By Kurt Schlichter
Monday, June 02, 2014
Non-lawyers often ask me, “What is the best way to argue
with a liberal?” This is silly, because there is no best way to argue with a
liberal. They're beyond argument. You might as well argue with your terrier.
Take it from someone who argues with his hideous terrier all the time.
But if you do choose to argue with a liberal, understand
that your purpose should never be to change the liberal’s mind. You're not
going to change the liberal’s mind. Instead, if you choose to argue with a
liberal, you should do it for one of two reasons – to either win over people
who have not yet made up their minds, or to support people who already have
begun to understand the truth.
The truth is that conservatism is an ideology that is in
accord with natural law and basic human decency, while liberalism is merely the
summit of a slippery slope leading down to the hellish depths of collectivist
misery.
Liberals aren’t going to like to hear this manifest and
demonstrable truth. So you’re going to get called “racist,” “sexist” and
“homophobic,” even if you’re a conservative black lesbian.
What you are not going to get is an argument. An argument
is a collected series of statements designed to establish a definite
proposition. Arguments involve the presentation of facts and evidence from
which one draws a conclusion. Implied within the concept of an argument is the
potential that one might change his conclusion. But liberals start with the
conclusion.
They don’t change their conclusions based on the facts
and evidence; they change the facts and evidence based on the conclusion they
want. This is why a 105 degree day is irrefutable proof of global warming,
while a 60 degree day is irrefutable proof of global warming. As is a -20
degree day.
Liberals are only concerned with argument, or what
superficially appears to be argument, as a rhetorical bludgeon designed to beat
you into submission. They aren’t trying to change your mind. They don’t expect
you to agree with them. They don’t even care whether or not you grow to love
Big Brother.
They just want you to shut up and let them run rampant.
If you understand that, you'll be fine.
There are two basic tactics to choose from when
responding to a liberal pseudo-argument, defense and counterattack. Without
getting too detailed and infantry-nerdy on you, think of defense as simply
preventing a loss. You're holding your ground. The counterattack, however,
lashes out to seize the initiative and defeat your enemy.
Both have their uses. When you defend, you are generally
responding to the pseudo-argument the liberal is making. A liberal will start
advocating some nonsense and you reply to what he says. You may choose to use
examples of liberalism's many failures to illustrate how collectivism is a
prescription for disaster. For example, some pinko starts crowing about how
eight million suckers signed up for Obamacare. A good defense might involve
raising the question of how many of those eight million have actually paid for
it.
But the problem with defense is that it treats a liberal
"argument” with a respect it doesn't deserve. You dignify liberal
silliness with a response when all it deserves is mockery and contempt.
This is why I prefer to counterattack. When you
counterattack, you ignore the proposition offered by the liberal and refuse to
respond on the liberal’s preferred terms. In fact, you don’t even need to
address the same subject the liberal is talking about. Your goal is not to
undercut the liberal’s assertion. You're going to counterattack to undercut the
liberal himself.
There are many good reasons to choose the approach of
treating the liberal like he is a terrible person with terrible ideas who seeks
to impose a quasi-fascist police state upon America, including the fact that
it's all true.
Let’s try a counterattack battle drill. Some doofus with
a “Capitalism Is a Patriarchal, Cisnormative Hate Crime” t-shirt starts
babbling about “privilege.” The undecideds start listening, their jaws drooping
slightly. Some of the more conservative ones are silent, not wanting to be
labeled racist by some geek whose grandfather came from Oslo. You need to act.
So you causally inject the question, “Hey, why are you an eager and active
member of a political party that made a KKK kleagle a beloved Senate Majority
Leader?”
Then you mention that you’re a member of the party that
fought slavery and didn’t turn hoses on civil rights marchers. Then you finish
by announcing, “Well, I’m going to stand with Dr. King and judge people by the
content of their character.” It’s optional whether you then get up, scream that
the liberal should have issued you a trigger warning about his racism, and
leave.
But be careful – the liberal may totally spit in the next
latte he sells you.
Some people might question whether this kind of
Alinsky-esque tactic means we are stooping to the liberals’ level. Except the
liberals’ level is six feet underground, where the victims of collectivism lie
buried. Anyone not willing to take the fight to them simply empowers their
liberal fascist fantasies.
If you're trying to win an Oxford Union debate with a
liberal, you’ve missed the point. This isn't about the Marquess of
Queensberry’s fussy little rules. This isn't about some sort of extended-pinky
exchange of ideas over a fine glass of port. This is about fighting for our way
of life and our fundamental rights against the intellectual heirs of Stalin,
Mao and Hitler.
Attack. This is about winning. First prize is freedom.
Second prize is tyranny.
No comments:
Post a Comment