Saturday, September 23, 2017

SJW tactics

I want to be sure that I didn't forget any of them in the chapter of SJWADD devoted to them. I'm talking about the specific tactics, such as the "bait-and-report", rather than the larger tendencies such as those described by the Three Laws of Social Justice.

If anything occurs to you, throw it out. I want to be as comprehensive as possible.



Blogger Anno Ruse September 23, 2017 6:38 AM  

Something I've noticed while trolling /r/politics on reddit is that most of the time if you counter an SJW with pure logic, explaining why his position makes absolutely no sense under any circumstances, he'll disappear but another SJW will show up to take the argument in a different direction. It really gives you the feeling that there is this hivemind that is responding to all attacks on the collective narrative.

Anonymous Gurpgork September 23, 2017 6:47 AM  

Run away and declare victory.

Blogger DeploraBard ( September 23, 2017 6:51 AM  

Rally support "in defense of the offense" you triggered. They will always dog-pile as alone they are degenerate cowards.

Anonymous Student in Blue September 23, 2017 6:52 AM  

Tactics in which context? In how they swarm, how they retreat, how they infect, or all of it?

Anonymous Durandel September 23, 2017 6:54 AM  

Codes of Conduct or whatever they call it and the requisite Trust &a Safety Councils

Entryism & Displacement


Harassment & Threats including doxing and swating

Slander and defamation

Always works within a group - no lone ranger SJWs

Blogger DeploraBard ( September 23, 2017 6:56 AM  

Preemptive strikes strictly according to the rules/guidelines of the organization.

Blogger DeploraBard ( September 23, 2017 6:59 AM  

Student in Blue wrote:Tactics in which context? In how they swarm, how they retreat, how they infect, or all of it?

Swarm is the perfect word. Well said.

Anonymous Durandel September 23, 2017 7:01 AM  

Manipulate normies by appealing to normie's needs to feel that they are open minded and compassionate

Play the victim, endlessly

Falsely claim harassment, assault, or abuse in response to challenges or criticism.

Anonymous JamesV September 23, 2017 7:02 AM  

Why can't you just admit you made a mistake so we can move on from this? This is a close cousin to the "all we want is an apology" tactic.

Of course any admission of a mistake will not be moved on from but used endlessly and tirelessly to delegitimize the target. The target is convinced that if they can admit their mistake they show they can "grow" and be trusted more in future endeavors.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 23, 2017 7:05 AM  

Gatling Gun Insults - they just keep spamming you with them until they find one they *think* sticks. (It's always a tad odd when they stick to one that clearly doesn't. I'm thinking of @stillgray and ants.)

Chewbacca Offense - Because Chewbacca is a Wookiee from Kashyyyk, you are X. Doesn't matter what X is, but you are X and it's horrible. They will then use their echo chamber to attempt to make that a reality.

Delayed Dox - Just because you were doxxed once doesn't mean it won't happen again. Seems like there is normally a cycle of a few more weeks (say 6ish) and around 5 months later. The first delayed dox seems to come from people still stewing about the first event, while the second comes from people that were not as actively involved in the first attack and want to improve their standing in the group.

Child Attack - they will *always* go after your children. Most SJWs are sexual deviants, so it's expected from an overview level. However, it's an utterly unacceptable thing to do in real life.

Woodstock 1969 - They will claim you were at a place, did a thing or had a conversation that could have never taken place. The more outlandish the generally more effective, as it's very hard to "prove a negative". Another thing to be tossed into the echo chamber to be established about the target.

Point & Shriek - likely one of the first covered, but at least should mention it.

Blogger JohnofAustria September 23, 2017 7:08 AM  

Racial double standards, tactical nihilism, context denial, conflating empirical with moral claims and doing so selectively.

Anonymous JamesV September 23, 2017 7:10 AM  

The data swarm technique. This is where they get enough of their allies to use a meme that it gets picked up by high visibility sights and the meme becomes gospel truth to anyone except insiders who know the truth.

For example, "so and so is a pedophile." That ain't something about yourself that you want to get inculcated as common knowledge.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 23, 2017 7:11 AM  


That is a pitch perfect one. I was already loading rhetorical weaponry reading the first line of your comment.

Fake Deescalation - They appeal to the way normal people work to get you to mess up.

Worst Person in the World - Olbermann's old shtick, but you see it a lot. For a period of time, you're "worse than Hitler".

Blogger DeploraBard ( September 23, 2017 7:12 AM  

Pretend friend until you offend = utter betrayal

Blogger Laramie Hirsch September 23, 2017 7:15 AM  

David Burge of the iowahawkblog tweeted this:

1. Identify a respected institution
2. Kill it
3. Gut it
4. Wear its carcass as a skin suit, demanding respect.

I would add that with such infiltration into an institution, if it ceases to attract people to it--such as with a Catholic order--the leftist infiltrators actually celebrate and take pride in its demise. Ann Barnhardt spoke of this recently:

"I have an anecdote sent in by a friend of the blog who, while on pilgrimage a few weeks ago, was able to have a good conversation with someone who is very close to the liberal religious orders. The contact said, in no uncertain terms, that the aging-to-death religious orders are HAPPY that they are dying out because they HATE the Church and view The Church and their own orders as they were founded as “unjust”. These orders not only do not lament that they have no new incoming vocations, but they consciously, actively drive away any young people who come inquiring, because they consider any young person joining a religious order OF ANY KIND as a “waste of their life”. Needless to say, these auto-destructing religious orders hate with a fiery passion the traditional orders, which have young vocations out their ears, because THEY WANT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO DIE."

Anonymous Causal Lurker September 23, 2017 7:23 AM  

Pharisee Gambit - load an organization's rules and operating procedures with conflicting results and procedural logjams. Make it highly difficult or impossible to get the job done. Blame you for being a Bad Person for both outcomes:

Failure caused by following procedures
Success caused by ignoring the procedures

Of course, this is set aside for favored ones. Males are never favored.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch September 23, 2017 7:27 AM  

Intentionally adjusting organization's rules so that they're nebulous enough to be bent so much, so that the organization becomes corrupted later on.

Anonymous RS September 23, 2017 7:30 AM  

Mean girls divide and conquer - claiming that someone is the "leader" of others to build targets and foster jealousy

Amplifying disagreements - Tom and Jake differ in their opinion on a two cents aluminum tax, therefore they disagree about everything and Tom, do you not realize that Jake is a Nazi?

Similar but slightly different - "let's you and him fight"

Consistently interpreting every tweet and comment in it's most damaging or offensive possible meaning, leaving people on their back foot and afraid to call out sjw bs.

Breaking social norms like "leave politics out of the office" while purposely only mentioning the most egregious parts of right damaging stories, leaving right leaning co-workers looking like apologists for uncivilized behavior.

Blogger Felix Bellator September 23, 2017 7:30 AM  

Ad hominem, discredit, and dismiss. Repeat.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera September 23, 2017 7:30 AM  

They always organize conspiracies. Put two of them in the same room and they'll find each other and have a subreddit with a secret mailing list by sundown.

Anonymous burgmeister September 23, 2017 7:31 AM  

'Being stuck in old times'
'Times have changed'
'We had that before'

Blogger Felix Bellator September 23, 2017 7:32 AM  

Pseudo-dialect, claim opponent used a logical fallacy, retreat.

Anonymous Aeoli Pera September 23, 2017 7:36 AM  

Causal Lurker, I like the name Pharisee's Gambit for that phenomenon.

Blogger Felix Bellator September 23, 2017 7:37 AM  

Assume a position for your opponent, pontificate on how this assumed position is contrary to opponents statement. "I am sure you would agree that X. But can't you see your position is against X?"

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira September 23, 2017 7:39 AM  

Being naked as a form of protest.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer September 23, 2017 7:40 AM  

Disappear for a period of time and return triumphantly later with no recollection of all your points being refuted.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer September 23, 2017 7:41 AM  

Threaten to leave but never actually leave.

Blogger Lovekraft September 23, 2017 7:41 AM  

Capn Cummings put a twitter comment on his new video (which I posted on the Journolist comment thread).

It basically points out how SJWs ignore the duty to honor and respect the icons and history of the characters.

Somewhat related to this thread:

SJWs fail to understand their role and power and appear like statue-toppling rabids.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer September 23, 2017 7:43 AM  

Completely change an organization and blame all resulting failures on the organizations positions prior to your changes leading into the infamous dpuble down.

