There's this feminist media critic whose work you respect. Being an internet savvy human in the information age you sometimes share your opinions of her work on your various social media platforms. And you've noticed whenever you
speak positively of her, many different people come out to yell
the same handful of things at you. It usually starts with: And you say: And they say: And you say: And they say: And you say: Now by this time you've noticed your
interlocutor's position has changed from As though these are all the same argument. And you also notice the pattern of the conversation. He says something short quippy and wrong, you give a detailed correction, he says
something else short, quippy, wrong, and only tangentially related to his last point, and the cycle repeats itself. This goes on and on. And it's not, you've noticed, just this discussion. You find this manner of argument often
when you express left of centre beliefs. You talk about the election, someone says you vote democrat because you must have a conservative father you hate. You talk about polyamory, someone says if you have more than one female partner you must be a sexist. Or they just say you're faking a non regional accent Yeah. The running theme here is all these people who ostensibly want a frank exchange of ideas spend a lot more time making
accusations than asking questions. Because why ask what you believe when they can tell you what you believe and make you correct them. And if you ever don't go to the trouble
of correcting them, must be because they're right. And you're not naive, you see what's going on here. This isn't about conversation, no. This is about boxes. When you say something cogent that they don't agree with and they get the sinking feeling that you might start making sense,
they need a reason not to listen to you. So they reach for a box to stick you in. Dishonest feminism, fake progressivism, daddy issue liberalism. No one in those boxes is worth listening to! Which means as long as they've got you in one, they're not at risk of having their minds changed. This whole thing isn't even an argument with you, not really. They're presenting themselves with arguments for why they don't have to listen to you. So your first reflex is to defy their expectations. 'Actually my dad was a draft-dodging hippy who told me he loved me everyday. And I never said what genders my partners are but I promise they're all feminists. As for my accent... Actually, I don't know what to do with the accent thing. But the point is, I refuse to fit in your box." And if they can't put you in one, if they
can't dismiss you outright, they'll have to engage with your argument. But if you've spent any time arguing
with angry dudes online - and it is mostly dudes - you know what I'm about to say. This accusatory, condescending attitude never falters. Because a technique that has permeated anti progressivism is to never play defense. Now don't get me wrong, what I said about the right fitting the left into simplified boxes as a way of preserving their own egos, I do think that's a thing, at least for many people much of the time. And I think the reassurance it brings is why the technique stays so popular. But that framing is about how individual people are feeling in isolated moments, and leaves out the larger game that's being played. Because there is a long-term strategic
value to never playing defense, and it's less to do with arguments than with attitude. From your perspective, this debate
about the feminist is a joke. He comes in hot without confirming any of his assumptions. The whole conversation is you
repeatedly schooling an ignorant dipshit. But that's only if you're the fool who listens
to what's actually being said. Never play defense is a strategy that looks past language to posture, the tone, the word choice, even the
expressions on your faces. If you half focus your eyes and look not at the words but at the flow of the conversation, you can see the dynamic at play. He says his short quippy statement,
and you give your detailed rebuttal. He then picks a single point from your response, and attacks that as the new subject. Now to an onlooker, the logical brain would register that he's leaving 90% of your argument on the table, and that by changing positions, he's
conceding he lost the first round. But the lizard brain notices that he's always making the accusations, always in the dominant position. That he's always acting, and you're always reacting. Regardless of what is said, he displays all the outward signs of winning. So on a purely emotional level, he leaves
the impression of being right. And I have never had an argument
look like this that wasn't in public. This is a technique that means speaking not so much to the other person as to the people watching. Liberals tend to operate as though voters are beings of pure reason and neglect that rational people still have emotions, and those emotions factor into what they believe. And that long after this argument is over, when
people only half remember what was said what lingers on is what impressions
the speakers made. Ronald Reagan coined the phrase The trick is, if he's always accusing,
then you're always explaining. This technique of winning by looking like you're winning isn't new, and historically it's been used by both parties. But modern liberals seem especially susceptible to it because it plays on one of their big weaknesses. Which is, and I say this with love, Anytime a free-speech warrior gets the Bill of Rights quoted to them when racists get historical accuracy explained by an actual historian,
liberals take screen caps. We put it on Storify. We pass that shit
around like it's theater popcorn. I remind you, this was the central conceit of an entire TV show. -"I don't say homosexuality is an abomination Mr. President, the Bible does." -"Yes it does. Leviticus."
-"18:22." -"Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. What would a good price for her be? Does the whole town really have to be
together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing. While you may be mistaken this for your monthly meeting of the ignorant Tightass Club, in this building when the president stands, nobody sits. But let me ask you, in all these scenarios, The reason scenes like this are so satisfying is precisely because they activate the emotions. They present a world where giving a
detailed explanation looks like winning, and we're having one given to you looks like losing. Everyone wants to be Joseph Welch telling off McCarthy. But the right has learned that if you
never look like you're losing, you can convince a lot of people that you're not. And if you keep your statements short and punchy People will remember what you said better than they remember the long explanation for why it's untrue. If done correctly, you might even convince yourself that you know what you're talking about. Now, again, this is not exclusive to the right This is how most teenagers argue
regardless of their politics, where it's less important to be right than
it is to be better than someone. But mixed with Control the conversation (see previous video), the right has a full-bodied cocktail for manipulating how the left argues. But where it gets dangerous is in how
the alt-right has capitalized on this. This argument isn't just about sticking
a woman in the lying feminism box so she doesn't have to be listened to, it's also signalling to anyone watching what box they should stick her in. Even if an onlooker recognizes that she the idea that how much she asked for or how long she took to deliver are relevant to her credibility is still planted in their heads. It subtly suggests that the next time
they feel threatened by a female media critic, maybe they should look at how much money she makes, how long her work takes to produce. Maybe they don't have to listen to her
because they've got this handy box. So what's most valuable to the alt-right isn't
who wins or loses any individual arguments, it's the mechanics of the argument itself. It's the boxes. Over the last several years the far right has pushed hard on a number of reductive categories. The cultural marxism box, the reverse racism box, even terms like beta and mangina are just short hands for the failed masculinity box. The alt-right is a veritable box factory, putting huge swathes of leftist rhetoric, most especially that that would rebut
their core positions, into categories where they can be summarily ignored. And these myths have power if and only if they are immediately recognizable to a lot of people. And one function of this aggressive posturing is that they want to provoke an argument, to be so pompous that you are itching to publicly take this asshole down. Which gives that asshole access to your followers. It's about them introducing a myth to your audience and reinforcing that myth for theirs. And that myth gets spread even when you feel like you're winning. And I can't tell you the best way to deal with this, but I do know one way, which is to keep control of your own story. When someone comes out the gate with accusations, It's a big red flag that they are not arguing in good faith. Which means you are not required to argue with them. When someone says something untrue,
you can just tell your audience what the truth is without acknowledging the lie or the one repeating it. A detailed explanation does land a lot better when it's not being contrasted with a soundbite. Decide for yourself how your audience
gets acquainted with a popular fiction and never be too proud to delete a
comment. In this political climate, these debates
have real impact on real people's lives. They are not, in fact, a game of football.
I'd also strongly recommend "the card says moops"
The left, after the 20th century, has been on the defensive almost constantly. Centrist, rightwing and even some far right ideas, are accepted as norm within the spectacle of modern society. I notice it whenever even a moderately left wing person is interviewed in the media, who are expected to defend the worst actions of the worst people who took the label of 'left wing'. The right, who currently seem to have cultural hegemony, are never pressed or conflated with, the actions of moderates on their side even.
That is why breadtube is so successful, it allows left wing progressive voices to act on the offenssive; think of Hbomb's measured response videos, or Shaun's and three arrow's takedowns.
I have some hope left for even a modicum of an idea of the left achieving cultural hegemony in the near, or (rather more realistic i fear), far future.
I will always upvote innuendo studios