 AM  

The more I think about it, the more it pisses me off: The Democrats, which are at their weakest since the 1920s, not to mention free range SJWs, still think they are the dominant social power in this country. We are past the culminating point. As Trump demonstrated at his press conference the other day, it's our turn now.

OpenID elijahrhodes January 13, 2017 10:18 AM  

The writing of Vox on this subject has profoundly changed how I approach debating liberals. I'm fortunate in that most of my liberal friends, of which I have far too many, are not completely insane, so it is possible to have fun, spirited disagreements with them without it devolving into rancor.

However, in the past I've always used logic, which has gotten me nowhere. Now I stop before responding and attempt to consider how I might engage rhetorically. Admittedly, I'm still not particularly good at rhetoric, but even being aware of it has been transformative.

I've also adopted much more of an I don't care attitude. Rather than getting annoyed at the idiocy being espoused, I've bedome more teasing and cheerfully dismissive, which in itself is disarming. It's amazing how triggered people can become when their barbs simply do not have any effect whatsoever, or are met with cheerful derision.

So for that I am grateful for having found this site.

Anonymous BBGKB January 13, 2017 10:32 AM  

If you're face to face all you have to do is look at them and pick something. As Heartiste says, "physiognomy is real".

I did that over the summer only to be surprised how accurate it turned out to be.

Blogger tuberman January 13, 2017 11:15 AM  

Slightly O.T., but this kind of fits here.

I was sitting at a table playing chess with a bunch of guys who I politically agree with most of the time, this at a McDonald's, and across the hall is another group led by a Leftist Lawyer. We are mainly talking facts, about what's going on politically, but one guy in our group is constantly snarky, interrupting our discussion with superior smirks. This guy pulls this all the time.

I stopped him dead saying, "You are stupid!" He almost sputtered as a usually agree with his points on politics when he brings them up. Yet when anyone else brings up similar topics, he attacks using his apparent sovereign humor.

I said, "See that table across the room of Leftists? They are the people to use 90% of your scorn, sometimes it's okay here, but usually it is stupid. It assumes you are above everything everybody here is talking about, but you are not. Stop your rude attention getting unless you are dealing with those Leftists, then I'll back you.

Everyone else in our group piled on him after that telling him that they were sick of his attention getting and to just STFU. That went too far as I wanted to modify his behavior to be more effective, not shut him down. I realized that he had garnered huge hostility that I had allowed to come out in the open.

Derision, contempt, scorn, and mockery have long been tools of Saul's bots, and our most effective use is directly against them, as, yes, they project who they are onto others, and what they fear most.

Blogger Lew Rand January 13, 2017 12:00 PM  

I like the MPAI direction. It and greed shut down most Utopian fantasies fast.

When the argument ends with 'But yeah if it was implemented perfectly, then it would be a good idea', its pretty much over. Can't fully convert em, but they at least acknowledge that due to MPAI, it won't happen in this world.

Blogger tublecane January 13, 2017 2:01 PM  

@17-But "Dems R the Real Racists" was based on that. Granted, the right has done a crappy job of getting it across.

Blogger tublecane January 13, 2017 2:09 PM  

@31-"there is no relationship between rhetoric and truth, except that the more truthful the rhetoric is, the more effective it is likely to be"

That sounds like a strong relationship to me.

Blogger tublecane January 13, 2017 2:29 PM  

@28-I have little regard for psychology, also, but you're wrong on the psychology there, anyway. Shame, for example, may be the most perfect motivator there is.

Rhetoric goes way beyond internet flame wars, and the niceness versus shit-talking debate. If you want to be nice, stay out of the trenches. But you'll find rhetoric behind the lines, as well. It's everywhere.

Blogger kh123 January 13, 2017 2:53 PM  

Just replace "sticks and stones" with "bullets and bombs." The tongue may be a fire that spreads iniquity, and there's been constant hand-wringing about how a word out of place will magically summon a myriad of Hitlers, but recently it seems that rhetoric is essentially one way (some would argue the only way) to bypass the bullets-and-bombs phase of social/cultural unrest, much the same as voting was supposed to supplant violent revolution. It's a safety valve for grievances that will inevitably exist in a culture, and moreso whenever it's as heterogeneous as what Leftists push for.