Anonymous Looking Glass September 23, 2017 7:46 AM  

There's a clear Cyberspace vs Meatspace divide between the application of the tactics. Something probably important to note.

Blogger Lovekraft September 23, 2017 7:58 AM  

Disarm the citizenry, literally and figuratively. Emasculate, shame, isolate.

Make the non-SJWs easy targets, sitting ducks.

Imagine for a second what their tone would be if we had the reputation of another *ahem* 'religion.'

Blogger Rational Thinker September 23, 2017 8:07 AM  

Asking for a "source" for an obviously true statement so they can attack the "source" rather than argue the point or admit they are wrong.

Anonymous The Deuce September 23, 2017 8:12 AM  

The "Everyone is laughing at you" tactic, where they try to portray their narrow fringe group as "everyone."

Blogger Stilicho September 23, 2017 8:17 AM  

@RS that is the "straw leader" gambit. Similar to the straw man argument.

They swarm where possible and inflict the death of a thousand squees.

If losing, they will try to burn down a thread with distractions, inanities, vulgarity, you name it, in order to avoid taking a kill shot or to prevent anyone from noticing their defeat. Similar to how they will destroy a converged organization rather than relinquish control.

They love to cite to pseudo science or use pseudo dialectic: they think it gives them an aura of legitimacy in their audience's eyes. This is important to them (and reveals a weakness) because at some level, they know they are frauds, nothing more than cowardly rabbits looking to steal from their betters.

They. Want. To. Be. Triggered. The fleeting emotional surge they experience via triggering, micro-aggressions, etc. give emotional color and a brief endorphin rush to otherwise dull and meaningless live. I suspect the pleasure is derived less from the triggering than from the fact they have been conditioned to expect some sort of reward for claims of triggering in the r-selected world we currently inhabit. So keep triggering them, but deny their amygdalae the reward (social validation, support, $$, revenge, mob attack on K's, etc.) they seek. It's part of the reason "we don't care" is so effective: it shuts down their pathway from "claim triggering" to "get reward".

Anonymous Heck No September 23, 2017 8:20 AM  

#1 Run to the boss with exaggerated stories.
#2 Deliberately misinterpret comments in a negative light, then back to above.
#3 Office gossip, backbiting, then back to #1 with any response.

Basically, feminine gang tactics, all.

Blogger JC September 23, 2017 8:21 AM  

Definitely sea-lioning has to be in there.

That's what I find leftists and especially new atheist types do all the time too.

It is described as a GG tactic because of the way more moderate GG users would repeatedly demand evidence that GG was about harassing women. But as you've taught, SJWs always project.

Anonymous Ain September 23, 2017 8:21 AM  

Using sock puppets and bots to AstroTurf a particularly asinine aspect of social engineering to give it the appearance of having wide public support.

Blogger Stilicho September 23, 2017 8:28 AM  

They present all of their feelz as if it is establish(ment) fact, majority opinion, etc. They seek the protection of numbers from any challenges to their shibboleths. Rather than strive to be normal, they seek to redefine normalcy to encompass their degeneracy. Pointing out their degenerate nature and how this excludes them from normal society is particularly effective out grouping because it hearkens back to their formative years when they were ostracized for their freakishness. Some wounds never heal. Let the pain flow.

Blogger SouthRon September 23, 2017 8:28 AM  

Argument to Reason - All reasonable people know X for both meanings of reason. If you oppose X, you are either unreasonable and may be ignored, shamed or attacked; or you lack reason making you a lower form of life and you may be ignored, shamed or attacked.

Present dogma as fact without evidence or We would be better if.... This is the Diversity and Women in Technology argument.

Anonymous TheHiss September 23, 2017 8:32 AM  

Anyone who questions what is going on is blamed for "being disruptive" or "causing conflict".

Blogger LES September 23, 2017 8:37 AM  

Weakest link. The SJW is so fragile that everyone must accommodate them.

Blogger SouthRon September 23, 2017 8:38 AM  

Concerned/Not Concerned - They are either concerned you might do X or they pretend to be above caring about you at all about. Either way they take to position of acting as an authority and get people to amplify and agree with their position on you.

Scalzi doesn't care. He doesn't care so much he will whip his followers into a frenzy to pile on the RSHD.

Blogger bw September 23, 2017 8:44 AM  


Tarpon. Mullet schools. Wait.

Anonymous Frank Lin September 23, 2017 8:44 AM  

The mass media ignores someone with reasonable arguments as long as possible. If that person continues to make headway and a movement forms, the media looks for a vulgar firebrand. They build up that person, the pure rhetorician who doesn't really make good arguments. They make this person the face of the movement, and devote psuedo-dialectic to debunking his ideas. This prepares the public mind to associate the intelligent ideas of the movement with the worst arguments made by the person they built up. This is the entire purpose of Fox News Republicans.

As the reasonable person's ideas spread, they encounter an idea space where the uninformed public lazily says these ideas "sound like" the worst arguments, and they die in the water, or at least advance more slowly.

Anonymous Rfvujm September 23, 2017 8:46 AM  

Silence is opposition

"Why didn't you participate in the awareness for ___ event? You're an evil bigot who thinks everyone affected by ___ deserves to die."

Anonymous Anonymous September 23, 2017 8:48 AM  

Concerned/Not Concerned

Good one. Opening lines to typical rant by a rabid liberal on facebook:

"Look, I don't care about this ridiculous subject, but [paragraphs of ranting ensue]."

Also, Slipping out of a Checkmate:

When you corner a liberal in a debate, he will do one of three things:

1) thoughtfully nod as though you just proved his point for him

2) get angry

3) slip out of the pin with an absurdist or an extremely inappropriate quip. One example in my experience... this was a liberal acquaintance at a party who wouldn't drop the buzz-kill pity-party for inner city blacks in schools, going on about how Whites "are abandoning them" with flight to private schools. When I pointed out his glaring hypocrisy on this matter (he's exactly the type of white-flighter), he made an objectively funny but extremely uncalled for sexual joke at his young daughter's expense.

Blogger buzzardist September 23, 2017 8:50 AM  

"Speaking as a (insert identity here)" as a means of discrediting anyone who doesn't fit into that identity. (Plus viciously targeting, denying the identity, and railing against the hypocrisy of anyone who happens to fit the identity and takes a contrary view.)

Fake ignoring a non-SJW, especially in online conversations. "I'm sorry about the dumbshit ruining this thread for everyone" or "Can anyone else believe this guy?"

Jumping in with "feelz" and "I totally agree" in support of another SJW voice as soon as one person voices a dissenting view.


"You are saying that..." This is always a signal that SJWs are misconstruing the other person's claim in favor of a straw man.

Blogger SouthRon September 23, 2017 8:57 AM  

Submarine Warfare

The smarter, more deliberate, and sociopathic ones will keep their real goals, feelings, desires, and beliefs hidden until the maneuver into a position to destroy their target or dictate policy which must be followed.

Once they have been successful at destroying a person or an orginazation they will be heralded as an authority in whatever area they minimally worked in and transferred, promoted, or hired to destroy the next target.

Writ large you see this with a number of female CXO's.

Blogger xavier September 23, 2017 9:01 AM  

Here's interesting link of 1000s of antifas have been doxxed

Blogger SouthRon September 23, 2017 9:01 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger SouthRon September 23, 2017 9:03 AM  

Nominally worked. Of course some also do the minimum, but that wasntwasn't my point .

Anonymous Dirk Gently September 23, 2017 9:04 AM  

I use a variation of that against them in comment sections.

"Shut up. People are sick of your obvious lies.

P.S. Nobody likes you. NOBODY!"

Blogger Longtime Lurker September 23, 2017 9:13 AM  

Off the top of my head:

Point and Shriek
Codes of Conduct
Competitive Moral Posturing and Virtue Signaling
Engineered Moral Panics
Weaponized Hypersensitivity and Compassion
No Platforming
Kafka Trapping

Anonymous NH September 23, 2017 9:17 AM  


I assume you're only looking for strategies pertaining to doubling down specifically.

1. Eating their own as a display of power and loyalty. For the poisonous brood, the male black widow is loyal nourishment against your harsh world. Care to tangle with the bitter-black mother?

2.Let's you and everyone fight making you think that your allies are questioning your boldness.

3. existential threats where the very existence of something is blown out of proportion.

Anonymous Dirk Gently September 23, 2017 9:17 AM  

Most of these can me straight out of typical behaviors of Borderline Personality Disorder.

