Guest Post by Vox Day — Sentio, ergo rectum
This is a reprint of a WND column from 2004, which I thought bore repeating. Please note that step 1 and step 7 are the same in both versions of the Leftist textwar tactic:
How to argue like a liberal
By Vox Day
Published: 03/29/2004 at 1:00 AM
It is inarguable that liberals – in the modern American sense of the word – are the most flawless human beings on the planet. They are smarter, better-educated, wealthier, kinder and morally superior to those benighted quasi-Neanderthals called conservatives, who would like nothing better than to drag society back to the Middle Ages, or, according to some high-minded liberal theorists, the Iron Age.
How do we know this? Why, liberals tell us so!
Perhaps it has escaped me, but I have not personally witnessed any call for a return to the monarchy, much less land grants held in fief, on the part of even the most conservative Republican. And the last time I looked, the Bush administration was very much in favor of steel – certainly the U.S. steel industry appears to be most appreciative of his efforts in enacting a 30 percent tariff on their behalf.
But being a liberal means never having to worry about the facts. Facts can be uncomfortable, and of course, anything that makes anyone uncomfortable is a violation of our constitutional rights. The only fact that matters is the foundational fact that you can only feel what is right, so if a fact happens to contradict your feelings, obviously that fact must be wrong. Sentio, ergo rectum.
Due to this inescapable and irrefutable logic, I have finally been convinced that I will be healthier, happier and wealthier if I join the large-brained ranks of the morally superior elite. I have therefore decided to become a liberal. Already I have benefited greatly from my decision – whereas many previous discussions ended in a frustrating impasse, now, being inestimably more clever and better-looking than before, I am able to win any argument with the greatest of ease. Let me share with you the secret of my success.
- Make an untrue statement, preferably on the subject of something about which you know nothing.
- Express astonishment that your source could possibly be inaccurate.
- Demand what motivation your source would have to lie.
- Assert that the other party’s inability to articulate this motivation is tantamount to proof that your source is not lying.
- Question the motivation of the contrary source.
- Argue that all sources are equal and that therefore the contrary source is irrelevant.
- Change the subject.
Alternatively …
- Make an untrue statement.
- Deny that you said what you said.
- Deny that the other party understood what you said.
- Deny that the words you used mean what the other party claims they mean.
- Redefine your definition and hope the other person forgets the previous one. Repeat as needed.
- Assert that since definitions are irrelevant and subjective, the other person is mean-spirited, racist, sexist, intolerant and obsessive.
- Change the subject.
Remember: As long as you haven’t admitted you’re wrong, you are right. Any attempt to demonstrate otherwise is evidence of criminal hate and probably mental imbalance, too. Never forget that an answer to a question you have asked should always be regarded as a personal attack if the answer is something you don’t like, and that the answer to all evils personal, spiritual, moral and societal is more government money.
Now, if you don’t mind, I should probably go exercise my newfound moral superiority. The world won’t save itself, after all – not without the fount of all that is good and wise and smart and cute, which is to say, me.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
