The Alt-Right Playbook: Never Play Defense
Articles,  Blog

The Alt-Right Playbook: Never Play Defense

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.


  • swamponions

    I like how you spent a couple minutes talking about how the right "puts people into boxes" so they can be ignored. Uh, hello? The left literally calls everyone they disagree with "racist"/"nazi". This is honestly the worst leftist channel, most of your viewers are only here to feel smart.

  • GodOfCows

    Literally could replace Alt-Right with anything, there are ignorant people everywhere. "The Youtube commenter Playbook: Never Play Defense"

  • Chris McElroy

    Ben Shapiro is a smart guy for stupid people

    Also, I am trying to do dirty work in the trenches by searching MAGA hashtags and going into to their echo chambers and trolling them lol it’s quite entertaining

  • mrcdplay

    What you're describing here is not unique to any part of the political spectrum; it's just the behaviour of anyone who's over-zealous and close-minded.

  • The Taoist Conservative

    I'm not alt-right, though many might label me as such. I love Jews. I think Christianity is insane, but actually helpful. I'm gently pro-choice.

    I appreciate your sincere effort to untangle this large issue. Most importantly, you aren't harboring the repugnant completely undeserved hubris of the typical nauseating leftist. What your respectable argument is lacking is an appreciation of the destruction of Western (European) culture, and how violent that is to those of European ancestry.

    In passing– truths such as that females are very different intellectually and emotionally than males should be embraced, not lied about. It is NATURAL to be gently repulsed by homosexuals. They deserve rights and respect, but to FORCE the community to ignore their condition is IMMORAL.

    MOST IMPORTANTLY, it is a NATURAL and thus moral feeling to want to live among your similar race. Everyone knows this. It's ridiculous to deny it. When cultural Marxism infects people minds so that they think just the opposite– that we must all be energetically forced to live together, thereby destroying the majority's culture and biological makeup– this is MAXIMALLY VIOLENT. When suffering MAXIMALLY VIOLENT aggression, it may be appropriate to respond with MAXIMALLY VIOLENT reaction. This is the reality, and it is this that progressives do not understand.

    If you do care about this issue, then it's best that you appreciate the extreme violence you are inflicting on the white race, because it is VERY VERY REAL. Open racism against whites is currently acceptable. ALL of our homelands are being physically and culturally infiltrated. YOU ARE CAUSING MAXIMALLY EXTREME VIOLENCE WITH YOUR TRULY SICK UTOPIAN IDEOLOGY that has already caused well over 120,000,000 deaths and incomprehensible suffering.

    I'd be happy to discuss this with you on skype, etc. Peace.

  • The Taoist Conservative

    Ever notice how there is a constant continuing movement of leftists to the right, such as David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens, yet I cannot find a single right winger turned leftist. Ponder that, then deflect just like your video describes.

  • Phalanxia Theroan

    Much easier method to deal with alt right debate tactics.

    "Set fire to your computer and drink a mimosa laced with toad venom."

  • Kohl Goldsmith

    Is this kind of analysis something that falls into sociology, political science, psychology, or something broader or perhaps a big melting pot of all of the above?

  • Andrew Sheneman

    Hey quick question if Anita really did finish her 'Tropes vs Women in Video games' project, can you please point me to her 'fighting fucktoy' video?(That was the one I was most looking forward to)

  • Frisk

    This is literally anyone's method of arguing…… unless you can formulate your thoughts so impressively as to hit something unprepared and still have a long-winded response, you literally cannot say anything outside of being short and quippy. Your first example is case-in-point, what else would you expect someone to say? Unless it's a typed out, 'they'll-ask-this-word-for-word' response, you can only pick the parts of the question/response that stick out and react to them. Why would they assume they lost the argument? It's the asker's fault that they see it as winning, not the arguer's. Do YOU actually think that just because she voluntarily received 90 grand extra, she was somehow actually obligated to make a really good project? On what front was what she was doing even worth the 10 she asked for? Let alone the hyper-extended, not-much-better-than-what-she-originally-planned version. Would you expect someone to go this far verbally instead of typing it out first? The brain only has 1 core, we can't multi-thread and tackle a subject from 15 directions at once and maintain that in verbal exchange. How does this even tie in to the alt-right, I suppose I'm only half-way through but your for-the-sake-of-argument argument thus far is mad weak.

  • kucam12

    I have found this channell 2 years too late from the point you made the videos and 5 years too late from the point of view of most of my online interactions.

  • Elfos64

    I've often found that whenever I criticize the right, I'm met with a criticism against a prominent left-wing candidate I've never supported. And I'm like "cool cool, but I never said anything about them, what does your disdain for them have to do with my disdain for the candidate I know for sure you support?" Annoying how binary politics is treated in that regard. And whenever I see people seize on one part of something I actually said but they're ignoring the part it built up to and stuff surrounding it for context and other relevant stuff in the argument, I might say "hey, you neglected to comment upon all this other stuff I said".

  • Ron Anderson

    I think I would actually watch West Wing if a chugging guitar riff chimed in every time someone got rhetorically owned.

  • Mark Hackett

    Another way to change the game is to nonsequitur tangent gallop. They come with an accusation: Make a worse accusation of some random person of their authority. Make it up, even. Just make it WORSE. If someone tries to correct you because they think this is a genuine conversation explain TO THEM what you're doing, but gaslight the shit out of anyone from the alt right and act as if that happened in some nonexistent reality.

  • Niels Quaade Jensen

    The only way to win is to stop playing. State clearly what they're doing instead of answering their "honest question."

  • Michael Tkaczevski

    People often complain about a lack of civility these days, but attribute it to protests or criticizing racists/rapists/etc, but never get around to attributing it to arguing in bad faith, fascist chest pounding, etc.

  • nukeba11

    Without wanting to start any war, I just wanted to bring forward the point that this is the personal experience of myself and many conservatives I know when discussing the right of center topics.
    I, therefore, wish to bring forward the idea that this is less about an alt-right playbook style and more a general trend amongst people of all intellectual demographics. Before this video I might have said this is the strategy used by leftists against any conservative to throw out quick labels like sexist, racist, bigot, in order to shut down the conversation and have an intellectual debate. After this video, I realize it probably is the world of any minority intellectual in the political spectrum with the capacity of active thought dealing with the much greater majority that simply follows an idea without having near as much information to actually be able to engage in discourse.
    tl;dr this happens on both sides to equal extents whether we realize it or not.

  • Kaiser Weeb

    Honestly what you're describing with the "liberal fantasy" and the boxes is exactly why poltics and most discussion in the modern day are pure bullshit. Because it's not about learning, not about ideals and how they'd work, it's about winning. It's about satisfying your lizard brains inherent desire to beat someone, to have a position of superiority over someone else. Whether it be Trump to the "right side of history" it's always been about 'schooling' the other party not trying to peacefully debate ideals. It's disgusting and is just high school on a larger scale. In a way that's probably why you started this series, to destroy the enemy of the alt right, if you did it to discuss their tactics in good faith then good on you. Hopefully you'll try to be or are open minded to conservative or libertarian values. Also minor complaint but idk why you used the accent thing at all, the dude in the comment even stated he was drunk, and maybe not alt right(I wouldn't know I don't follow him) plus I don't get why him complaining about your voice adds anything to your overall point, was it for the point of dunking on him or something to lead to your later points? To just have a dumb joke? Just seems out of place in an otherwise dead serious video.

  • The Ravenous Lamppost

    This long conversation at the beginning has no basis in reality and it makes you look like an idiot. Feminists are trash and people who resemble some far-flung variant of your strawman are not Nat-Right members.

  • The Ravenous Lamppost

    As these videos go on and on, I'm doubting more and more that you actually understand the goals and philosophy of the Alt-Right or any Nationalist Movement. Perhaps I should make a video on that!

  • ali okatan

    But if we don't play, we're just allowing them to operate freely and to make the community their own echo chamber, dragging in moderates with them

  • Nag Rajan

    In the west wing scene, an real life argumentative human would dig in their heels, keep their ass on the seat and say "I don't stand up for corrupt politicians" (statement need not be true). The President would be defending again and again and eventually run out of steam.

  • Brandon Hall

    7:08 The dudes argument is pretty easily debatable though. With context, God was giving these laws to the new Israel nation, who were wandering the desert surrounded by hostile tribes and the Egyptians behind them. Most of the laws are either a) to be efficient and prosper such as only using one fabric for the clothes, and not ruining the crops by mixing the plots together, or b) to uphold the religion (hence the extremely strict laws on sexual immorality and other god worhipping). Since Jesus came down and made the new covenent, those strict laws calling for stoning, death, etc are not up to the humans to deliver. We watch ourselves and let God do the judging.

  • MissFoxification

    When they roll out with their disingenuous misrepresentations and ad-hominems I refuse to engage. They ALWAYS follow up with a statement claiming they "win" and their classification of me just must inevitably be true whereas I just can't be bothered wasting my time on them.
    If there's an option to add a private comment to their profile I then put 3 letters, "DNE" and I do not engage with them again.

