“I wanna rub Purell on my brain…”
-Annie Edison
That’s how I feel after researching this piece. Get excited.
Principles of Productive Discourse, Part 2:
How to argue like a white supremacist
In Part 1, we briefly discussed the importance the word and concept “no” plays in our relationships. If we can’t give or receive “no” in a relationship, we lose all sincerity, honesty, and relational health. Today, we’re going to look at how identitarians argue, the problems with their rhetorical framework, and how to avoid falling into these traps ourselves.
The technical term for attacking an individual rather than their argument is ad hominem, which is Latin for “to the man.” In other words, you direct your argument at the identity of the person, rather than the content or quality of their ideas. If you’re interested in learning more about this pervasive and caustic rhetorical strategy, I’d recommend the video I made about it back in 2018. For our purposes here, we’re examining the worst forms of identitarian ad hominem, extracted directly from one of the largest repositories of internet idiocy: alt-right Twitter.
If you’re unfamiliar with this corner of the internet, consider yourself lucky. Please avoid at all costs. If you see someone with a Twitter picture that is some crude derivation of a fat-faced frog, ignore that person. This the alt-right, and they hail from all over the globe. Their bigotry isn’t thinly-veiled, and its this type of shallow ideological and rhetorical framework we’ll be examining.
“But Truman, aren’t you doing the very thing you’re supposedly criticizing? You’re broadly labeling all of these individuals as racist.” Ah, keen observation my friend. There is a difference between criticizing someone’s intrinsic character traits (racial heritage, for example), and criticizing something you can opt-in to. In other words, it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize all KKK members as a group, because they opted into that group, and are unified by belief in a set of ideas they have chosen to accept as individuals. In other words, criticizing the ideas of a bigot has little to do with that individuals intrinsic character traits. Let’s continue on with our examples, four tweets from four separate individuals:
“White people have enough to deal with without constantly having to worry about every other race’s problems.”
“Juneteenth is such a stupid word… you can tell blacks made it up.”
“Blah blah blah. I’m placing blame where blame should be placed. I have not diverted any attention away from the Barbary Slave Trade. We Europeans were not doing that, and what a COINCIDENCE! You Jews were shipping Europeans to Africa as slaves, even castrating the men.”
“People often ask me how I’ve avoided suspension on Twitter after receiving my 7 day suspension in 2018. The answer is don’t interact with tweets from women or verified accounts under any circumstances”
Believe it or not, these disgusting tweets are some of the mildest ones I found, when compared to the overwhelming hate and stupidity that lives in this corner of the internet. See now why I want to rub Purell on my brain? As an aside, I think it’s important for the average person to remember that while idiots like this have virtually no power outside of their little echo chambers, they do exist. They’re increasingly rare (perhaps from inability to find someone to breed with as much as general societal progress), but they still exist. Also, it’s worth remembering that stupid people will always exist. That said, if we were to distill their arguments down, what would we find?
“Those problems are the concern of X racial group, not my racial group.”
“I don’t like how ‘Juneteenth’ sounds, so it must be attributable to X racial group.”
“X group is responsible for slavery, not my group.”
“The only reason someone would take issue with what I say is if they are verified on Twitter, or if they are a woman.”
What is the substance of these arguments? Do you even see a legitimate idea to be engaged with? I don’t. They’re shutting down the conversation before it even starts, by making all criticisms and discussions about arbitrarily chosen intrinsic identity traits. They attack identity, because their arguments have no merit outside of the context of these ridiculous premises. “You only dislike my tweets because you’re a woman” is another way of saying “I can’t defend my ideas on their own merit.” This reductive and shallow reasoning only makes sense in a world where all people who possess X arbitrarily chosen intrinsic character traits think alike, live identical lives, and share no differences in beliefs or opinions among each other. This perspective is something most reasonable people know to be false.
So, what framework does a white supremacist, or a misogynist, or any other identitarian with bad ideas use to argue those bad ideas?
1) Divide people into arbitrarily or selectively chosen groups.
2) Begin with the assumption that all people in those groups have the same thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and life experience.
3) Also assume that these intrinsic identity traits are the most important aspect of that person’s life. Above being a parent, spouse, employee, community member, painter, employer, athlete, or any other chosen identity marker, they are first a member of X group(s), or their unchosen identity markers.
Then, proceed accordingly.
If arguing for an idea:
-Appeal to your own group membership as means of using subjective experience to substantiate objective claims about reality. “My experience as X proves that all X are like this.”
-If you are not a member of the group you claim to be advocating for, establish credentials. “I have talked to these members of X group, and they agree.” This is merely an extra step in the process listed above. Note that “I represent all members of my group” is not qualitatively different from “My friend in X group represents all members of that group.” Both statements are reflections of #2, “All people in X group are the same.”
If arguing against an idea:
-Appeal to the group membership of the individual you are talking to. “You are in X group, therefore you are wrong.”
-If arguing with someone whose group identity defies the assumptions of #2 (they belong to X group, but do not conform to your statements about group X), simply create an additional group distinction. “You may be in group X, but you’re also in group Y. And we all know how group Y is.” Again, this is merely an additional step in reaching the same conclusion, and follows the same framework of invalidating someone’s argument due to group membership without actually engaging the ideas they present.