Would one rather have a war of words (thus talking down, demoralizing and defeating barbarians who'd readily take to bloody "revolution" at the drop of Soros' hat anyway), or a situation where whole swaths of tax payers simply go postal because it's been suppressed for so many years. Swords may ultimately be beaten into plowshares, but the apostles were told to take theirs on their journey.

Blogger James Dixon January 13, 2017 3:17 PM  

> That sounds like a strong relationship to me.

I believe the key idea left out is that there is no "necessary" relationship.

Anonymous JAG January 13, 2017 4:05 PM  

Hortons wrote:Also, causing someone deep emotional pain is a reliable way to make them hate you, not join you, but i wouldn't overestimate the ability of rhetoric (i.e insults), to cause deep pain.

The psychology just isn't sound here.

The kind of insane rhetoric we are seeing today everywhere is a symptom of cultural decline and the final breakdown of all communication between all factions as they dig into their positions and fight it out.

Aristotle described rhetoric as attractively packaging truths - i.e there is a dialectic core. What we are seeing today is where pure emotional appeal takes center stage and indeed there is hardly anything left.

It represents the the final breakdown of communication, hence the loss of the ability to convert anyone, the alienation of neutrals and waverers, and the drawing of a line in the sand.



The left is lucky that all that is coming back their way is emotional pain. In an earlier era we would be exterminating them for the traitors they are, or exiling the sub-human scum from our midst.

I'm not interested in winning converts, or friends from people too stupid, or too damn evil. There is no other reason for being a leftist today. You are either an emotional moron, or you are an evil piece of shit gaining power from said morons and their vote.

This insane cultural decline is coming from one side. Trying to live and let live has failed, because the evil sub-humans actually get off on making the rest of us miserable. Crush the fuckers without mercy.

Anonymous JAG January 13, 2017 4:13 PM  

elijahrhodes wrote:The writing of Vox on this subject has profoundly changed how I approach debating liberals. I'm fortunate in that most of my liberal friends, of which I have far too many, are not completely insane, so it is possible to have fun, spirited disagreements with them without it devolving into rancor.


You are only fooling yourself. Leftists don't have, and are incapable of making friends. They have comrades on the left, and far too nice people on the right whom they will stab in the back as soon as the opportunity to do so arrives. Don't believe me? Just give it time and circumstance.

Blogger Chris McCullough January 13, 2017 4:39 PM  

I've found it a reliable tell that the left only likes people on the right whom they beleive they can beat in a fight. Being natural born traitors, Liberals only make contracts with people they plan to stab in the back. For years they lauded McCain as some revolutionary free thinker capable of reaching across the isle and promoting unity, only to demonize him with utter contempt when he ran agianst their golden calf. Same with Romney, the same would have happened to Jeb. It was the fact that Trump won their scorn and anger well before he was even a contender in the race that I knew he was what a genuine threat to the left.

Blogger Pteronarcyd January 13, 2017 10:36 PM  

@10: "If they don't like "I don't care," then perhaps "whatever" would work. Or maybe "grow up," or "put on your big boy/girl pants" or such?"

"I don't care" and "Whatever" are defensive replies. The Left uses "Stupid" and "Racist" as offensive weapons. We need our own offensive verbal weapons, and am not sure what they should be.

Blogger Pteronarcyd January 13, 2017 10:43 PM  

Matt wrote:
"A[s] Vox said, they're projecting. Theyre the real racists and idiots. They're also depraved and amoral."

Understood. It would be best if our offensive rhetoric was rooted in reality and morality, and not be projectionistic (ie, it should pejoratively described Leftists, not us). Haidt's Moral Foundation Theory confirms that Leftists are in the shallow and narrow end of the morality pool, so knee-jerk rhetoric that characterizes them as immoral should be easy to fashion. Since the 2012 election I've just been calling them immoral, but I think many on the Left are too dense to be offended.

