Taking Out the Trash

A consistent refrain I hear among fellow conservatives and libertarians is that there’s no point to even trying to discuss politics with lefties.  A case in point is Noah, commenting at Vox Populi:

Where is it that some here have these lengthy, high-minded debates with leftists? I find that, with rare exception, they resort to some form of name calling after I’ve made only a few solid points.

Yet this despite my odd blend of radical libertarianism and conservatism, it almost never happens to me.  I don’t lie, I assert what I actually believe, and I live in a college town.

As usual, the key is framing.

Alpha Sweethearts

The American left has established a brilliant societal frame through their assertion that they’re the ones that care.  At the same time, they demonstrate a distinct preference for seething, vitriolic rhetoric.  Democrats are never afraid to attack their opponents with the most hyperbolic insults imaginable.

The effect is twofold.  Their soft lovey-dovey crap establishes a sort of comfort, a sense of safety for those who belong.  They nurture (or at least pretend to) the downtrodden.  They’re morally legitimate, the positive side of the beta male.

Yet they’re simultaneously Alpha badasses.  Oppose Obamacare, and they’ll accuse you of hating poor and black people without a second thought.  With the press backing them, they’ll throw out whatever spurious accusation they find convenient without fear.  Such behavior is Alpha.

Thus, they’ve framed themselves as the agents of righteousness, morally justified and eager to destroy their enemies.

Beta Assholes

As the left frames itself as the paragon of virtue, their opponents epitomize evil.  Xenophobes, racists, greedy, everything they do expressions of a deep-seated resentment of all things that don’t benefit their pocketbook or violate their antiquated moral code.  

In response, we’ve castrated ourselves, petrified of being called racist or misogynist.  Of course, because we oppose the left we’re still assholes.  We’ll always be assholes (unless we switch sides).

Which makes us the worst kind of beta:  The Wrong Kind of Asshole.  We’re not the metaphoric White Knight trying desperately to rescue the poor, we’re the butthurt beta who steals the girl’s drink after she tells us to buzz off.  When they’re bastards to us, it’s righteousness.  When we don’t simply flop over and give them everything they want, it’s evil.

Within the wimp-asshole dichotomy, “asshole” is what we’re called, but “wimp” is what many of them think.

Threading the Needle

So what do I do about it?

First, when I suspect I might be engaging a lefty, I read my targets.  I recognize that when they discover I oppose them politically, they’ll either consider me to be an asshole, a butthurt wimp, or both.

Generally (according to my classification system here), the Anointed and Entitled are used to running roughshod over their opponents, calling them some ugly name and forcing a retreat.  Such folks will assume I’m a wimp.

On the other hand, the Benighted are largely afraid of us.  They think we’re monsters who want nothing less than the right to eat poor children (after we’ve prohibited their mothers from aborting them, of course).

It’s important to always maintain an Alpha frame through voice tone, body language, etc., but with the self-righteous Anointed, it’s somewhat more important to emphasize that you’re a badass before any political discussion even begins.  Just like the scrawny little kids is more likely to get beaten up on the playground, a man who obviously knows Himself is less likely to face insults.

Establish authority so that subconsciously they fear you, even if they’re not consciously aware of it.  That doesn’t mean you have to get in their faces, just let it be know that you’re not one to mess with.

With Benighteds, you obviously shouldn’t be a wimp, but it’s important to recognize that the moment they find out your political leanings, they’re going to be afraid regardless.  Therefore, the Alpha aspect of your frame is somewhat less important.  If I’ve framed myself properly, when a Benighted first finds out my political opinions they’re in shock.  You seem like a good guy.  How can you be one of those?  With these folks, it’s okay to be a little more nice, to establish that you actually care about other people in the world besides yourself.

Preparing the Field of Battle

There are more of these, but two of my favorite framing techniques for before the proverbial fecal matter hits it have Game equivalents:  Agree & Amplify and Active Indifference. (the former applies in rhetoric quite differently than in Game)

Agreee & Amplify:  Nobody is wrong about everything, and Truth is always your ally.  Therefore, if a lefty says something you aactually agree with, be it opposition to NSA spying, crony capitalism, politicians in general, or the drug war, agree with them, only with more conviction.  Take this as an opportunity to humanize yourself, to establish an emotional bond.

When we hear somebody with whom we largely disagree say something correct, our knee-jerk instinct is to immediately contrast that correct view with something else they believe that’s not so reasonable.  Don’t.  You’re never arguing just politics, you’re selling a self-image, a belief system, your Self.  Once you’ve established a connection, then start to mold their mind to your liking.  Bringing up a point of contention prematurely after a lefty actually makes sense wastes an opportunity.

Active Indifference:  I love talking politics with allies, adversaries, ignoramuses–it makes no difference.  However, if somebody senses that you’re too eager to talk politics with them, you surrender frame control.  Trying to convert somebody to your way of thinking works about as well as trying to pick up a pretty girl in a bar.

Instead, if I know somebody’s a lefty, I’ll throw out some random political comment and immediately back away.  Start a story with “I was at a rally a couple of weeks back and…” without saying what kind of rally it was.  If they go on some political diatribe, listen intently, ask a question or make a statement that demonstrates that you’re knowledgeable about whatever they’re talking about, and then completely lose interest and change the subject (only to drop another hint that you’re politically aware just a bit later).  Once I mentioned that I was giving seminars on political persuasion.  When he asked what my views were, I answered “common sense”. If they ask direct questions, either evade or answer and quickly change the subject.  Repeat such hints until you can tell they really want to find out what you think.

Now, they’re chasing you, and you get to start the conversation on your terms.

The Attack

Doing the stuff above diminished the chances you’ll get screamed at, but it doesn’t quite eliminate the possibility.  You may find yourself being called a racist anyway.  Yes, it’s even happened to me.

The steps below are a framework and not an absolute.  Not every step is advisable under every circumstance.  Whether you’ll want to be ruthlessly vicious, amused, or sympathetic will depend on the personalities of those involved, the overall tone of the conversation, who’s observing that you might want to bring on your side, how much you’ve already either established your Alphaness or propensity to “care”, etc.

However, make sure that your accuser is certain that they didn’t get to you.  Instead of howling in anger, use a merely condescending or dismissive tone.  If you want to further humanize yourself, act as though you’re maintaining your  dignity, not that you’ve got hurt feelings.  Biting words work better when delivered as coldly as possible; tender words work best when delivered in strength.  Do NOT, under any circumstances, let them get under your skin.

(Like I said on Vox’s blog, one-liners aren’t my strong suit.  What’s more important than the specific lines I use is the pattern of 1. show that they did wrong, 2. make them pay, 3. offer resolution.  Undoubtedly, some of you will have better lines.)

After they insult you:

Step 1:  Ensure that they, and everybody listening, knows that they crossed a line.  You’re a human being who has just been insulted, and you have every right to retaliate.  It helps immeasurably when people know why they’re being punished before you deliver the blow.  Some of them expect you to be an asshole, so if you’re going to actually be one, make sure everybody listening knows you have every right to be one.  Remember, you’re selling your Self.

Wait a minute.  I’m trying to have a reasonable discussion here, and you’ve just called me one of the nastiest words in the English language.

(laugh)  I thought you guys favored “dialogue” all the damn time.  Does that sound like it fosters communication?

Oh, really, Madame Cleo?  You say I hate single moms.  I was raised by one, jackass.

I’d be pissed you just said that if I had any suspicion you could actually back it up.

2.  Make it hurt.  Incentives matter.  Unfortunately, nonsense rhetoric like name-calling works.  We’ve therefore got to ensure that those who use it have a negative emotional imprint of some sort to discourage them from doing it again.  The more obnoxious your opponents, the more I suggest you inspire either fear or embarrassment.  If they actually seem somewhat human, guilt might work instead (although it’s harder to pull off).

Repeating that nonsense just proves you’ve got a feeble mind that’s incapable of even hearing anything that makes you feel uncomfortable.

Do you have anything even resembling an actual argument?  You realize that you argue just like my four year-old niece, right?

You just proved you’re a moron.  That’s the best you got?

(laugh out loud)  You’ve just shown me that you’re not even in the same league as me intellectually.

You disgust me.  You think I’m a racist because I don’t want to run the entire country like Detroit?  I’ve seen how those kids live, and that’s what I want to end.

3.  Offer penance.  Sometimes this won’t be possible if you’ve gone the harsh route above, but if you see either fear or regret in your opponent’s eyes after Step 2, allow them the opportunity to re-engage on more favorable terms.

I want to discuss this with you, seriously, but I don’t deserve to hear that crap.  I’m not some monster.  I see a lot of the same problems you do, I’ve just got different solutions.  Really, you make a lot of sense when it comes to…(even if they don’t).  So answer me this…

This is harder to explain than it sounds in that this is the type of thing I just naturally do when talking to them.  I didn’t plan this stuff out, I’ve just had lots of conversations about politics and gotten accustomed to being the lone conservative/libertarian against four or five lefties.

Yes, I’m advocating technique.  However, one of the Truths I’ve “stumbled on” is that leftism is a form of blindness.  If we’re honest with ourselves, we’re all blind in one way or another.  Some of us are more blind than others, but I try to keep in mind the wisdom of Matthew 7:3-5:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

I therefore frame these discussions as person-to-person, not ideologue-to-ideologue.  I insist that I be regarded as a fellow human being, but I offer the same to them.  Yes, I’ll insult them if necessary, but my genuine desire is to share Truth as I understand it.

And it works.