Blogger MendoScot September 23, 2017 9:32 AM  

Claiming they have been threatened with violence or rape, either by you or unidentifiable 3rd parties associated with you.
Arguing in groups where they spend all their time agreeing how they've destroyed your arguments without ever having addressed them.
"Come to my blog and discuss it" - i.e. somewhere not so public where my friends hang out.
"I'm trying to understand your point of view" - quickly followed by telling you what your point of view is.

Anonymous Dillon September 23, 2017 9:37 AM  

Using vauge words that allow them to bait and switch in the middle of conversation. The most obvious example is the word Racist. This has no commonly agreed upon definition, and allows them to freely equivocate between moral and immoral things.

Using this tactic, they can make it impossible for people to have clear conversations about important issues, and they can also join repulsive behaviour at the hip with healthy behaviour that they want to stigmatize.

Blogger Ned September 23, 2017 9:42 AM  

Hegelian dialectic-esque creating a (non existent) problem and supplying a solution: "There are so many (((females))) with penises we must re-label bathrooms so these ugly "women" have a place to pee."

Anonymous Prayers answered for the Trumpslide September 23, 2017 9:47 AM  

Slightly OT, but the SJW's are really gloating over the scalp they got with getting Whittaker cast as the next Doctor Who. They believe the world stood in awe at how the patriarch was broken in that one day... Simply delusional.

Blogger Elocutioner September 23, 2017 10:01 AM  

They take your obviously correct logical argument and deliberately misinterpret it for their own benefit. If A=>B "so you agree with not B!"

Read into your argument a completely unrelated implication for the argument so they can switch topics.

Become deliberately obtuse and pretend not to understand the point you just made to buy time to find another angle of attack.

Claim a false moral authority based on some perceived victim status then appeal to their own authority.

Set up people and institutions with respectable names for appeals to authority. NDT, Bill Nye, Anne Frank Center, ADL, SPLC, etc. This is why #FakeNews has been so damaging - those are leftist institutions that we're tearing down and their appeals can be casually dismissed with a hashtag.

Dazzle with bullshit - a litany of non sequiturs and/or bullshit that fools people not familiar with the topic. They love to use obscure terms to give themselves a veneer of authority.

Gossip. Spread lies and rumors to damage reputations.

Maybe go through a list of the most common logical fallacies?

Anonymous BBGKB September 23, 2017 10:02 AM  

Calling all the cake bakeries until they find someone that won't bake a cake.

Blogger Sentient Spud September 23, 2017 10:02 AM  

Authority by osmosis - An SJW makes and appeal to authority (usually Science®) and demands anyone with a contrary view produce data that shows otherwise. When said data is provided, the SJW immediately becomes an expert in both study methodology and all applicable fields. This newly developed expertise is then called upon to demonstrate the myriad ways your data isn't valid.

Anonymous SanityClause September 23, 2017 10:16 AM  

Ally, Neutralize, Destroy

Ally: see that, say, a group plans to demonstrate against tearing down some confederate statues, which have been local icons for decades. You join, "we want to help". You are also kmow as a "provocation agent", your job is to infilterate them and get them to do things that will discredite, weaken, and ultimately destroy them.

Neutralize: Show up with a few pieces of Nazi uniform on your person, make Nazi salute or something sorta like it, "help" by passing out torches for a torch parade (they don't know that is a Nazi thing, you do), and make sure your tame media types focus on all that and get it on video.

Destroy: Your tame newsies focus exclusively on anything which can be said to be Nazi, you now point and shriek and claim it was all done by Nazies, even if most of them were just locals against tearing down local icons.

You can now claim it was all Nazi's, in fact, why, the whole alt-right is all Nazi (and KKK even if no one wore white sheets), so, why, we should shut them all up, and the use of violence is OK, right, because Hitler. Meanwhile, suddenly all your tame (and probably linked by a journolist) newsies join this idea, and from then on, alt-right is equated with Nazi, starting with a swarm of news articles the very next day pointing and shrieking "Nazi!".

I predicted this about a year ago here , it is easy to predict, Ally, Neutralize, Destroy is THE standard tactic the Soviets used to take over Eastern Europe, and the left are their children.

Blogger Lovekraft September 23, 2017 10:22 AM  

Somewhat related: video after video of men doing dangerous jobs.

Next time you hear an 'empowered' feminist who puffs out her chest at some ridiculous achievement, point these out.

Blogger rycamor September 23, 2017 10:26 AM  

The "reasonableness" appeal:

"Relax... no one wants to take your guns away." (said with an eye roll)

"You're saying a millionaire can't afford to spend a few more thousand a year on taxes?"

Or many variants of

"Do you really think X will happen if we just Y?"

"Don't you think you're overreacting to X?"

Middle-class right-wing people pride themselves on being sensible, grounded and unflappable, so this attack can be quite effective, characterizing them as nervous and fearful.

Anonymous SanityClause September 23, 2017 10:39 AM  

One from the whole "Climate Change" thing, citing a made up source. First, publish something saying what you want people to believe in some obscure magazine (so no one can really find the original source) or some such somewhere, say, that "97% of scientists agree" or some such. Next, have someone cite it, then someone cites them, etc. Finally, have a major "expert" cite it, and from then on, accept it a gospel truth, even though the original source is unknown to most people, the methodology is hidden (being misleading at best, or even fraudulent), and if that were known, the whole idea would be discredited. All that matters to the media is that someone said it somewhere who could be said to be an "expert" and that it is something that agrees with "the narrative".

Blogger Quilp September 23, 2017 10:56 AM  

I hope its not off topic to point out many of the tactics I'm seeing here are also employed by the Reich Tards.

They not only double down on an issue, but often with the same tactics that aren't working for them to try and deflect. Example: A democrat discussing immigration with Tucker Carlson who uses the rule of law as part of his argument. The Democrat then uses some emotional appeal, then when that doesn't work, he cites another instance in which he thinks Republicans are just plain mean - Trump supporters chanting "Lock her Up!" Even when trying to deflect, he can't help but try and use an emotional appeal to discredit an obvious breakdown of the rule of law.

Where the SJW thinks he has successfully deflected and at the same time pointed out just how mean Trump supporters are, all he has really done is give you yet another example of trying to use emotion to overcome the law.

Blogger DBSFF September 23, 2017 11:01 AM  

You probably have these in some form.

The one I encounter the most is "bait and emote." They start a conversation, then call opponent evil either because they always planned on doing so or because they get in over their head and that's their default. Very common.

The Memory Wipe. I'll be talking to someone relatively reasonable and they'll be wrestling with whatever new insanity their side put out. And I'll hear them rationalizing it uncomfortably. And I know if we talk about this topic in a few more months any opposition to this point will be characterized as beyond the pale and they'll have memory holed any hint that they were having trouble accepting this new premise just a short time ago. Gay marriage is a great example, same with transgendereds. Also a key mechanism in the slippery slope and moving the Overton Window.

Blogger David Power September 23, 2017 11:14 AM  

Observing the madness that is our current body politic, one can clearly see that the Left in general, and the SJW-Left in particular, is quintessentially female in character.

In the sense that it's priorities and methods of achieving those priorities, mirror the evolved survival strategies of the female psyche.

i.e. Resource redistribution, Shaming Tactics, Let's You and Him Fight etc.

The Right, in contrast, is quintessentially masculine in character and mirrors the evolved survival strategies of the male psyche.

i.e. Rewarding Hard Work, Maintaining a Strong Military, Securing Borders etc.

Everything Bill Burr says here about the tactics women use to win an argument, applies equally to SJW's....

Blogger Elocutioner September 23, 2017 11:15 AM  

Crybullying - use a slightly subtle insult/smear then claim victory when YOU use ad homs in response. It's not an ad hom when they do it.

You get the worst possible reading and they're always given the most lenient benefit of the doubt on their intentions.

Anonymous Yann September 23, 2017 11:18 AM  

- Strawman. By far the most common, very often in indirect style. Th e conversation becomes quickly "I haven't said such a thing" "Please, quote my exact words" again and again. SJW barely quote.

And even when they quote... a few weeks ago in a debate about the Google Manifesto I found that one quote from that manifesto in a BBC article was wrong, and the fake quote was changed to fulfill the BBC narrative.

- Humor taken seriously. One of the most extreme cases I've seen was the supposed rape-apologist sentence from the ReturnOfTheKings guy, taken from a satiric article in the way of Jonathan Swift ones. The issue escalated to him being banned from some countries and having to hire bodyguards.