Blogger Pteronarcyd January 13, 2017 11:04 PM  

chris wrote:
"Cuck (for men). Ugly Whore (for women)."

As a biologist I like and use the label, Cuckservative, but it only works for Pseudoconservatives, not Leftists. Plus, the slur is being overly and improperly used by the Alt Reich. Tying the slur to a consensual sexual fetish undermines its impact. Ecologically one becomes cuckholded by unknowingly investing one's life resources on the offspring of another at the expense of one's own.

I have no objection to "Ugly whore," but it won't work in many social settings. Consider a church group debating their charity outreach plans for the coming year. If you suggest avoiding helping illegal aliens for obvious reasons, a fellow cat-lady parishioner can comfortably object by saying, "That seems racist." Countering with, "It's not racist, you ugly whore!" is not going to work well for you.

Blogger Pteronarcyd January 13, 2017 11:12 PM  

the management wrote"
""Pussy" or "coward" for men, "foolish bitch" for women. These strike at self-image and classic insecurities.

"A simple "liar" or "snake" if you want something gender neutral."

Good suggestions. In my church group example above, I can see responding to "That seems racist" with:

"It seems cowardly (or foolish) to promote action that harms our nation.

Blogger Pteronarcyd January 14, 2017 12:00 AM  

Athor Pel wrote:
"If you're face to face all you have to do is look at them and pick something. As Heartiste says, "physiognomy is real"."

I think "You're fat!" or "You have a big nose!" will backfire on you far too often. And, you'll likely just create sympathy for the one you attacked.

Blogger Pteronarcyd January 14, 2017 12:14 AM  

VD wrote:
"Whatever they throw at others. Remember, they always project their own vulnerabilities and weaknesses."

The Left holds the high ground (tactical, not moral) when it comes to using "Stupid!" and "Racist!" Because, they have been using these insults for so long without the Right responding effectively that the essentially own these slurs. This could change, but only with great effort over substantial time.

Plus, responding to "You're a racist!" with "No, you're the racist" is a puerile form of argumentation that didn't work in childhood and won't work in adulthood.

When it comes to new insults, it is possible to grab the high ground before the Left does if we strike quickly and effectively. An example is the Left's new meme of Fake News. Obcious projection, the Right immediately applied the term liberally to Leftists, and Trump secured the high ground when he called CNN Fake News during his press conference.

We need a handful of slurs we can mindlessly use on Leftists, and the more rooted they are in reality and unrelated they are to the Left's armory of slurs, the more effective they will be.

Blogger Pteronarcyd January 14, 2017 12:17 AM  

APL wrote:
"How 'bout; fascist, racist, bigot, sexist, misogynist ..."

While all true when applied to the typical libtard, these are all slurs "owned" by the Left. Thus, most Leftists will feel immune from them.

Blogger Pteronarcyd January 14, 2017 12:23 AM  

Lew Rand wrote:
"I like the MPAI direction."

Was ist das MPAI?

Blogger wreckage January 14, 2017 5:25 AM  

Most People Are Idiots.


For rhetoric, I like to have a statistical or scientific paper to link to.

Call them ignorant, foolish, oblivious to the science, anything that means ill-educated, then cite sources - the latter is for your audience.

Another good one is to call them unsympathetic, anti-human, and self-obsessed.... and then cite the data that says yes, actually, the Left are. They do not, CANNOT see it coming.

These only really work online. Citing sources in a shouting match is impossible.

Blogger wreckage January 14, 2017 5:26 AM  

I should emphasize, the facts are there to prove to others that your name-calling was accurate.

Blogger Pteronarcyd January 14, 2017 10:07 PM  

@wreckage,

Good advice, which fits me, given my training as a scientist steeped in dialectic. Rhetoric based in fact beats rhetoric based in lies (like most Leftist rhetoric).

I like calling Leftists immoral while citing Haidt's Moral Foundation Theory, and calling them inhumane on the topic of gun control while citing John R. Lott, Jr.'s works.

What we need is a list of go-to slurs with the citations to back them up.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts