Melvin Udall ([info]melvin_udall) wrote,
@ 2008-09-05 11:46:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:archive

How to argue like a liberal
How to argue like a liberal

(I get to the point eventually. Feel free to skip to the cut for the article.)

Late last night I was reading a friend's journal. He commented on the simple background for McCain's speech. I offered that maybe it was to contrast with, as I put it, "HopebamaMessiah's Greek columns, giant stage and massive ego." Literally, it was a six line post, and about McCain's speech. Enter some combination of high school history teacher and Charles Emerson Winchester III to pompously dress me down with relativism and rationalizations. Being in no mood, I parsed his lecture, pointing out all its errors, one of which was to lecture in the first place, and went on my merry way. I thought, albeit foolishly, one of these arrogant fools might know when to quit. That is when I forgot the #1 rule, the point of this post. Sure enough, this morning in my in box I was treated to Major Winchester's treatise full of, you guessed it, arrogance, rationalizations, distractions, relativism and my favorite, argumentum verbosium. While he managed an apology for the tone, he repeated it, and it was really only as a means to mount the soapbox. I know, I mean I know, this is a discussion without end. He will continue until I am tired of it, then claim victory.

This kind of exchange and far worse is all too common.

This reminded me of an article I'd read some time ago, and one to which I constantly refer back. It's a quick read, jam packed with pure truth. It's something everyone should understand about today's modern Liberal. I encounter precisely this every day when debating with Liberals, especially those who come to community/conservatism. I'm putting it here for archiving.



(Slightly edited from the original)

How to argue like a liberal

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.

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.

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.



  1. Make an untrue statement, preferably on the subject of something about which you know nothing.

  2. Express astonishment that your source could possibly be inaccurate.

  3. Demand what motivation your source would have to lie.

  4. Assert that the other party's inability to articulate this motivation is tantamount to proof that your source is not lying.

  5. Question the motivation of the contrary source.

  6. Argue that all sources are equal and that therefore the contrary source is irrelevant.

  7. Change the subject.



Alternatively ...



  1. Make an untrue statement.

  2. Deny that you said what you said.

  3. Deny that the other party understood what you said.

  4. Deny that the words you used mean what the other party claims they mean.

  5. Redefine your definition and hope the other person forgets the previous one. Repeat as needed.

  6. Assert that since definitions are irrelevant and subjective, the other person is mean-spirited, racist, sexist, intolerant and obsessive.

  7. 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.




(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]eastertheatre
2008-09-05 04:33 pm UTC (link)
But if you skip to the cut, you miss the best part!

Enter some combination of high school history teacher and Charles Emerson Winchester III to pompously dress me down with relativism and rationalizations.

Bwhahah! Brilliant :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]melvin_udall
2008-09-05 05:22 pm UTC (link)
:) Thanks!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]freakylynx
2008-09-05 04:53 pm UTC (link)
I've for the most part stopped commenting on political posts made by some Liberal friends. Not only do you know the argument will only end when you stop responding and allow them their final words, you also have numerous other comments coming from their friends or watchers. And in the end you're just feeling a tad dirty, frustrated, and close to defriending them.

Oh, and don't you just love how many studies & stats that they use are put together by others with the same political view. The conclusion is reached long before the study is complete.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]melvin_udall
2008-09-05 05:30 pm UTC (link)
Yep.

I still fight the good fight most of the time. On someone else's journal I try to avoid it if I think it will be extended and unproductive.

I'm satisfied that the next time Winchester prepares to go off on one of the lesser creatures he will lessen his arrogance for fear of further embarrassment. They may not admit it, but they know.

Oh, and don't you just love how many studies & stats that they use are put together by others with the same political view. The conclusion is reached long before the study is complete.

Ugh. Yes. It's one of the more tiring methods they use. "LOOK AT THIS TOTALLY NOPARTISAN CHART I SOURCED FROM THIS TOTALLY NONPARTISAN GROUP," none of which is ever true, and most of which, if one spent the time to research, is proven full of crap. It is a giant propaganda machine of lies that feeds upon and strengthens itself.


Unfortunately, look at the last four decades.
How many people under 40 ACTUALLY understand...
the Bay of Pigs
The Cuban Missile Crisis
The overthrow of the Shah of Iran
McCarthyism
Blacklists
"Under God" added to the pledge
Reagan and the end of the Cold War
for that matter, EVERYTHING touching on the Cold War, meaning most of the history during the 20th century
...and countless other examples?

They rewrite history every day.

If we don't speak up, at least occasionally, they just become stronger.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]fionavere
2008-09-05 05:13 pm UTC (link)
LMAO! I love this! Awesome, and oh so true! :)

(Reply to this)


(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…