- Getting key positions that allow to control people and speech. That's something I have observed: you can have a forum with a lot of ideological diversity, but for some reason the people who wants to work for free as administrators use to be SJW. The same can be said of sites as the Wikipedia.

Common people are not interested in working for free in such sites, but for SJWs the power to censor and control speech serves as payment for their time. So you end up having SJW controlling speech and information.

I think the same probably applies to people who makes a career in Human Resources, highly populated with SJWs. While for a normal person the only payment is the salary, a SJW will enjoy both the salary and the ability to control other people, something that heavily incentives them to pursue this career. And maybe something similar happens with journalism and academic, that allow to control the information the society receives.

Anonymous James September 23, 2017 11:18 AM  

The "at least we can agree."

If they seem to be losing an argument in public (as in commenters are not backing them up and they face the possibility of social shaming), they back off the argument by looking for the "at least we can agree" compromise.

"Trump is literally Hitler!"

Why is Nancy Pelosi taking him to lunch?

"Well, at least you can agree that you wouldn't him watching your daughter."

If that gambit fails, they move to "don't you wish."

"Don't you wish he'd stop picking fights on Twitter?"

They're counting on the group wanting the conflict to end, so they look for some kind of win, to give the illusion that they've made you give them a concession.

If you take the bait, within minutes they'll be privately asking members of the group why you're so unreasonable.

Blogger seeingsights September 23, 2017 11:25 AM  

One SJW tactic is to imply that an organization is "racist, sexist, homophobe" when it is not; the organization is simply resilient against SJW infiltration.

A recent example is the Dragon Con Awards. Two left/liberal writers withdrew their name from the Dragon Con ballot (though one of them re-entered). These two writers by their withdrawal implied that the Dragon Con Awards were run by evil Right Wingers. In reality, Dragon Con is not captured by any clique.

Anonymous Anonymous September 23, 2017 11:27 AM  

Goal post shifting and the related tactic of redefining words. Just look at any discussion of Venezuela and socialism for a plethora of examples.

Anonymous A random September 23, 2017 11:28 AM  

Larry Correia's Internet Arguing Checklist.


Skim until Offended
Disqualify that Opinion
Attack, Attack, Attack
Disregard Inconvenient facts
Make Shit Up
Resort to Moral Equivalency
Concern Trolling
When all else fails, Racism!

Blogger seeingsights September 23, 2017 11:33 AM  

One SJW tactic is to make a big deal about nothing. For example, some made a big deal about Trump passing information about terrorism to Russian officials.
However, Trump by law is permitted to do that, and two, it is a sensible action. Reducing terrorism around the world is a good thing, no?
Most nothingburgers come from lefties.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 23, 2017 11:48 AM  

@44 Rfvujm
Silence is opposition

"Why didn't you participate in the awareness for ___ event? You're an evil bigot who thinks everyone affected by ___ deserves to die."

They are even worse, because if you don't virtue signal for their approval with all your might, you will be branded as a nazi or whatever the cause of the day is.

Blogger Lucas Temple (a.k.a. Armenia4ever) September 23, 2017 11:49 AM  

Might be off topic, but I just preordered SJWADD.

Keep strong.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 23, 2017 11:52 AM  

@55 MendoScot
Claiming they have been threatened with violence or rape, either by you or unidentifiable 3rd parties associated with you.

The doubling down aspect would be someone like Mattress Girl - screaming for attention and pity over a complete hoax.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 23, 2017 11:54 AM  

Calling all the cake bakeries until they find someone that won't bake a cake.

That is a very dedicated version of searching for an infraction

Anonymous MaskettaMan September 23, 2017 12:04 PM  

Circular citations, creating a leader of an amorphous group so they can knock them down (leader of GG), alternately belittling opposition and maximizing opposition's threat level, urging meatspace action when cyberaction will do, saying "You must be approved by X authority to be legitimate", demanding disavowals of this person and that person to initiate a yes-ladder. All flavors of tactics associated with drawing you into their rhetorical universe and out of your own.

Trying to send you into the mainstream which is full of SJW-amenable authorities. #resistance, amirite?

Anonymous Rfvujm September 23, 2017 12:08 PM  

This is one of my favorite VP threads in recent history.

Selective Victimhood

Black person murders someone during a carjacking or robbery: he was forced to do that due to white oppression or white supremacy.

Muslim goes on a stabbing spree while "shouting God is Great in Arabic": he only did it because of islamophobia and xenophobia - the only cure is importing more people from his third world home country.

White kid shoots up a black church: down come all the confederate monuments and flags.

Anonymous Tipsy September 23, 2017 12:11 PM  

There's the old turn-a-sentence-inside-out trick. If, for example, Trump wrote something like "Left wing academics insist Pol Pot was just trying to do good, but he was clearly evil", they'll report it was "Trump states "Pol Pot was just trying to do good".

I never ever uses a counterfactual in arguing with a SJW because they always do that.

Anonymous Just another commenter September 23, 2017 12:17 PM  

Selective enforcement of the rules. If there is a rule against making any sexist comments, they will interpret anything a straight/white/male/Christian says in the worst possible light, and everything a black/brown/female/other in the most generous possible way. On the flip side, a straight/white/male/Christian is not allowed to be offended by anything any type of minority says or does, but any protected class minority can be offended by anything zhe hears, even of it's while eavesdropping. A s/w/m/C cannot appeal to the rules for salvation.

Anonymous Sensei September 23, 2017 12:18 PM  

R/D tag-teaming: one person/persons attacks your statement with rhetoric, then when you respond to them, someone else attacks that response from a dialectic or pseudodialectic angle, then when you respond to them someone else responds to that response with rhetoric, etc ad nauseum

Astro-liking: On social media, not commenting just all "liking" whatever the SJW says so for any onlookers the perception is that the silent majority is with the SJW and against you

Blogger Forge the Sky September 23, 2017 12:25 PM  

Isolated demands for rigor - find a portion of an argument which is difficult to defend (whether by nature or by poor expression of that point), demand rigorous support for that point, then use any doubt cast upon that single point to discard the entire argument.

Blogger Forge the Sky September 23, 2017 12:30 PM  


Pulling context - taking a word, phrase or argument which looks bad by itself out of the qualifying presence of the entire statement, then use that as a rhetorical weapon.

Anonymous Aphelion September 23, 2017 12:39 PM  

Blaming all violent extremists is blaming no violent extremists. Or is t Blaming all violent extremists means you support some violent extremists? The contorted logic used to denounce Trump after Charlottesville.

Blogger Elocutioner September 23, 2017 12:56 PM  

For those not familiar with the term, one of their favorite tactics is DARVO - "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender." IIRC the first time I heard this was regarding women using false rape accusations to attack men.

Anonymous SanityClause September 23, 2017 1:07 PM  

Tactic is...Nothing.

This is stated as "it's not what you say, but what you don't say".

The trick to getting away with propaganda is to only say what is on one side of the argument, and to leave out all the important stuff that renders your argument moot.

Examples from just about any news source, actual example, you say that the father said that the scream was by his son (under a big screaming headline of that), but fail to mention, or only mention in the second to last paragraph (which few read down to) that this contradicts his own earlier testimony, and that 5 other people said the scream was not his son. Another, the hurricane is "unprecedented", or "the biggest in years", while not mentioning that years ago there was equally as powerful or more powerful or as many hurricanes as this one(s) ("three hurricanes in the same picture", I then saw another picture from years ago, almost exactly identical, plus another, 4 at once).

"Such and such!"

(this space intentionally left blank)

Blogger S1AL September 23, 2017 1:08 PM  

Kafka-trapping has taken on some interesting new levels recently.

The extreme version of guilt-by association "you like to bake, so you're basically Hitler, because ovens".

"You didn't acknowledge Black History Month, therefore you're a White Supremacist."

"(Victim Group X) must always be believed, and if you don't you're a racist/sexist/homophobe/transphobe/bigot."

Along someone to even acknowledge to existence of a contraindicator (example of non-white racism, sexual abuse by female teachers, etc.) is an indication that you secretly harbor (bias).

Attempting to defend yourself with negative evidence (here's a picture of me and my non-white spouse/friend) is an indication that you're guilty of not just racism, but tokenism and lying about it.

"Black people still feel like racism exists because you refuse to call for X," even if X is completely unrelated. Pointing out that it's unrelated just means that you are hiding your racism.

Blogger Lance E September 23, 2017 1:10 PM  

So many stories I could recount. Here are my top 3 which weren't already discussed in SJWAL:


Goal: Erase a position or range of positions from collective knowledge, so as to promote binary thinking (ingroup vs. outgroup) and/or nonsense like Horseshoe Theory.

1. Take any term you don't want discussed, e.g. White Nationalism.
2. Constantly associate it with other terms, e.g. C'ville was a rally for "Neo-Confederates, White Nationalists and White Supremacists".
3. Include your favored terms wherever the target is mentioned, e.g. the Alt-Right "includes white nationalists and white supremacists". (It doesn't, but MPAI and people are now accustomed to seeing the two words together from step 2).
4. Start to drop the disfavored term, e.g. "the Alt-Right is white supremacy".

If this works, and it usually does, then the disfavored term is eliminated; if brought up later, it either causes confusion or is immediately associated with the favored term(s).

I've seen the tactic many times, but the first time I saw the phrase itself was at Frame Games.

We Can't Tolerate The Intolerant

Goal: Increase or maintain politicization of a platform.

1. Cherry-pick any part of an argument discussing moral precepts like free speech, truth, reason, objectivity, humility, etc.
2. Falsely associate this concept with tolerance; if necessary, strawman the original argument as being nothing more than a plea for tolerance of X's group (conservatives, alt-right, etc.).
3. Assert that "tolerance" does not apply because X's group does not tolerate something about your group (homosexuality, Islam, etc.)
4. Imply hypocrisy/inconsistency, insist that the demand for "tolerance" is unreasonable, and demand that we therefore not tolerate X or anyone from X's group.

Really this is just a special kind of straw-man argument, but it is an emotionally powerful one when moderates/liberals are the target audience, and is often successful at distracting them from a more universal principle (like truth) toward something ambiguous and indefensible. Hardly anyone talks about tolerance anymore except for SJWs and only when they want to use it in this disingenuous fashion.

The Self-Referencing Research Pyramid

Goal: Manufacture evidence to support a false or questionable premise.

1. Publish one or more false, misleading, or cooked studies to support some idea (e.g. Stereotype Threat).
2. Publish follow-up research, preferably with co-authors, using the outcome from step 1 as an operational definition - e.g. associating "belief in stereotypes" with broader "discriminatory behavior", then using this to "measure" discrimination in psych experiments and arrive at some outcome such as "conservatives discriminate more often".
3. Use low-powered, shaky correlations from step 2 to reinforce original idea by inverting correlation. E.g. invert "conservatives are more discriminatory [defined as simply belief in stereotypes]" to "stereotypes are harmful because they cause people to be discriminated against".

I talk about the scientific version above, which is more dialectical in some sense; however, this can just as easily be done lazily and rhetorically through legacy and social media:
- SJW Blogger "X" makes deranged claims.
- Twitter SJW "Y" tweets it at everyone in attempt to get r/t.
- SJW Journalist "Z" notices and writes article about it.
- SJWs now have "official" source for deranged claim.

Anonymous Tipsy September 23, 2017 1:11 PM  

Elocutioner wrote:For those not familiar with the term, one of their favorite tactics is DARVO - "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender."

This is a classic technique used by counter demonstrators at right to life marches. Angry lesbians will start beating up a middle aged guy while screaming "Get your hands off of me! Leave me alone!"

The common thread seems to be that any dishonesty that serves the cause is an unmitigated good. It's just leftist taqiyya.

Anonymous James September 23, 2017 1:13 PM  

67. Re: The Memory Wipe

"I'll be talking to someone relatively reasonable and they'll be wrestling with whatever new insanity their side put out. And I'll hear them rationalizing it uncomfortably. And I know if we talk about this topic in a few more months any opposition to this point will be characterized as beyond the pale and they'll have memory holed any hint that they were having trouble accepting this new premise just a short time ago."

This is a great example of what happens, but it's not necessarily a SJW tactic. It's a normie reaction to a tactic.

There was a parade for gays in a downtown setting in the Midwest. The pastor to an Episcopal Church was involved in an interfaith support of the march, and passed out t-shirts that read "when did your God turn gay ________." Church members were given a marker to fill out the year that they first met a gay Christian.

It was painful watching the church members try to rationalize a clear insult to God. It was like watching them sign a contract with the devil in red marker.

The tactic might be the requirement to demand written proof of acquiescence. JP Morgan Chase does this - they send out surveys with your employee id number asking you if you're an ally of LGTBQ.

The Memory Hole is what people under pressure to do rationalize their surrender.

Asking for written proof is not just a way to identify their opponents. It's an attempt to force regular people to acknowledge the SJW point of view publicly so that they will promote it when confronted. They're trying to lock in their "win."

Anonymous Dillon September 23, 2017 1:14 PM  

Heavy use of presupposition used to sneak in moral assumptions. They will then build something even more audacious on top of that as bait in order to keep peoples focus away from said assumptions.

They will also use presupposition to put themselves into a position of moral authority by asking you to explain yourself in some way. By explaining yourself, you are putting them into this position of authority, even if you successfully defend yourself.

Anonymous (((Churchian Reichtard PUA))) September 23, 2017 1:20 PM  

Demands for disavowals of a public figure to try and charge you with guilt by association.

Anonymous Dirk Gently September 23, 2017 1:26 PM  


Correction. The SJW is so STRONG that if it hears a different opinion, it spontaneously has a complete meltdown.

Anonymous SanityClause September 23, 2017 1:29 PM  

Oh, one thing about "it's not what you say, but what you don't say" is that you can never be said to be wrong, since everything you said can be "true" or at least a direct quote. You never actually said an untruth, you simply left out anything that showed what you did say to be wrong. Thus, you can be said to not be "fake news" because what you said was the truth, just not the whole truth.

Note also, "the truth" can simply be the apparent truth from the limited amount you said, you don't have to claim it is the whole truth, simply let the reader assume it is, then you can blame any errors on them.

Another variant of this is to weasel word everything so that the reader assumes something you did not actually say. An example was there they said that Trump planned to build a tower in alliance with another company (they would build the tower, he would put the word Trump on it) that once employed a person accused of being a bad person in a country that was once part of the Soviet Union which was a bad country (Russia!) and then he did not make a proper financial report on it. In other words, they accused him of building a tower they said he did not build, with a company which they said did not have a bad person in it, in a country which was not associated with Russia, and then not making a proper financial report about the financial deal which never happened (what do you want him to do, make something up?), but wrote all that in such a way as to make it look as if he did those things, or at least was strongly trying to. They even made an illustrated picture, a picture of what the tower would look like, if it was built, which it wasn't, to "illustrate" their story, and make it seem as if it was real, because, you know, you saw it yourself.

Then, if they are accused of writing fake news, news about something that did not happen, they can say "we did not say it did happen" (very quietly, so no one will notice). In other words, it was not fake news, because we told you it was fake news, so we did not lie, so it can't be fake news.

People were actually taken in by that, and wrote in about how well it showed Trump to be such a bad guy, working with The Russians, THE RUSSIANS!

Anonymous Dirk Gently September 23, 2017 1:30 PM  

This is all quite good. Maybe fodder for a new book, based on the style of Erik Erikson's original, with descriptions and effective counter-moves:

The Games SJW's Play.

Anonymous Cow tongue September 23, 2017 1:31 PM  

I haven't seen others comment on the tactics SJWs use to recruit allies within organization. The common denominator seems to be scapegoating. The appeal feels like middle school where the mean girl explains that such-and-such person(s) is the so bad and I'm tell you because you're clearly one of the good people. What makes it especially repugnant is that they'll transmit their message via a high-minded channel. For example, an SJW might lead the closing prayer in a church service and slip in some scapegoating. Or, she might join a book club and suggest that book on mansplaining. It's the appeal to the lowest motives wrapped up in noble packaging.

Blogger Artisanal Toad September 23, 2017 1:58 PM  


The one thing I haven't seen in comments yet is bulverism and you really must include a discussion of all that entails. Bulverism is their go-to tactic when the facts are completely against them and they know it.

Once engaged in questioning motives all the other tactics come into play from that springboard

Anonymous FerralBeta September 23, 2017 2:31 PM  

Not a tactic but trying to pin down a pattern.

I saw a show where people were bending over backwards to protect pit-bulls. These pit-bulls had already attacked people and were to be put down. Their 'compassionate' protectors were extremely aggressive and unscrupulous in attacking anyone who disagreed with them.

A perverted mothering instinct?

A pathological need to appear more compassionate (and hence 'better') than other people?

Aggressive, violent people positioning themselves so they can act on their violent impulses with social impunity? (Since they are attacking 'bad', less compassionate people.)

It's mass mental illness.

Anonymous Anonymous September 23, 2017 2:36 PM  

- This one is from Soljenitsyne:

Seek to make every law, rule or code of conduct so opaque and vague that the judges can justify any arbitrary interpretation of it. This allows the suspect to either walk away with honors, or be sent to the Gulag, at the discretion of the judge.


"The content you posted is NSFW." Their definition of NSFW means it would offend someone anywhere. So, if it's NSFW in Yemen, or possibly North Korea, then it's NSFW. So everything is NSFW and thus the mod can use it as an excuse to delete everything they dislike.

- SJW-Moderated forums:

The SJW mod will delete "problematic" content from your post, but will leave the rest of the post, and add a mention like "Evil offensive sexist content deleted!"

This leaves it to the imagination of the readers, who may very well conclude that you're a Nazi.

They can also subtly alter post content to remove the valid arguments, or break the logic, to make the victim look like a raving idiot.

- The IQ gap:

SJW accuses you to jump to conclusion or to make a logical leap, because you forgot to add a baby step on the grounds that it was so obvious that anyone would figure it out on their own...

After this they will usually point and shriek.

- Revenge of the IQ gap:

When the wannabe SJW isn't a hard-boiled marxist, could even be brought back the Light Side... but they're so dumb that no argument will ever register.

Often it's difficult to know if arguments don't register due to deep indoctrination, or plain old retardation...

- Lose your time / Death of a thousand cuts

The SJW will waste your time by nagging, harrassing, always asking for more proof or more arguments, to prevent you from doing productive things. Of course this also wastes their time, but it isn't worth much...

Anonymous JamesD September 23, 2017 2:37 PM  

1. Build trust them stab you in the back.
2. Run to HR.
3. Use contradiction. We support Free Speech but not Hate Speech.
4. Alinksy tactics: Use your goodwill against you.
5. Appeal to emotion.

Blogger SirHamster September 23, 2017 2:39 PM  

Fake Victim Aggression. Literally crying in pain as the SJW strikes you. Thomas Wictor has a clip where Antifa is swarming an isolated man, and a woman is screaming in alarm as she jabs at him. This gives cover to the attack by confusing bystanders into thinking the target has somehow brought mob justice on himself. It also can cause the target to hesitate to defend himself.

A pure but failed example is "who bitch this is?"

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 23, 2017 3:16 PM  

Fields of straw:
Straw man arguments
Straw leaders: "You're nothing but a puppet of Straw Leader, who believes Straw argument. You can therefore be dismissed
Straw Audience: Everyone is laughing at you, everyone knows you're a (rapist/Jew/pedo), nobody here believes you, etc
Straw public: Everyone supports gay marriage now, what's wrong with you?

I'm too fragile and you're hurting me! STOP HURTING ME!!! A.K.A. The SJW cries out in pain as xhe strikes you.
Almost raped
Victim of fictional childhood abuse
"I don't feel safe": A favorite of University students, because federal law requires colleges receiving federal money to ensure students feel safe. Good luck when the "unsafe" feeling is intentional.
False reports of safety concerns: This is the play that the comics guys tried to pull on D & C's Rick Meyer. They reported him to NYCCC as a safety concern, and were going to harass him until he took a poke at somebody. They do this often, in venues they control.
Anything involving the word "trigger"

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 23, 2017 3:59 PM  

Tactic that I've seen frequently to No-Platform someone:

I'm not worried about HIM but HIS followers are really dangerous.

Which is why he shouldn't be allowed to go to NAMEHERE.

A few tweets are then shown to prove how dangerous HIS followers are.

This is used as an excuse to shutdown an event or ban someone because of "threats of violence."

Blogger tublecane September 23, 2017 4:16 PM  

@90-We Can't Tolerate the Intolerant is of course old as tolerance itself as a political ideal, but it was given a special emphasis by Herbert Marcuse, guru of the New Left. He called it "repressive tolerance." Which sounds wrong, because it is oxymoronic and makes no secret of being repressive, even if "tolerance" is still in there. But they like rubbing our noses in illogic and their authority. (Speculative authority back then, at least for the larger culture; they now possess full authority, thanks to PC.)

Blogger tublecane September 23, 2017 4:23 PM  

I notice lots of people bringing up what I like to call Citation-Laundering. That's where you come up with a dubious or simply false assertion, which you then put into a study, experiment, essay, or bald assertion. You get this study, experiment, whatever cited in an official or semi-official publication. That citation is further cited by someone else. On and on it goes, in a chain or in a circle. This is a favorite trick of academia, whether or not they do it in purpose.

Blogger tublecane September 23, 2017 4:31 PM  

@98-I used to think of Bulverism as "You would say that" before I heard the term.

"You would say that. You have white privilege."

"You would say that. You're male."

"You would say that. You're a homo."

Oh, wait, they don't allow that last one.

Blogger Mr. Naron September 23, 2017 4:52 PM  

Reverse the objection. It's an old salesman tactic where the reason not to buy something becomes the reason you SHOULD buy something. I used it once to sell a $1200 Kirby vacuum cleaner to a woman with no carpet. I bs'd some crap about her daughter's allergies being caused by extra dust in her pillow and mattress that would normally get trapped in the carpet. Lucky for her, the Kirby was perfect for cleaning pillows and mattresses.

I had an SJW pull this on me when she was trying to convince me to stop using Liberal Fascism in my APUSH class in favor of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. I pointed out that Zinn has no citations while LF is exhaustively cited. She said that was proof that Goldberg was hiding something. Zinn, on the other hand, was telling the truth and didn't need to hide behind citations. I lold at length as did my department chair.

Blogger tublecane September 23, 2017 5:01 PM  

@68-This is true, and perhaps the secret to their existence. Women historically have been forced to rely on men for protection and sustenance, without being able to overpower them physically. (Unless they take them unawares.) They got what they wanted through emotional manipulation, which made them excellent liars and as a side effect emotional basketcases.

SJWs may or may not be productive. Many of them either can't or won't, but the individual case doesn't matter. Plus, in today's economy it's not always easy to tell who's actually pulling their weight. In any case, they all support leftist politics, which is feministically moochy by definition. They can't or won't be upstanding, independent members of the civilization they're slowly destroying, also much like women. (But they do pretend, don't they?) To make their way in the world, even if they live comfortably, they prey on the emotions of others. By turns they're hysterical or psychopaths, and constantly play the victim card. Again, just like a woman.

Regular people don't know how dishonest, vicious, cruel, and crafty are women. Just because they strike out physically less often (but when they do, watch out). They get other people to do that for them. (Let's You and He Fight.) People catch women out to be manipulative in their personal lives, but don't realize they're all like that all the time.

About arguing with a woman, there are a few widely recognized rules, and rule #1 is that the woman makes the rules. That's nonnegotiable. If a man succeeds in making or changing a rule, there is no argument. The woman either isn't talking to you anymore, or you're in open combat.

I probably should be laying these out in an orderly fashion:

Rules for Arguing with a Woman/SJW:

1. The Woman/SJW makes the rules.
2. She can change the rules any time she wants, including mid-argument.
3. She is never wrong.
4. The argument begins and ends when she says.
5. She reserves the right to be offended whenever she wants.
6. You are only allowed to be legitimately offended when she allows it.

There are others, but that's a sample. The last two rules are part of a female's Emotional Autonomy. They don't have power over their emotions; their emotions have power over them. But they do have autonomy over how their emotions taken by other people, and over whether other people's emotions have any power of their own, if the other people are male.

I suppose I should it the autonomy of female emotions. They don't just own her, they own you.

Blogger Mr. Naron September 23, 2017 5:06 PM  

Disqualifying evidence is another. If the only way to prove that an increase in the minimum wage causes unemployment is to interview employers about their hiring practices, dismiss those interviews as "anecdotal evidence". Conversely, accept speculation as evidence as in climate change models.

Blogger Jon D. September 23, 2017 5:10 PM  

There's a tactic they always do: acting like they didn't start it and pretending your response is 1. disproportionate and 2. out of nowhere.

Right now, I'm in a major battle against SFWA President Cat Rambo. I had never talked to her or interacted with her, but she went on File 770 some months ago calling my blog "egregious stupidity." When she did so, I started using that for marketing because it's quite an endorsement to my fanbase coming from her.

Over time, we started talking because someone told me she was different, she was reasonable. We emailed back and forth a bit, but then she started coming to my facebook wall, screen capping instances where I was "bad" to show me how I deserve attacks from other SJWs. She did this when I posted my anti-male discrimination article and escalated things from there. (Always doubling down).