If you’re a misogynist, you dismiss the arguments of a woman. If you’re a white supremacist, you dismiss the arguments of non-white people. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to argue like a narrow-minded bigot. All you really have to do is make the same types of assumptions bigots make. Refuse to see people as individuals, and focus exclusively on their group identities. Lump groups together. Stereotype. Ignore facts that dis-confirm your worldview. Find an ideological echo chamber, and spend day after day having your biases confirmed. Lose all interest in objective truth. You may also find it helpful to establish qualitative differences between groups, so as to create the illusion of moral superiority to your arguments. This moral superiority will be pure delusion, but you’ll probably find it helpful all the same.
There you have it, now you know how to argue like a white supremacist. More importantly, you now have a few tools with which to spot the kinds of arguments these identitarians make. Sadly, this shallow ideological framework and rhetorical style is not limited to white supremacists and misogynists; anyone who has abandoned pursuit of truth can find themselves making similar assumptions, whether they realize it or not. Even those who genuinely believe their intentions are noble can nevertheless find themselves making arguments virtually indistinguishable from a neo-Nazi. How’s that for a scary thought? I wanna rub Purell on my brain…
Next time: Rethinking our options when engaging in disagreement.
While driving yesterday, I had an idea to help facilitate more regular content creation, especially during this time when it is all but impossible to make videos outside of livestreams from my phone. The idea is that of a biweekly post that roughly takes the form of a newsletter, of which this is shall be the first volume. As an aside, evidently a synonym for biweekly is 'fortnightly,' which I'd totally use if it weren't for the association with a game of stupid dances.
My current plan for the format is as follows, though obviously this is likely to change.
-Introduction, brief life updates, and maybe a thought or two I've had lately that I wanted to share with you.
-What books I have been going through, and any excerpts or takeaways I feel are worth sharing.
-Any other noteworthy podcasts or media I've consumed lately.
-What stories I'm paying attention to (if any) and why
-Any questions I might have for you guys
-?
Alright, it's called TL;DR for a reason. Let's jump in.
As I mentioned earlier, we have Covid again. I'm not going to ...
I know it's been quiet here lately. I'll eventually explain what's been going on with my personal life (most of it has been a mixture of our new baby being really, really difficult, and perpetual sickness. For example, last week three our of the four of us had to go to the hospital) but this is what has consumed virtually all free time outside of work and family time.
Please consider helping us bring justice to these bastards. Their indifference and complicity in the harm done to these kids has to stop. Please help us make that happen.
For those who missed it, here's an open letter I wrote to my community last fall after the suicide of a former student, himself a victim of this school district:
https://returntoreason.medium.com/an-open-letter-to-the-citizens-of-albany-county-ca507fa24cd8
Thank you for everything you do. You guys are awesome, and I look forward to filling you in on what's been going on in the near future. See you soon.
ps- I will be...
Salutations! I hope you all had a fantastic Christmas. Here is my list of top ten the things I learned/conclusions I reached from this past year. Some are directly related to events, others are not. Either way, I tried my best to create a list of useful ideas for you to incorporate into your view of the present moment. I hope you find this list useful, as many of the items on it are lenses I find incredibly important for understanding the world around me. As always, I welcome any feedback you might have!
In Part 2, I use Conquest's Three Laws of Politics to expand on my specific critiques of Peterson's Manifesto, and flush out some of my own axioms that I failed to explain in Part 1. This is where I get into the nuts and bolts of how institutions deviate from their original purpose and begin to generate and pursue their own interests.
What began as a singular episode critiquing one of my intellectual heroes has turned into a multi-part series going after some foundational axioms of mainstream Conservatism.
In this introductions, I discuss Permanent Washington and the concept of accountability, and sew the seeds for what's to come in either trusting or rejecting many mainstream Western institutions.
It's worth mentioning that this recording, along with every other part in this series, has taken almost (in some cases more than) a day to upload. I have no idea why my internet is failing me as hard as it is, but here we are. Hopefully you find these recordings in time to assist you in your vote tomorrow 🤙
I've been wanting to do this for a while. It might have taken me two days to figure out how to get this from my phone to my computer, but I finally got it to work.
On Saturday, I used the voice recorder app on my phone to record a podcast covering Karl Schmitt, his discussions of power, and how we can map this onto our contemporary situation with The Regime that runs our country, and the Bureaucratic State which does its ideological bidding.
After listening to it, I realize there is some more context I need to add to the ending, so I might record another one tomorrow or Wednesday. Either way, it feels good to be recording stuff again. As always, I welcome your thoughts and feedback!
"We don't know where this thing isn't."
-Bret Weinstein
@JamesDerian suggested I pin and regularly update a thread of sources I'm compiling to illustrate the total societal takeover of Far-Left Orthodoxy, including their explicit targeting of our kids for indoctrination. Here is that thread.
Compromised entities:
Nickelodeon
Cartoon Network
Kellogg's Cereal
Mattel Toys
Lego
Sesame Street (SESAME STREET 🤦♂️)
PBS
CNN
The New York Times
The Washington Post
NPR
NBC News
Gender/Sexuality
Cartoon Network celebrating transgender children:
https://twitter.com/stage13network/status/1377332951659151360?s=20
More Cartoon Network trans stuff:
https://twitter.com/cartoonnetwork/status/1377259794294259717?s=20
Cartoon Network on "normalizing gender pronouns"
https://twitter.com/cartoonnetwork/status/1338539346530537475?s=20
Lego released "rainbow set" for Pride Month:
https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news/2021/may/everyone-is-awesome/
"Queer up your morning routine" with Kellogg's new cereal featuring edible glitter, ...