This is the most intelligent thing I've read in awhile. Really great breakdown you got there. Whether you're a lowwit or a highwit we all know the midwits, often thinking they're smarter than they are, because as you pointed out, that's what they've been told by authority and that's where they derive their truth. I remember getting ganged up on by a group of midwits who thought it was soo novel that they could call me out for being a white male. As if they had just discovered enlightenment, and now they where the elites. It was kinda weird, but the way you broke it down, now the whole exchange makes sense.
Yeah, I used to do it a bit myself from time to time. You have to catch yourself.
I've also been on the entirely opposite end of it.
I was derided for pointing out that American culture exists, but we don't typically experience it as such because most people haven't gone without it.
The exchange went fairly simply. It was a discussion in my ASL class in college about culture, and recognizing culture. Someone mentioned that clearly deaf people had a culture (once it was explained to us about how deaf people genuinely do behave differently among other deaf people and communicate with them in ways that they don't with hearing people, which is reasonable). I mentioned the concept that, to a degree: all social groups have a culture of some kind, even businesses. I pointed out that American culture tends to be very distinct, but most people didn't notice that because they've never really lived outside of American society or culture for very long. I mentioned in my experience that I was quite glad to re-experience American culture when you aren't living in it.
This is such an obviously true statement, you wouldn't think I'd even need to defend it.
However, I did have to defend it because one classmate, with the support of a few others, explicitly claimed that American culture didn't exist, and wasn't a positive even if it did, because only other places had cultures that were unique. Everybody here lived in a similar way, and therefore it didn't have a culture, and my opinion wasn't educated.
Another student spoke up and agreed with me because she had lived abroad, and pointed out that... yes... American culture exists. She, too, valued our unique approach to personal liberty and individual rights.
She was also dismissed, and gawfed at. My critics were quickly turning into mean-girls.
I was going to give an elaborate explanation about how social groups of any kind had to have their own cultures and social morays. But before I could even finish my first sentence, a little clique of 3 of them literally started laughing and snickering classic mean-girls style.
After a very tense pause, I threw my hands up and said "Fuck it, I'm done". After realizing that very bad things would happen to my chances of graduation had I done or said any of the things that were rolling through my head.
The Midwits are informed by "official sources" that their opinions are correct and conform to the correct narrative. After that, they use their sense of smug self-entitlement to deride others and affirm themselves in their moral superiority. That's why I've always felt that it was important to confront Leftists directly on their moral high-ground. It's actually never as well defended as they think because they've never properly interrogated their own beliefs.
That's why I've always felt that it was important to confront Leftists directly on their moral high-ground. It's actually never as well defended as they think because they've never properly interrogated their own beliefs.
Can you elaborate on this point? Are you saying attack them on their morality, their sense of authority, or are you suggesting something else entirely?
So, it's an old military tactic that is very dangerous, but very useful for winning battles quickly against an enemy that is not competently prepared or trained; or if they are unfamiliar with longer and more drawn out fights. You make a full, frontal, spear-head assault on the enemy's strongest point, but you have to be very aggressive about it. As soon as you break the strongest point, hit every other point and overwhelm them, causing a route of their position.
What the Leftist typically does is prepare an assault against the right wing, which is typically making strong static defenses. Static defenses are nice in war, but they are never optimal. Given infinite time and resources, all static defenses will be breached. This is a fact.
What a Leftist will typically does is prepare for a siege by hitting many points, and keeping you on the defensive; or they try to hit you from many different angles until your cognitive overload gets the better of you, and you give you an insane run-around that makes them look pseudo-competent as if they know more (when they are just attacking different positions hoping something will stick.
Fundamentally, they are not prepared for an overly aggressive frontal assault on their strongest point, and are not prepared to hold a defensive posture for any length of time.
To answer your question: I'm saying attack them on the underlying emotional position they are hanging their hat on. If it is a sense of self-righteousness (and normally it is), then attack their entire moral framework and perspective from the ground up and unrepentantly unacceptable and abominable. Make them defend their own moral philosophy, and they normally aren't prepared for it. If it is a reliance on authority, then question their competence. Their reliance on authority is the result of a fundamental ignorance about the nuance of the issue, and your priority should be to expose that nuance.
It sounds harsh, but the truth is, an honest person who isn't engaging in rhetorical warfare is simply going to accept you elaborating your position, so you will very clearly and quickly have no need to launch an attack.
It looks like this:
SJW: "That's racist. Your statement is racist and anti-black."
Me: "I'm sorry, who made you the arbiter of blackness again? Where did you gain the authority to speak on behalf of all black people about what is and is not offensive. Or did you just assume that you had that authority because you're a white feminist?"
SJW: "What? No! Excuse you. What you are saying is anti-black and everyone knows it."
Me: "No, high priestess of the black experience, it isn't known by everyone. You are stepping in as a white savior and claiming to speak on behalf of black people based on your own narcissistic assumptions about how really awesome and swell of a person you are. Here's the problem. When you jump in and start claiming to speak on behalf of the black race, you are acting in a racist manner because you think black people need your help. They don't need you. No one needs you."
SJW: absolutely outraged by this point "What you said was racist and offensive! It was anti-black and you are just being unnecessarily rude and racist!"
Me: "Black people don't need help from your white opinions. The only thing offensive here is your racist white salvation complex."
What did I do? I didn't even engage in the topic. I didn't even counter-argue against their claim of what I said was anti-black. I attacked their moral and authoritative foundation from the very start. I'm not even giving them a counter-argument. I don't want that to be the argument. I want the argument to be about whether or not this person even has the right to speak at all. I've denied her moral authority to speak, her appeal to authority, and I've thrown her identity politics back in her own face. It's very contentious, and I've yet to see anyone respond to it without either retreating to the defensive, or desperately trying to counter-argue entirely different points to derail my counter-attack.
Now, a normal person is never this aggressive, and a probing attack would prove it quickly.
Normal person: "Dude, that's racist."
Me: "And you are the arbiter racism?"
Normie: "Well, no. It just seems racist to say that blacks commit 50% of murders despite making up 13% of the population."
Me: "Well, why? Disparity isn't evidence of racism, and facts simply exist. Look, Of all people that commit murder, the vast majority are between the age of 14-35. Would claim that that is "ageist"?
Normie: "... well, I guess not."
Normies don't actually want to get into ideological or political arguments because a) It can get really hostile if an SJW shows up, b) they are normally utterly unequipped to deal with it from a philosophical or ideological stand-point. Normies are like Civilians in war. Do not intentionally target them if you can avoid it. If you launch an attack and you realize you raided the wrong place, be very apologetic and replace the door you kicked in.
This is the most intelligent thing I've read in awhile. Really great breakdown you got there. Whether you're a lowwit or a highwit we all know the midwits, often thinking they're smarter than they are, because as you pointed out, that's what they've been told by authority and that's where they derive their truth. I remember getting ganged up on by a group of midwits who thought it was soo novel that they could call me out for being a white male. As if they had just discovered enlightenment, and now they where the elites. It was kinda weird, but the way you broke it down, now the whole exchange makes sense.
Yeah, I used to do it a bit myself from time to time. You have to catch yourself.
I've also been on the entirely opposite end of it.
I was derided for pointing out that American culture exists, but we don't typically experience it as such because most people haven't gone without it.
The exchange went fairly simply. It was a discussion in my ASL class in college about culture, and recognizing culture. Someone mentioned that clearly deaf people had a culture (once it was explained to us about how deaf people genuinely do behave differently among other deaf people and communicate with them in ways that they don't with hearing people, which is reasonable). I mentioned the concept that, to a degree: all social groups have a culture of some kind, even businesses. I pointed out that American culture tends to be very distinct, but most people didn't notice that because they've never really lived outside of American society or culture for very long. I mentioned in my experience that I was quite glad to re-experience American culture when you aren't living in it.