I tried to repair things again by inviting her to talk about fiction on my youtube, and she responded by threatening me with a lawsuit if I contact her again (despite several emails, posting about me on File 770, posting passive aggressive things about me on twitter/facebook . -- I'm pretty sure I'm within my rights to respond).

Much of this being private, or in the ancient history in terms of internet (a couple of months), she then took to facebook:

"Since the guy harassing me has kinda stepped things up in a very public way and is also a mutual friend of some of you, I'm going to identify him because I do not want him using you to get at me. He seems to harass a lot of women - I know at least four of you have also had run-ins. Right now I'm getting video rants on his blog and photoshopped pictures of me on Gab and Twitter because I told him to stop contacting me. It's Jon del Arroz. Please do not engage."

It's true I hit hard after her threat for a lawsuit, after she'd treated me horribly. And it's obviously got her worried now. The tactic is on its first level a gaslighting technique -- acting like these things happen in a vacuum, painting a victim of their SJW ways as the aggressor. It relies on the fact that SJWs and their followers never research past the most recent headline, whatever happened in the now, and their lack of historical context for anything. It's also the reason why their clickbait from their fake news websites work the way they do, as most of those ignore the historical context as well.

It happens every time, with literally every SJW who's attacked me. I can go example after example. They always return and flail to their base, lying by omission in painting the scenario as if I started it. I'm sure they've done the same to you too.

Blogger tublecane September 23, 2017 5:12 PM  

Massive Retaliation

You engage an SJW in a fight, intentionally or not. Your attack, or merely perceived attack, could range anywhere from innocuous to moderately annoying. They hit you back with everything they have. Just utterly destroy you.

This may be used as a deterrent. Or they do it just 'cause. Unlike with the John Foster Dulles version, the main point is not the "collective security" of SJWs. They don't widely advertise the fact that they'll nuke people who cross them. Often it happens with no forewarning whatsoever.

Certainly a share of them intend for a share of us to know they're willing to go all the way right away. But just as important is the fact that most of us not notice we're an email or a comment away from Total War.

Blogger Longtime Lurker September 23, 2017 5:55 PM  

Judging from many of the comments, SJW tactics are heavily clustered around lies, fakery, and deception. It's one thing to say SJWS always lie. But to show how SJWs lie and why, that is going to wake many people, hopefully giving more than enough of us the confidence and strength to push back twice as hard.

Anonymous capitalGgeek September 23, 2017 6:08 PM  

Not sure what it's called, but in I've seen a LOT of instances where they will have planning or proposal meeting to discuss X, and this is the FIRST time any of X has been published. The impression given is that it is early in the process and changes can be made, while in reality all the important decisions were made and finalized years ago.

Blogger Troushers September 23, 2017 6:16 PM  

That's Not Funny!

The SJW will pretend that a statement clearly spoken in jest is actually a literal statement of the subjects views eg. PewDiePie

Similarly, a SJW will insist on the most favourable and fanciful interpretation of an allies clear statement of an abhorrent view.

Blogger the bandit September 23, 2017 7:16 PM  

Step 1: Emotions, please get on board. Step 2: Name-calling. Step 3: Violence.

"As a [demographic]," therefore your argument is invalid

Meet Speech with Violence, justify it because the speech is "too dangerous" not to violently suppress

Incite violence at rightwing events, then point at this as proof that the rightwing is violent

Mention tangentially related point in every argument; when overall argument starts to fail, declare victory by the condition that "you didn't address all my [unrelated] points X, Y, & Z"

Public Service Announcements that amount to "here's the information you need to do something I'm pretending to not actively pursue myself," like SWATting or getting someone fired.

"have you no decency" should you adopt their tactic

Forcing the opposition to live up to standards they never intend to live up to, then calling them hypocrites for not doing so.

"Self-Correcting Science" -- that their position has been subsequently disproved by science is proof that they were right to believe the initial bad science because look, it got corrected, didn't it? And yet their associated policy positions never change.

Claiming that their failures in socialism, welfare, &c. are all due to an impure or corrupted implementation of their ideas and policies. "No True Socialism" would have failed, after all, even though all socialism inevitably fails.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit September 23, 2017 7:20 PM  

In the spirit of brainstorming...

Having everyone attend an explicitly social justice training session(s) and requiring everyone to participate "positively."

Pointing out that two hours of bashing straight white men when only one is on the room is textbook bullying is not, of course, "positive."

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit September 23, 2017 7:24 PM  

Responding to a full computer mode (pace Elgin's Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defensive) observation of a hate fact "As it turns out, that turns out not to be the case" with arm flapping, treats, and cries of victimization in order to generate hurt/comfort & White infighting responses.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit September 23, 2017 7:25 PM  


Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 23, 2017 7:50 PM  

Rules for Radicals
Personal == Political
Who, Whom
Fake Because
Seek Gatekeeping, Avoid Accountability
Spaghetti Throw


I am still working on my developing hypothesis that it isn't so much that leftists lack the moral sphere of loyalty, as that everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) they do is both solipsistic and collectivized. So it's all about themselves, except when it's about the warren.

If I'm right, only rightists have *personal* loyalty, and as such only rightists can even conceive of subsidiarity; it must be a completely alien concept to leftist minds, much as anarcho-tyranny is automatic for them and anathema to me.

It would explain why they fantasize that we're the "authoritarian" ones, when they want to regulate and inspect every aspect of our lives; they mistake the word to refer to respect for personal authority -- which they lack both -- when it really refers to dictatorialism, such as that of Big Sister (their arbitrary and unaccountable judges and administrators) and their thought-control cult of Social Justice.

Blogger MendoScot September 23, 2017 8:01 PM  

capitalGgeek wrote:Not sure what it's called, but in I've seen a LOT of instances where they will have planning or proposal meeting to discuss X, and this is the FIRST time any of X has been published. The impression given is that it is early in the process and changes can be made, while in reality all the important decisions were made and finalized years ago.

There is the converse of this where they pretend that this was already dealt with, but now they will have a meeting to deal with its raising its ugly head again.

A variation on "we have already dismissed this argument".

Blogger urbino September 23, 2017 8:14 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Avalanche September 23, 2017 9:03 PM  

@76 SJWADD! Yippee! Ordered too! Thanks for the notice!

Blogger tublecane September 23, 2017 11:21 PM  

@121-"We have already dismissed this argument" is a biggie, and often comes in the form of:

Old News

Whenever new information hits the public, they can say, "Oh, everybody already knows that. That's old news."

No special tact is necessary. Bald assertion works. People don't like to been seen as out of the loop, and will readily pretend they've heard it before, too.

Blogger tublecane September 23, 2017 11:29 PM  

I think someone mentioned this above, but:

Deliberate Obtuseness

They nakedly pretend they can't understand what you're saying, even when it's at a level a retard could comprehend. It's like "I can't even" without the moral aspect. If they can't be right, they can at least make you appear incomprehensible.

It's also a stalling tactic. They put the onus on you to better explain yourself, which buys them time to find a new line of attack or an escape route.

Blogger Lionillion September 24, 2017 4:14 AM  

Nonsense overload - A speach tactic in which they use jargon to confuse their target. The speach makes no sense, and has no substance, and is basically a DOS-attack on your cognition intended to throw you of balance.

Anonymous Post Alley Crackpot September 24, 2017 5:10 AM  

The possible worlds gambit (Searle's philosophy perverted): conflating an outcome with the emergence of a possible world that is somehow your fault.

Dialectic bombs (a form of multi-warhead argumentation): pulling a seemingly broad range of sentiments into an argument not to win it, but instead to make it harder for you to maintain reasonable dialogue.

Ratiocination with intent to encircle (pointing without shrieking): talking around a subject in such a way that it attempts to deny the legitimacy of the subject while making it seem that every other viewpoint is defensible.

BTW, if you want some advanced courses, they're available at Whitehall. :-)

Anonymous Anonymous September 24, 2017 5:56 AM  

If the target website allows any form of media posting:

1 - Have agents spam the ever loving crap out of it with CP at 3:30 AM (the owners' or moderators' local time)
2 - Take archives/screenshots the moment they show up
3 - Mass-report to domain registrar and media operatives

Anonymous Post Alley Crackpot September 24, 2017 7:02 AM  

Ah, I just realised this is precisely like Eric Berne's "Games People Play", but rather than psychological games, we're talking about political ones.

Jolly good then, let's have some more fun, I love shop talk. :-)

About the "Top Shelf" game: ever watched little children try to get something from a top shelf in a way they think is being competent, but is actually quite likely to knock whatever's on it off of it?

You take The Mark and put him or her on a pedestal for starters.

This can be done by several means:

1. Talking up The Mark's achievements
2. Holding The Mark to ridiculously unattainable qualities
3. Implying that The Mark has to live up to a "high social standard"
4. Conspiring with the allies of The Mark in order to assure early promotion
5. Pushing a snap election that The Mark is likely not to win, so the allies may "win by losing"

Once you've put The Mark on a Top Shelf, you then allow the little children to attempt to access the contents of that shelf. By this I mean that you let everyone, especially those with various petit bourgeois sentiments, have a go at trying to get something they want from The Mark.

You then assemble a dossier, preferably in print and in public light, of all of the times that The Mark managed not to live up to the qualities that are "necessary" for living a life on the Top Shelf.

This allows you to acquire soft power through "an arrangement" that keeps The Mark's inevitably human qualities out of the public light. It's even better if you have some actual dirt on The Mark. They're going to remain afraid that they can be knocked off the Top Shelf.

Now The Mark essentially works to represent your interests through calculated aversion, but it's a limited engagement because The Mark may decide that the situations put forth in order to undermine the status of The Mark are actually serious and he is actually unfit for the Top Shelf.

Among more responsibly minded persons, this tends to result in "falling upon a sword" moments that inevitably allow the colleagues of The Mark to get what they want, which is yet another person out of the line of succession.

This tactic worked really damned well when it came to getting rid of a certain politician with a thirst for strong drink, for instance.

The replacements were, of course, feckless little suck-ups.

The "Top Shelf" game is played not for the direct benefit of the primary antagonist, but instead for a broader group of people that the primary antagonist wants to bring to power.

Perhaps it's really an addition to Games SJWs Play With People, but you did ask ... :-)

Anonymous SomeTechAnonFag September 24, 2017 1:01 PM  

Shadow clones: This is where you're combating a single SJW using multiple accounts, either concurrently or in a tag team format. The goal being making their own side appear much larger and more unified than it actually is.

Goon swarming: This is where one person will counter the narrative and then a large number of accounts, many of them alts or bots will appear and attack. The goal is by putting forth such disproportionate opposition, normies will be shocked and actually believe they did something wrong. This backfires more and more frequently as people become red pilled and simply troll the goon swarms.

Ferrous Cranus: Never, ever attempt logic or reason on an SJW. It's like wrestling in the mud with a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it. This is an excellent means of detecting SJWs - simply present any factually correct statement backed by logic and reason and phrased in a slightly provocative way. SJWs will immediately get triggered and tone police, everyone else will either agree or disagree but won't get caught on your word choices.

Strike the weak point for massive damage: If you're a hard target or at least not a soft target, SJWs can't touch you. They will then go after any weak points near you be it friends, family, loved ones, employers... even if those people have no connection with your triggering beliefs or even agree with them.

Puppet responses: SJWs are puppets of the narrative. If they dare deviate from it their own "allies" will cannibalize them. Further, they are non intelligent and non creative as both these traits cure SJW cancer. Whenever you see people saying the same things phrased in the same way there's a good chance they've been handed their talking points and a slightly lower chance the strings are being pulled by globalist interests,

Words over deeds, narrative over truth: The best example of this is when PBP got annoyed about some game or another and said the word "nigger". Cue every single SJW regardless of audience size autistically screeching that he said a bad word culminating in some walking simulator "developer" getting triggered and threatening his video of their "game" from a year ago. Nevermind that Felix's word choice was not connected with Firewatch and was not directed at a black person. Nevermind that, as the single largest games media platform when he covers a game or "game" he is doing them a favor and not the other way around. Nevermind that SJWs are notorious for racist deeds. Saying a badthink word is worse than all of that. It's not a coincidence SJWs fetishize Harry Potter where words can harm or even kill. You counter this one by stabbing them with their own sword. If they start virtue signalling about minorities, demand they prove they have tangibly helped minorities and not just as a publicity stunt. SJWs hate rules, even and especially their own rules. Nothing triggers them harder than playing their own game against them and winning. Outrage culture is our enemy but it's also the means by which we will destroy that enemy.

Anonymous Anonymous Conservative September 24, 2017 3:57 PM  

Not sure if somebody mentioned it, but, "He supports a racist Nazi who eats babies and joked about raping a disabled hermaphrodite. Do you want your organization associated with that?"

Find someone the crowd would not like, make them out to be your best friend because of a tweet years back, and then frighten the crowd away from you by making association with you into association with them.

Might not have occurred to you since you are usually the guy they use as terror-fier, so they can't do it to you.

Blogger tublecane September 24, 2017 4:14 PM  

@114-That reminds me of:

The Smidgen of Truth

A more extreme version of the half-truth or partial truth (i.e. lies), the smidgen of truth takes some trivial fact about you and runs with it. Say you emailed a person once. That means you sexually harassed and stalked them daily, even going so far as to show up at their house in the middle of the night to flash yourself in front of their significant other and frightened children.

The trick is that you can deny all you want, but you'll have to admit the email, because they'll have proof of that. Their hope is that your denial will sound like "I only raped her a little," because where there's smoke there's fire.

Anonymous Be Deplorable, Not Afraid September 24, 2017 7:03 PM  

Not sure if this counts as a distinct tactic, but use of anonymity, as in anonymous accusers and vague accusations. E.g., SJW makes a complaint to the amendable authority, and the target of the complaint isn't allowed to know who the accuser was, or even the details, yet is still "put on trial." Happens mainly in colleges/universities from what I gather, but could happen IRL at businesses also. (Sorry if DP, Brave isn't allowing the captcha)

Blogger CM September 24, 2017 11:53 PM  

the more i read these tactics, the more it sounds like things i would naturally do... just with the wrong politics.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 25, 2017 12:33 AM  

@CM: I learned a lot during my seven-year sojourn as an agnostic. I thought that left-libertarianism was a thing that I could have, not knowing that is a fake intersection that cannot exist, so I consorted with leftists and gained deep knowledge of how they work.

So go ahead and do what works and not what doesn't. Be as innocent as a dove, sure; but also wise as a serpent.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable September 25, 2017 12:45 AM  

Lionillion wrote:Nonsense overload - A speach tactic in which they use jargon to confuse their target. The speach makes no sense, and has no substance, and is basically a DOS-attack on your cognition intended to throw you of balance.

Gish Gallop

Anonymous ScarletNumber September 25, 2017 2:56 AM  

Pretend to be autistic: When interpreting the words of someone you don't like, interpret them as literally as possible if that interpretation makes the speaker look especially bad.

Misuse a common term: If someone you don't like of the opposite sex tries to talk to you without your permission, he is committing "sexual harassment". Also, if a 20 year old guy gets a blow job from a 15 year old girl who gave it willingly, he is a "rapist".

Blogger ÆtherCzar September 25, 2017 6:13 AM  

I identified three ways SJWs use rhetoric in an essay, "Buxom Button-Bursting Bosoms Breasting Boobily And Other Social Justice Rhetoric." First, virtue-signaling: use of SJW rhetoric identifies one's membership in the in group and one's virtue with respect to the out group of non-SJWs. Second, rhetorical assault: SJWs fling emotionally laden words (e.g. Racist! Bigot! Nazi!)at opponents. Ironically, this is a form of projection, since that is a tactic to which they are particularly vulnerable. Third and most important, for deliberate obscurity: an SJW must disguise the vile means they require to achieve their perceived noble ends not only from others, but also from themselves.

Blogger DBSFF September 26, 2017 11:46 AM  

94. James September 23, 2017 1:13 PM
67. Re: The Memory Wipe
This is a great example of what happens, but it's not necessarily a SJW tactic. It's a normie reaction to a tactic.

You're not wrong, but it's also used as a deliberate tactic by the SJW hierarchs. The know that their followers will memory hole the prior position. Barack Obama used it on gay marriage for instance. Hillary used it on countless issues. To use a well known literary example, those at the top dictated that "Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia" and expected all that nonsense about Eurasia would be promptly memory holed by the masses.

Blogger The Sasquatch September 27, 2017 7:44 PM  

SJWs yend to state vague opinions as undisputable, Scientific fact. Ex:"All good evidence shows that [inane opinion]."

You disagree and you hate Science & Logic as well as the usual accoutrements.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts