Lord JvK's Playbook to Counter Illiberal SJW tactics.
Over the past couple of weeks I have seen patterns of behaviour that the SJW uses to squirm away from reasoned debate. I have compiled them and made some suggestions for counter-tactics against the illiberal threat.
1. Flag any and all attempts to label you as an attempt at
derailment. This can come in many forms. Here are some examples:
Quote:
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
this is why you cant have meaningful dialogue with trump supporters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib
so i guess we know one more easily-duped trump voter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Pulaski
go back to breitbart
Here,
do not get drawn into pointing out that you didn't vote for Trump or that you do not read Breitbart. This is what they want so that they can turn around and accuse you of lying. You then get sidetracked into the issue of whether or not you are lying. This is a TRAP. You must ignore any and all attempts to do so. If you do acknowledge it flag it in the manner suggested.
2. Bat away their "whataboutery". This is their tactic of trying to come up with things that "your side" apparently have done as a means of excusing SJW tactics. This is more
derailment as well as
deflection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
How is that different from gamergaters threatening to bomb events women were speaking at?
This is a means of getting you to try to address a topic other than the one you are talking about, AND a means of them avoiding the demand to make actual counter arguments. Flag this or ignore this.
3. Do not get drawn into petty arguments about the definitions of words or some other pedantic point of grammar. Examples:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Cut
Facism is mob rule? Am I missing something here? Sounds sloppy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epcfast
"My attempt to discuss sugar beet the other day feels like it was derailed."
Do attempts have feelings now?
I'll find a safe space for yours.
TOUGHEN UP ATTEMPT!
This is mere pedantry and is another
diversion tactic that constitutes
derailment. This again gets you onto a topic other than the one under discussion.
4. Source quibbling. If you post data from some place, a common SJW tactic is immediately to question the source. SJWs like nothing more than to side-track from debating the actual issue at hand by using these heuristics -- for example if you post a bunch of articles -- let's say TEN different links -- all pointing to the same thing, if ONE of those articles is on the SJW blacklist of right-wing publications, some clown in their number will highlight the fact you linked to that one source and then use that to discredit the whole post.
You must try to work around this as follows:
- only post from official sources of data, wherever possible try to link direct to the original report, and not to some newspaper write-up of it
- If you are forced to use media links rather than research institute or government links, wherever possible use ones which cannot be accused of pro-rightwing bias. BBC news, for example.
- NEVER link to these sources:
Traditional media
Quote:
The Sun
The Daily Mail
The Daily Express
The Telegraph
Fox News
Washington Times
Alt media
Quote:
Breitbart News Network
Drudge Report
Freedomainradio hosted by Stefan Molyneux
LifeZette
Newsmax
PJ Media
Return Of Kings
Right Side Broadcasting Network
TheBlaze
The Daily Caller
The Daily Wire
The Federalist
The Rebel Media
The Washington Free Beacon
Townhall.com
TruthRevolt
Twitchy
WorldNetDaily
The left-wing mind functions in a very simple binary way. Either people and insititutions are GOOD = acceptable, or they are BAD = evil, unacceptable, compromised. Try to be diligent in reducing the risk of getting sidetracked by giving them scope to attack the source. Do what you can to avoid linking ANY of the places linked above.
The leftist keeps vast lists of these good and bad things in their heads and reject everything and anything that comes from a bad list. This can include people as well as publications. Because of this, it can sometimes hit you unawares, for example, when I quoted Sam Harris on the issue of identity politics and its ills, instead of engagement with his argument, instead I got back:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Banana
Sam Harris is a massive tool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokiri
Sam Harris is worse than a fraud, he's often quite boring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdman10687
Sam Harris is an idiot and a fraud
Clearly Sam Harris has done something to find himself on the bad list. When this happens you must insist they they
attack the argument, not the man. DO NOT get drawn into an argument about whether or not the person is good, this is a derailment and a diversion. INSIST that they address the argument being made.
5. Since they will seek to discredit your sources EVEN IF you cite them from a credible source, example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokiri
Here a leftist has already attacked a government source and therefore managed to get the source onto the "bad list".
In this second example, I linked to a
Chatham House poll. Because the data did not confirm their point of view, leftists were forced to try to discredit the report. They were not able to attack the source (because it is reputable), so instead we got this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
It was an online survey that somehow managed to get equal amounts of people in all 10 of those countries despite never telling us their methodology. It basically looks like a study that I bs'd in a first year stats source because it was worth 5%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
Their probably in the minority anyways. It's a BS pole.
In these cases, rather than get drawn into questions of methodology from your sources instead
insist on data for the counter claims they make. And if they do provide data, then use their OWN questions of your data back on their data. This is important since it will expose the fact that they are being driven to make their arguments because of their emotional reflexes and not because of the actual facts of the matter.
6. Do not lose your temper or be provoked into calling them names back. This will be taken as a victory for the SJW, they will ignore all of the provocation, abuse, derailment etc that they've done, and instead focus on the one time you let your emotions get the better of you. You must be as the zen monk, resist this urge. Focus on the topic only. Never get personal. Never get drawn into flame wars.
Use these six rules
consistently and you will force the SJW into honest debate. If they still fail to argue coherently or honestly, then at least you have exposed their behaviour for what it is. Your chief goal should be ONLY to insist on sticking to the argument at hand and to EXPOSE all attempts at deviating from this.
Last edited by LordJvK; 02-15-2017 at 10:31 AM.