This entry was posted in Alpha, Game, Politics, Rhetoric. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Taking Out the Trash

  1. Mina says:

    There is nothing I like better than a stepwise procedure that someone else has already established and tested to success to accomplish a task.

  2. It does work, yes. We all know that while the details vary, the amygdala-challenged will use a reliable blueprint in their arguments. They just don’t know it, themselves, being properly brainwashed to the point where they really think they came up with it on their own. (I swear to you that it is true.) So technique is not something to be shied away from. It gives a reliable framework on which to present a useful and reasonable opposition to the nonsense.

    The old schools of defense come to mind, those places where swordplay was taught. (They still exist, by the way, in case you want to cross literal swords for a change.) By the view of some, the ones who would object to a technical approach to argument, such places would have no value. Real battle doesn’t follow the niceties of a school of fencing, a real opponent isn’t predictable, and no technique can prepare you for everything, after all. Foolish arguments one and all, but they apply no less to a battle of wits. Thus similar schools of rhetoric and debate which have existed for millennia.

    I’m preaching to the choir, I realize. The aptness of the metaphor just hadn’t struck me, before.

    As for the usefulness of a non-bellicose approach to winning minds, I can vouch for it. I haven’t thought about it in such a handily structured way before (my thanks, Martel), but I have made myself essentially a secret agent on behalf of truth. While overt battle is, in my daily trek through Leftyland (and at times Rightyville), rarely useful or at all wise, even more subtle versions of this have proven very helpful. It’s not easy: holding my temper in the face of untruth is sometimes difficult. But gentle words, subtle arguments, and Truth demonstrated in living add up to cracks in the Cathedral, and sometimes some escapees.

    • Martel says:

      I think your analogy also works with wrestling. You can teach a counter to a switchout, and it’s describes the principle at work, but each opposing wrestler is going to vary in strength, speed, etc. Likewise, what I describe works, but some people are louder, some more emotional, some better at fudging stats. It’s a bit tougher to describe the framework without including every caveat than you might think.

      “It’s not easy: holding my temper in the face of untruth is sometimes difficult. But gentle words, subtle arguments, and Truth demonstrated in living add up to cracks in the Cathedral, and sometimes some escapees.”

      Agreed. I find that my initial reaction when I hear somebody says something stupid is that my body tightens up as if I’m about to get in a fight. I think to myself what the best way to destroy this person would be, but before saying it, I step back and let thoughts take precedence over my feelings.

      I think my pent-up aggression somehow comes across as intimidating, even though I’m being really “nice”. Like in the book “verbal judo” he has all kinds of soft ways to talk people through things, but lots of the nice talk he describes is from dudes dressed in cop uniforms. Never underestimate the usefulness of fear. Just don’t make intimidation a fallback.

      Here in the Manosphere we’ve been taught all the ways in which we’ve sold ourselves short by not ripping into people, but we also need to remember “bemused mastery” and not being led by our emotions.

      • Quite so. As a somewhat imposing figure (I am told) I have an advantage in this, amplified by training in proper body language gained from the androsphere. It also helps to have the option of switching to “goofy mode”, my beta-era counterbalance to my apparently natural air of authority. The hint of aggression, held back by a leash of indeterminate durability, the “nice because I choose to be” aura you describe having, reminds me of a book I once saw of photos of endangered-species animals, in particular the bear. It was part of a big Russian circus, and came in on a leash. Enormous, powerful animal, and when it greeted him with a blast of bear breath, the photographer shook in his boots. It had never harmed a soul, never gave indication of wanting to, but its visitor recognized immediately that that was because it chose not to. That patience and intellect was what held it, not the leash.

        It occurs to me that I have just described the appeal of the bad boy. The naughty, pretty, boy-band-looking lads are a weak stand in for the genuine, hard, will-he-hit-me? bad boy. But the bad boy himself is desired because the one really wanted is in such short supply. Elizabeth Scalia (who blogs as The Anchoress) once wrote:

        I recall why it is I like the big guys: they’re gentle as only a big man who is completely aware of his stength and his capacity for mayhem can be gentle. Knowing his strength, a big guy doesn’t need to prove anything; gentleness does not threaten him… there is something about doing a jig and a reel with a beefy Celt that is like dancing on a dangerous ledge and knowing you won’t get hurt.

        Those are the “real men” of thoughtless, swoony yearnings. This is what they’re looking for. Failing that combination, the ability to protect even though brutish would seem to trump the ability for gentleness even though weak.

        Crap. I need to write this sort of thing into a proper post, don’t I?

  3. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/11/27 | Free Northerner

  4. Wald says:

    I wonder if the flanking effect would be extra useful and part of the reason why you’re so effective.

    Your “soft” rhetoric’s effectiveness is further enhanced through contrast with the hard rhetoric that most of the manosphere uses.

    Wald

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s