  • Errickfoxy

    I know it's an older video, but it does remind me of something I was told not too long ago too, by fellow "left" folks. Often, it's not as important the person you're arguing with. You may never convince the right-wing blowhard who's spouting nonsense to change their point of view… but how many people on the internet are going to see this conversation? How many minds might you change, if your argument is cogent, that you never even interacted with directly? That's why I feel it can be good to push back.. as long as you don't fall into these traps, at least. And that can be tricky.

  • Amber Dent

    I find that, besides refusing to play, another good rhetorical strategy is to, for the moment, pretend you haven't heard the dog whistle. If you start out asking questions like you're unsure, they'll start to "explain" their complete nonsense bigotry. When you rebut, act confused. "Wait, but I thought you said her kickstarter stole? I'm reading really good reviews for it right here." [link]. Bigots will get into it. They'll think you're actually asking and start trying to explain, and when they start doing that, you've tricked them into playing defense. It weakens their immediate ambush tactic and then you can hit them with short, quippy responses because you've already exposed their stupid non-reasoning and linked primary sources.

  • Allison Hart

    this is exactly why I love "OK, boomer" so much.
    it's getting the right triggered. they're learning that "the left CAN meme," and there's no way for them to respond without looking like they can't take a joke. they're finally getting a taste of their own medicine with a joke that's both inoffensive (mostly) and effective!

  • siddbastard

    Hum … How many youtuber need a 150k crowdfunding to record a dozen video ?

    Maybe that's the issue here ?

    Also, did you know these vids were made for free at YT HQ, where you have access to free video equipment if you have enough subs ?

    Don't be stupid, a video series of a person talking on green screen don't cost 150k. You do animation for far less, far more frequently.
    She clearly pocketed the remaining money, bro. Cmon. Woman love money too, they're humans !!
    And she keeps crowdfunding all the time ! Last time it was for a podcast ? Lol u know how many ppl do podcast with basically no money ?

    AAAAAnd her comments and ratings are off.

    Yea … That's not gonna rub anyone the wrong way. WHY U SO ANGRY, WOMEN HATER ?

  • siddbastard

    Yea. Don't play, and remove comments.


    Next video : how to breath with your head in the sand

  • Bob Newby Superhero

    This is EXACTLY what the Trump minions have been doing to try and smokescreen their way out of the impeachment hearings!

  • Bob Newby Superhero

    This is why I stand on the left. We know that an argument isn’t something to be won or lost. It’s not a battle, but a crucible of ideas. When done properly, bad ideas break and good ones are tempered, honed into something more than they were before. Knowledge is gained and courses of action are chosen. None of this happens when one employs shady tactics to “win” the argument for fear of loss.

  • Bob Newby Superhero

    So when in combat with a troll…..
    Keep it short. (Trolls can’t read long sentences)
    When they try the “ideological blitzkreig” as detailed above, point out how much of your argument they missed. That should break the illusion of superiority.

  • Sidney Ma

    The comment you deleted at 11:34 was a completely valid criticism of your vast generalization of the right. It was rude, sarcastic, and annoying, but criticism nonetheless. It always looks bad on you to remove something you disagree with, even if the disagreer is a troll or an idiot.

  • Ellen Naga

    Oh my god, this has happened to me SO many times. And I was like "but dude, you just ignored 90% of my argument" and I felt like I was the only one who noticed that. But somehow, I still "lost" the debate, because they sounded super convincing about the 10% they did decide to address. And I can't say that they're ignoring most of what I'm saying because then it could be argued by the people that are watching (THERE IS ALWAYS PEOPLE WATCHING) that I'M now ignoring what they said about 10% of my initial argument. And if I try to counter that and bring up those 90% of my initial argument again, it's like I'M the one who doesn't have any convincing argument, so I just repeat things. Even though what I said was never disproved. It's sooo frustrating.
    And like, even if they were absolutely right about that 10%, that DOES NOT mean I'm wrong about the other 90%. If I say a celebrity has 10 problems that make them not a good person to look up to, and someone clarifies that 1 of them isn't a problem, that still leaves 9 unsolved problems. But somehow, because one of them was disproved, all of them are now??? Why do I have to be absolutely 100% right for the point I'm making to be valid? I'm still mostly right. And that guy was right about 10% and refrained from commenting on the rest. Their job was much easier.

  • Apollo FGC

    Just found this stuff, amazing content. Logical and coherent, and you offer many examples on-screen alongside allusions. Please don’t stop making these!

  • Red Ram

    It’s amusing hearing someone describe zealotry within secular ideology in one group when it exists in every group. This exact line of logical fallacies occur between conservatives, progressives, SJWs, MRAs, feminists, etc.

  • chavesa5

    The current UK election is a stark reminder of how susceptible leftists are to this technique. They are really quite embarrassing about it.

  • ayeyobossman

    The only problem I have with this video is the focus on the right wing doing this. I know it's a meme to say "but the other side does that too" but it's true.

    The actual analysis of modern political conversations is all too true.

    Edit: oh wow this video is super old ahaha.

    I think the issue is that left people most often argue with right wing people, so they associate these techniques with right wingers and vice versa.

    Edit #2: watched your endnote video where you said (paraphrasing but hopefully not misrepresenting) "these techniques are used overwhelmingly by the right". I'd like to refer to my other edit.

    I think that when you mostly argue against one group you would see that they use a lot of the same tactics and then you would associate those tactics with them.
    I mostly argue with left wing people on things like transgenderism and unimportant things like whether or not PewDiePie is a Nazi, so I see a lot of people using these tactics.

    "Pewdiepie's subreddit when he donated money to the ADL was full of people saying he shouldn't donate because they're filthy Jews"

    "Well, actually no. Did you read the subreddit during that time? Most of them are concerned because they've been antagonistic towards him in the past and have struck videos that only show Hitler speeches for historical purposes."

    It happens a lot. I really like your video anyway. It's very important to be able to understand when somebody is just wasting your time and when they're trying to as you say "argue in good faith".

  • im19ice3

    i'm really bad at controlling my anger responses so i try to keep my side short quippy and imprecise as well just in case they fall into biting their own bait

  • BubbleBreak

    Having returned to this video after a year of activism, my assessment has changed. Not engaging seems immoral if you view yourself as some kind of truth seeker. However, that is a manifestation of the privileged position of being someone not desperate to effect change. “Never Play Defense” is simply the most effective political strategy. Responding to derailing and criticism wastes time and rarely changes minds. It is inherently losing the initiative and surrendering the framing. Much better to push your message and ignore the messages of your enemies. Any time spent pushing back against your opponent’s messaging is time better spent advancing your messaging. It’s far more effective to attract people with your messages with your framing on your turf than trying to go out and challenge other messages with their framing on their turf.

  • The Flying Sailor

    Also, there is another way to counter these guys, and it isn't by leaving the field (which they also want.)

    Simply ask for proof. Nothing else. If they bring out something from a source non-reliable, then ask them if they have this from a NEUTRAL source.

    To them Neutral = Liberal and they'll try to return to their boxes. Keep them on task. Keep responses short. Ask for context. They're bad at creating it. Don't EVER play nice. But never let yourself get trapped into a response that will get you deplatformed.

    What they can't handle is having their weapons used against them.

    There's two ways to win an argument, either never participate (which can work until they start calling their goon squad in to start causing trouble) or use rhetorical judo. Make THEM start explaining themselves (They aren't ready for that, and that scares the hell out of them). Draw their weakness out to where your strength can play. Or push them over an edge into a reportable offense. Many see the strategy and leave, some stay and make the MISTAKE, and some will try to actually engage on YOUR rules. But if you catch them slipping be sure as hell to put their noses BACK to the grindstone. They started the conversation with the flaming bag of turd on your doorstep, make them own that. Not by explaining it away, but by making THEM look like the dink that left that bag there without even the common courtesy of ringing the doorbell.

    The left has lizard brains too. It's sad we have to appeal to them, but that is what it is. Welcome to the modern era, the Mad Max era of politics. The Dark Ages. The normie neutrals have the same brains too. Maybe it's time to stop treating the internet like a debate stage with actual rules regarding logical fallacies, and start treating it like a schoolyard.

    And be ready if this encounter is in real life to take a 5-knuckle sandwich for free. But then they lose and you got them on assault charges. If you must, never throw the first punch but make damn sure you either show you took every step to leave a violent confrontation before throwing the last punch.

    I'm not saying it's right, it's just the sad state of fucking affairs in the world, and sooner or later something has to break. Hopefully that isn't modern civilization, but sometimes I think that's well since gone, personally.

  • Evan Sageser

    Looking back on this one two years later I think this is partially why the "Ok Boomer" meme may have hit such a nerve among Conservatives and the Alt-right. Because it really just shuts down the argument instead of giving them space to continue to attack. It's very different to how Liberals have been arguing previously, short, quippy and making little attempt to explain and educate like we usually do, but it certainly plays well for a crowd.