This is such an obviously true statement, you wouldn't think I'd even need to defend it.
However, I did have to defend it because one classmate, with the support of a few others, explicitly claimed that American culture didn't exist, and wasn't a positive even if it did, because only other places had cultures that were unique. Everybody here lived in a similar way, and therefore it didn't have a culture, and my opinion wasn't educated.
Another student spoke up and agreed with me because she had lived abroad, and pointed out that... yes... American culture exists. She, too, valued our unique approach to personal liberty and individual rights.
She was also dismissed, and gawfed at. My critics were quickly turning into mean-girls.
I was going to give an elaborate explanation about how social groups of any kind had to have their own cultures and social morays. But before I could even finish my first sentence, a little clique of 3 of them literally started laughing and snickering classic mean-girls style.
After a very tense pause, I threw my hands up and said "Fuck it, I'm done". After realizing that very bad things would happen to my chances of graduation had I done or said any of the things that were rolling through my head.
The Midwits are informed by "official sources" that their opinions are correct and conform to the correct narrative. After that, they use their sense of smug self-entitlement to deride others and affirm themselves in their moral superiority. That's why I've always felt that it was important to confront Leftists directly on their moral high-ground. It's actually never as well defended as they think because they've never properly interrogated their own beliefs.
Can you elaborate on this point? Are you saying attack them on their morality, their sense of authority, or are you suggesting something else entirely?
So, it's an old military tactic that is very dangerous, but very useful for winning battles quickly against an enemy that is not competently prepared or trained; or if they are unfamiliar with longer and more drawn out fights. You make a full, frontal, spear-head assault on the enemy's strongest point, but you have to be very aggressive about it. As soon as you break the strongest point, hit every other point and overwhelm them, causing a route of their position.
What the Leftist typically does is prepare an assault against the right wing, which is typically making strong static defenses. Static defenses are nice in war, but they are never optimal. Given infinite time and resources, all static defenses will be breached. This is a fact.
What a Leftist will typically does is prepare for a siege by hitting many points, and keeping you on the defensive; or they try to hit you from many different angles until your cognitive overload gets the better of you, and you give you an insane run-around that makes them look pseudo-competent as if they know more (when they are just attacking different positions hoping something will stick.
Fundamentally, they are not prepared for an overly aggressive frontal assault on their strongest point, and are not prepared to hold a defensive posture for any length of time.
To answer your question: I'm saying attack them on the underlying emotional position they are hanging their hat on. If it is a sense of self-righteousness (and normally it is), then attack their entire moral framework and perspective from the ground up and unrepentantly unacceptable and abominable. Make them defend their own moral philosophy, and they normally aren't prepared for it. If it is a reliance on authority, then question their competence. Their reliance on authority is the result of a fundamental ignorance about the nuance of the issue, and your priority should be to expose that nuance.
It sounds harsh, but the truth is, an honest person who isn't engaging in rhetorical warfare is simply going to accept you elaborating your position, so you will very clearly and quickly have no need to launch an attack.
It looks like this:
What did I do? I didn't even engage in the topic. I didn't even counter-argue against their claim of what I said was anti-black. I attacked their moral and authoritative foundation from the very start. I'm not even giving them a counter-argument. I don't want that to be the argument. I want the argument to be about whether or not this person even has the right to speak at all. I've denied her moral authority to speak, her appeal to authority, and I've thrown her identity politics back in her own face. It's very contentious, and I've yet to see anyone respond to it without either retreating to the defensive, or desperately trying to counter-argue entirely different points to derail my counter-attack.
Now, a normal person is never this aggressive, and a probing attack would prove it quickly.
Normies don't actually want to get into ideological or political arguments because a) It can get really hostile if an SJW shows up, b) they are normally utterly unequipped to deal with it from a philosophical or ideological stand-point. Normies are like Civilians in war. Do not intentionally target them if you can avoid it. If you launch an attack and you realize you raided the wrong place, be very apologetic and replace the door you kicked in.