Weasels and a Rhetorical Lesson

I’ve been trying to work on my rhetoric as I’ve never been very good at it, and have troubles with those with higher improvisational, verbalization abilities. So, as a learning exercise for myself and others, I’m going to go over a Twitter conversation I had a couple weeks ago that will illustrate some common occurrences when debating leftist weasels.

To begin with, here’s the background. CRX48 posted this and the homosexual brigade dogpiled him over the course of multiple tweet ‘conversations’.

Here was one of their responses which played a part later:

If you look at this @homophobiaphobes account, it’s dedicated almost entirely to tracking down ‘homophobes’ (a word which, as we’ll see later, has absolutely no definition beyond a person this homosexual dislikes) and starting 2-minute hates on their Twitter feeds.
https://twitter.com/homophobiaphobe

That’s the background. At one point CRX posted this:

To which the homosexual replied:

I replied with this and the game was on:

Remember, homophobe, racist, sexist, bigot, shitlord, etc. have no real semantic meaning, they are not words that reflect a reality reality in any way. They exist solely as ad hominem attacks on people progressives don’t like.

When a leftist uses a word, especially an emotionally loaded word like homophobe, sexist, racist, etc., always get them to define it. Leftists do not beleive in truth; they ideologically hate truth. They don’t beleive words are used to refer to real concepts for teh purposes of communication, but rather they exist as tools of power. If you do not get them to define a word, they will change the meaning of the word to whatever is most convenient to their emotional state at the time.

I ask for a definition, and notice the wording: “Most people use it to mean…”. This is specifically stated so that the leftist can continue to use the word however she wants. A leftist will deliberately try to avoid attaching a real definition to one of their emotionally charged words, because then it will lose its power if they do. Press them; force them to define words. You’ll see why was we go.

This is just the first weasel attempt, plenty more to follow.

Again, the leftist weasel will dodge to avoid having to actually having to do a real debate. Remember, she said I don’t udnerstand what it means then refused to provide what it means. We can watch the lying weasel dance for quite a while:

Lying leftist weasels will absolutely refuse to define their terms when it comes to their favoured shit-flinging phrases. Press, press, press. Never, ever let them use emotionally-loaded words on their terms. They will abuse them like the dishonest liars they are.

Now, there was a second thread occurring at the same time.

Again, the leftist will straight out lie. The whole thing started with the original tweet against public sexual displays, but admitting that would show how much BS her original accusation was. So she will deny.

Warning, the links in these next two tweets range from mildly NSFW to extremely NSFW.

This is in response to the first set of links, linking to some homosexual/fetish street parties in SF. Here we see the leftist through equivocation; she’s very subtlety trying to change the terms of the debate.

Remember, the original tweet referred to “that “pride parade” mentality where rather than keeping private things private they demand we watch. It’s sick.” Obviously a gay fetish parade would count, but because the parade wasn’t specifically labelled ‘pride’ the lying weasel tries to shift the terms to a false rigorous exactitude that never existed. Also note

Always be aware of weaselly attempts to shift terms or to bring into play exactitudes that don’t exist. Failing to notice can lead to a rhetorical trap.

I call her on her dishonesty:

Her dishonesty readily apparent, she switches tactics:

When a leftist is losing she will retreat to disqualifying you for whatever reason. The reason for disqualifying you doesn’t matter, its almost always a dishonest tactics rather than an actual true belief. Never let a leftist disqualify you. If their disqualification was a true reason for ignoring your argument they would have ignored you from the beginning. A disqualification partly through a conversation is always a tactic taken because they are losing.

Also, because the disqualificaiton is always an excuse, never defend against it. It is a sign blood has been drawn, press the attack:

This is to the second tweet of links, which were to homosexual-friendly mainstream news and therefore didn’t show anything R-Rated. These pictures do include fetish gear, public floggings, men wearing only sexualized jockstraps, sexualized dancing/grinding, almost full nudity (for example, one man had no more than a cap on his penis head), shirtless women, etc. But because they do not include anyone actively sticking their dick in someone else’s orificies she counts this as ‘no sexual acts’.

Anyone not completely sexually jaded would realize these are sexual acts, but again, lying weasels will be selectively (and falsely) precise when it suits their ideological needs of the moment.

Also note the subtle shift of terms. I said sexual displays earlier, which she changed to sexual acts. The latter being somewhat defensible through selective pedantry, the former not. Lying weasels will shift terms to cosntruct rhetorical traps, do not let them.

Whenever lying weasels do this, call them on it.

They’ll try to keep going with their dishonesty, keep calling them on it:

Again, the lying progressive weasel will try to define terms to whatever is emotionally or ideologically convenient at the moment.

From here it kind of petered out. I thought I had another closing tweet but can’t seem to find it in Twitter’s interface.

Anyone, the points to take from this: progressives are naturally dishonest and will use words as weapons rather than as reflections of reality used to communicate information. Make them define terms and don’t let them get away with dishonest equivocating or the shifting of terms.

 

14 comments

  1. Pingback: Weasels and a Rhetorical Lesson | Manosphere.com

  3. Could have gone to your fulsom link after their first response, skip the whole defining terms since there’s no respect given to the language. Skip the after tweets as well… “If I want to see hummers I’ll watch porn, I don’t want it when I’m shopping for kale.”

  4. @FN
    “‘Anyone, the points to take from this: progressives are naturally dishonest and will use words as weapons rather than as reflections of reality used to communicate information. Make them define terms and don’t let them get away with dishonest equivocating or the shifting of terms.”

    That’s why fixed 1st principles is important. Else we will be constantly drift leftward as our very language is manipulated and hence our minds as well.

  5. Pingback: Weasels and a Rhetorical Lesson | Reaction Times

  6. There’s a reason I block most leftists who come to argue with me at Patriactionary; debate with them is pointless, and a meaningless waste of time and energy. It’s not that I don’t enjoy a healthy, rigourous debate; it’s that they never play fair, always assume you’re arguing in bad faith, twist your words to suit their purposes, and drag you into pointless digressions, etc. I see nothing to be gained from such; not even from the perspective of trying to influence outsiders who might be viewing, with one’s logic versus the progs’ lack thereof.

    They can always put up a post refuting whatever it is I’ve said, to which I might be compelled to respond. They almost never do.

    Why bother debating a twit like that? Insta-block would be my policy.

  7. This is a good example of how to combat the flawed ideas of liberals, perverts, and SJW’s. Teenagers need to be taught these techniques. Showing them examples like this drives home the points.

    “A wise man scales the city of the mighty And brings down the stronghold in which they trust.” Prov. 21:22

  8. Just assert they’re Alinskyite Cultural Marxists from the get-go. Let them know that you understand the lying trickery of Cultural Marxists, who use words to destroy our ways. You’ll have them on their heels from the start.

  10. Yeah, I don’t know if I am racist or homophobic or not because I don’t understand what they mean. The definitions seem to vary and – as you point out – can be as simple as that a specific black person or a specific homosexual doesn’t like you. If it means that I automatically dislike a person because they are homosexual, then no, I am not homophobic. Other than that I am clueless about it.

  11. I got into a debate with the cunts the other day on FB over the Airman whose re-enlistment was rejected because he crossed out “so help me God” on his paperwork. Atheists [who aren’t] take about 2 pushes to admit they want religion banned from public square. Public Square is everywhere, and I point out over steps that this is the effective banning of religion. Which isn’t the good part.

    Good part is the answer to your question. Don’t debate them, destroy them.

    Sun Tzu ” Dare I say seize what they love.” One of the few fragments we have.

    Atheists demand religion banned from public square. Public Square is everywhere, and I point out over steps that this is the effective banning of religion.

    I then attacked and threatened what is dear and sacred to them, and their reaction was as if sacrilege, life, mother threatened. Public Education.

    Under the 1st Amendment we demand separation of school and state. A complete wall between government and education. This actually is quite under the No Establishment of Religion Clause. We also must demand this requires No Congress-making at all but be done in the modern style by Fiat Proclamation.

    For if the Constitution and Religion are truly mutually Toxic to each other then as Progress is mainstream Protestantism still, it still remains a religion.

    As well their idea of governance is of course Toxic to the 90% of us who remain religious we must have some separation between us.

    [As indicated hysteria resulted, they even complained and got me banned on FB for 24 hours. I deactivated, screw FB.]

    “When I saw that Yankee Schoolhouse I knew we were doomed. They want to rule the world, we just want to live.” – Ride with The Devil.

    As to just wanting to live, it’s not enough. Now the utter destruction of Public Education and the ban above is the central part of any Victory lasting more than a few years. It’s Casus Belli and must be Core Demand. More important than money. No peace without it. No point in making peace.

    As to just wanting to Live: Grow the Fuck up, or Die quietly. If you want to live this is that rare enemy it’s necessary to completely eradicate.

  12. I’m afraid I must agree with Anonymous.

    Honing rhetorical skills is like training a conventional army. But as you noted, leftists (and, if we’re honest, most people) don’t fight fair.

    When outnumbered by guerrillas, the trick is to: attack their rear, seed the area around you with landmines, and make no halfhearted advances.

    What this looks like as applied to this sort of thing:

    Attack the rear: kids. Duh. That Parks and Rec episode where Ron Swanson turns the 12-yr-old girl visiting his office into a hardcore libertarian is instructive. Why bother dealing with Twitter trolls who won’t change their mind when there are kids running around?

    Landmines: act dumber than you are, and turn moderates on *issues* but not *affiliation.* “I consider myself a progressive, but…” is the magic phrase you want to hear. Once you’ve achieved that, that’s as much as you can expect. Go work on someone else.

    No halfhearted advances: This, thank goodness, is something neoreaction is doing perfectly, because there have been *no* advances. This should be the M.O. for a long time.

Leave a Reply