    Personally I'm hopeful that it's a first foray into a new era of progressive memeing that can capitalize on this kind of rhetoric so we can all save time for useful stuff instead of worrying about extensive time-wasting arguments with insincere people.

  • Paul TheSkeptic

    What the fuck is a non regional accent? Is that a thing or did he make that up?

    Okay, I Googled it. So I'm a nerd. Sue me. Lol. Google says there i9s such thing as a neutral accent meaning that it's not from anywhere in particular but it also said that there is no neutral accent on a global scale. I assume this is all about the English language but I don'y know for sure. So my guess is that "Didn't have much of a choice" just pulled it out of his ass.

  • torbs37

    This must be why calling them on their logical fallacies and shady debate tactics and going back to the original premise instead of engaging with their new premise is so effective at making them throw tantrums instead of continuing debating.

  • Li Lockhart

    I feel like I'm being taught by Korosensei rn (partially the voice/accent, also the wholesome vibe i get? ) and I rlly don't mind it, I've only just found it but I'm loving this series

  • Li Lockhart

    I'm now at the end of the video and realising omg….when I say 'ok boomer' to some asshat explaining why trans ppl are abominations, that's what gets them so riled up 😮

  • Donald Spillane

    So how do you debate someone in private? I recently had someone ask me about who im voting for in a primary. The conversation turned into him telling me how good trump is, all with incorrect information. How do you show these people they are being lied to.

  • Yan Pagh

    Working well so far, behold the new left reputation because of this "I'm never wrong!!" approach…:

  • John DereBuy

    ''If you have more than 1 female partner you MUST be a sexist''

    I'm sure Albert Einstein is rolling in his grave pondering this issue as we speak.

  • Micah McCormick

    Funny how the strategic doctrine most famously employed by the Wehrmacht is also the one favored by the a alt-right in political conversation

  • Halfblood Princess

    The only way to argue with a dishonest person, is to always drag them back to the origin of the argument:
    "Long diatribe about something remotly/totally unrelated to the topic"

    – let them speak

    – then kindly dismiss everything they've said ("this isn't supporting your argument")

    – then restate their original opinion

    It works every timy on every dishonest person in every discussion. And the best thing is, you can do this, without getting heated or unfriendly (signs of weakness).

    If someone tries to change the argument multiple times, simply get mildly annoyed ("you wanted to talk about x, can you stop talking about unrelated stuff?"), but never get heated/unfriendly/emotional!

  • Dominique M

    Narcissists and other cluster b’s appeal to emotion and the audience AROUND you, not to you. It’s down to you to be better at this than he is. I find it fairly satisfying to actually do both—dunk on the mfer AND facilitate their own self destruction via them death by a thousand cuts. In short, I’ve learned a lot from the right. Thanks, guys!

  • Juan E.

    I once got into that type of argument where someone accused me of being a communist, anti first amendment, and anti american. He then finished his argument by saying "I bet you would love to censor my free speech". He also said that government healthcare is communist. I then gave him a list of countries with some kind of gov healthcare and said in gov healthcare is Communist, then all those countries were communists. He promptly shut up

  • spammymcspampants

    "The liberal fantasy of putting someone in their place."

    Someone once pointed out to me that Democrats love a moral victory, which helped me to understand why they kept using the same playbook. Yeah…. it's depressing.

  • Kael

    All true, but this tactic isn't primarily used by the alt-right, it's used by anyone uninformed or lazy across the political spectrum.

    As someone who jumps around the political spectrum from issue to issue, I haven't noticed one side using this tactic more than another.

    In fact, the only time I do is when using a specific platform. E.g. I'll actually notice the left use this more on Twitter and the right use it more on Facebook, probably because there are more people on the left on Twitter and more on the right on Facebook.

    And the left really can't be complaining about the right putting people in boxes.

  • Pyroteq

    This probably would have been better if you used a different example.

    Most complaints about Sarkeesian's work weren't about the money… It was about the shit tier quality in her work that cherry picked a few examples and outright LIED to her audience, for example, claiming that Hitman encouraged killing sex workers when in fact the game punishes you for killing people that aren't your target.

    You're doing the exact same shitty tactic by building up a strawman. There was plenty of reasons to be critical of her work… Let's not forget that she is literally on video record of saying she doesn't like video games and had no interest in them. She saw a niche to complain and make money off a gullible audience.

    Plenty of feminists that actually play games would have been a better voice for them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *