When I was in elementary school there was a kid who played a joke on the class by spraying the room with “fart spray.” This made the whole room smell awful, created a large distraction, and gave everyone a good laugh.
The social stigma tactic was identified by Ayn Rand sixty years ago in her essay, "The Argument from Intimidation" published in the _Objectivist Newsletter_, July, 1964:
=======================
There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of by-passing logic by means of psychological pressure. Since it is particularly prevalent in today's culture and is going to grow more so in the next few months, one would do well to learn to identify it and be on guard against it.
This method bears a certain resemblance to the fallacy ad hominem, and comes from the same psychological root, but is different in essential meaning. The ad hominem fallacy consists of attempting to refute an argument by impeaching the character of its proponent. Example: "Candidate X is immoral, therefore his argument is false."
But the psychological pressure method consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: "Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false."'
In the first case, Candidate X's immorality (real or invented) is offered as proof of the falsehood of his argument. In the second case, the falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
In today's epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as "The Argument from Intimidation."
=======================
Rather than comparing this argument to fart spray (a vivid metaphor!), Rand goes on to compare it to the argument that only the morally depraved can fail to see the _Emperor's new Clothes_, and gives many other examples of its use, identifying its effectiveness as a product of the widespread belief in 'social metaphysics': a person's notion of “the consciousness of other men as superior to his own and to the facts of reality." You could call this Rand's 'prophesy' of the subsequent postmodern intellectual fad for the "social construction of reality".
The Bigotry Accusation is maybe the most significant and quintessential phenomenon of our time, akin to Elvis and the hula hoop in the 50s and disco and polyester in the 70s—though of course much less fun, much more punitive, and much less overtly discussed, which I think also shines some light on the zeitgeist: America's schizophrenic lurching between moralism and libertinism and our endless racial obsession, which creates intolerance in the name of tolerance and race hate in the name of racial reconciliation.
The Bigotry Accusation is rooted in the moral revolution of the Civil Rights Movement, which when combined with both rising secularism and tribalism, made Race/Bigotry the pivot of all modern American morality, with Racist taking the place that Blasphemer or Heretic held in our Christian past and the fault line of our entire culture. Now there are only 2 kinds of people: those who acknowledge and center the pain of the "marginalized" (most esp black people) and those who don't, with the latter being rendered a caste of backwards bigots who deserve only surveillance and re-education.
It was a brilliant masterstroke of the New Left to piggyback on the Civil Rights movement and portray themselves as the Official Defenders of the Oppressed—it has made opposing them like fighting a skunk (or a kid w fart spray), meaning that you know they will cover you in the stink of moral pollution, which is why most people wisely steer clear and why they've conquered our entire culture.
The Bigotry Accusation seems to be losing some of its sting, but it still remains the go-to move in politics and culture for smearing and silencing your opponents or getting yourself out of trouble. The Boy Who Cried Racist! is the song of our age and will be until we experience another major moral shift akin to the social revolution of the 1960s.
Biden funded the "woke" grifters, such as "diversity" consultants, with $2 billion. *
Ultimately it is about corruption and the hijacking of the civil rights/social justice movements by neo-communists/neo-marxists (or those brainwashed by them) to satisfy their greed, hunger for power and need for social and political status.
Yes, once you understand their tactics, it is easy to see that they are psychologically fragile people trying to deflect attention away from the fact that they have no logical argument to support their case.
What we are actually dealing with are Cluster B personality disorders that are organized, targeted and rationalized by ideology:
When I was a gay child the deep south I was hounded on and off by christian youth for being a heinous sinner. I pointed out that to be a sinner you have to believe in sin.. There was something about that simple statement which confounded them. I didn't believe in the supernatural - a supernatural god or ghosts or pixies - and they were stumped by childs logic.
Racism is similar - you have to "believe" in race to have a racial bias. Being accused of a phobia has the same flavor - phobias are diagnosed, not accused.
You do believe in sin even if you don’t believe in God. You believe that there are moral rights and wrongs and that some people are evil and should be condemned. You understood then that when they called you a sinner, they meant you should be condemned.
Likewise, while you may not believe in race, you know there are groups of people who look different from one another, but have similar values and act in similar ways within those groups. So when you’re called a racist, you understand what you are being accused of regardless of whether you believe in race.
I’m afraid you’re giving me attributions which I just don’t have.
“Sin” is a supernatural transgression in the context it’s often if not almost always used. If you don’t believe in the supernatural, violating the proscription of a ghost is a quaint idea. Religious people easily find me a sinner. I can’t. “Sin” has no more meaning to me than “soul” or “reincarnation”.
Likewise, once you understand human “race” is not a scientifically defined, testable “real” concept - there are no genetic markers which separate races - it’s difficult but you can shed that baggage too. Religion and Race are human defined phantoms which vary across time and geography almost whimsically. This is consistent with the concept, for instance, that Irish, English and Scots were in the past seen as distinct races in the UK, or that Italians and previously enslaved Africans in the south were both “nonwhite” races. German Catholics settling in the US southwest, separated by a border between US and Mexico were “white” on one side and “Latino” on the other. Indian and Asian populations are even more whimsical vis-a-vis race (perhaps we can say India is an Asian population). Don’t take it from me, I’m clear on an agreement with a view from the UN, geneticists, historians and anthropologists and science generally.
“Race” and “Religion” become much more interchangeable terms, as “Racism” and “Religism” do - I prefer “Religiosity” - in thinking about human interactions purely on the basis of undefinable, fictional or mystical features, subject to the whim of the observers across time and place.
The impact of Racism and Religiosity are quite clear. People have been killed or rewarded, controlled or privileged, lionized and despised on the basis of either fictional category across history. I will never claim otherwise.
We haven’t quite evolved or removed words to operate without the fictions. But “sin” - quaint. “Race”? Needs to be out on the dustbins of history along with “physiognomy”, “birth sign”, “caste”, “temperament” (phlegmatic, choleric, sanguine and melancholic), “Ayurvedic Doshas”, “Meyers-Briggs” types, “Eneageams” - the list is endless.
The teacher should have sent the kid to the principal's office the moment his fat fingers touched the spray button, and the principal should have suspended him for intent to severely disrupt other students' educations with a very bad joke.
Agree. Since the ad hominem is not a weapon only the Critical Social Justice people use, the general rules for the defense against these rhetorical combat strategies apply. The first rule about personal attacks is to not respond talking about the attack points - when accused of being racist don’t talk about your ideas (or absence of such) about race.
The better reaction is exactly as you describe it: Describe what the other side is doing. I’d stick to as precise a description as you can manage and add a challenge: „So, you’re attacking my character instead of dealing with the point I make. Is that all you have or do you actually have a serious response.“
I wish Andrew Sullivan had been better equipped to fight the bad faith he encountered …
PS: Greg Lukianoff and Ricky Schlott‘s term „rhetorical fortress“ describes the ways the woke devalue their opponents really well.
Calling or insinuating someone is a racist who is not is a shitty move and they should pay a social cost it. I have thought less of John Stewart since this Sullivan appearance from this simple perspective of is he (Stewart) a good human. His friend John Oliver is much worse. So wrong about many things he is righteous about. Both guys get the gender affirming care for kids thing wrong and act as if science is firmly on the side of sterilizing kids. It’s not.
This applies to people on the "woke" left and the "woke" right, right? Each side wants to taint anyone who doesn't agree with their desires or demands.
As Andrew mentioned in the video, progressivism is losing steam. “Regular” Americans regardless of the color of their skin are not buying into elite white moralizing. The only real solution to wokeness is more wokeness. It doesn’t mean we don’t fight to expose because we absolutely should and are. I think we’re actually doing very well with the whole “I fucking told you so.”
But woke policy is what’s really destroying wokeness. Nothing has destroyed progressivism more than rampant crime, drug abuse and homelessness and inflation (rampant spending of printed money). The end results of their policies are what drives change. Obviously, stop voting for democrats. Their base is progressive and activist right now - thusly elite. They have zero desire to ally themselves with regular folks. They need a new rabble that wholesale dependent upon their policy - illegal aliens.
Another word for it is bullying. The people who are the most self-righteous about "othering" engage in collectivist bullying on a daily basis.
The social stigma tactic was identified by Ayn Rand sixty years ago in her essay, "The Argument from Intimidation" published in the _Objectivist Newsletter_, July, 1964:
=======================
There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of by-passing logic by means of psychological pressure. Since it is particularly prevalent in today's culture and is going to grow more so in the next few months, one would do well to learn to identify it and be on guard against it.
This method bears a certain resemblance to the fallacy ad hominem, and comes from the same psychological root, but is different in essential meaning. The ad hominem fallacy consists of attempting to refute an argument by impeaching the character of its proponent. Example: "Candidate X is immoral, therefore his argument is false."
But the psychological pressure method consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: "Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false."'
In the first case, Candidate X's immorality (real or invented) is offered as proof of the falsehood of his argument. In the second case, the falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
In today's epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as "The Argument from Intimidation."
=======================
Rather than comparing this argument to fart spray (a vivid metaphor!), Rand goes on to compare it to the argument that only the morally depraved can fail to see the _Emperor's new Clothes_, and gives many other examples of its use, identifying its effectiveness as a product of the widespread belief in 'social metaphysics': a person's notion of “the consciousness of other men as superior to his own and to the facts of reality." You could call this Rand's 'prophesy' of the subsequent postmodern intellectual fad for the "social construction of reality".
The Bigotry Accusation is maybe the most significant and quintessential phenomenon of our time, akin to Elvis and the hula hoop in the 50s and disco and polyester in the 70s—though of course much less fun, much more punitive, and much less overtly discussed, which I think also shines some light on the zeitgeist: America's schizophrenic lurching between moralism and libertinism and our endless racial obsession, which creates intolerance in the name of tolerance and race hate in the name of racial reconciliation.
The Bigotry Accusation is rooted in the moral revolution of the Civil Rights Movement, which when combined with both rising secularism and tribalism, made Race/Bigotry the pivot of all modern American morality, with Racist taking the place that Blasphemer or Heretic held in our Christian past and the fault line of our entire culture. Now there are only 2 kinds of people: those who acknowledge and center the pain of the "marginalized" (most esp black people) and those who don't, with the latter being rendered a caste of backwards bigots who deserve only surveillance and re-education.
It was a brilliant masterstroke of the New Left to piggyback on the Civil Rights movement and portray themselves as the Official Defenders of the Oppressed—it has made opposing them like fighting a skunk (or a kid w fart spray), meaning that you know they will cover you in the stink of moral pollution, which is why most people wisely steer clear and why they've conquered our entire culture.
The Bigotry Accusation seems to be losing some of its sting, but it still remains the go-to move in politics and culture for smearing and silencing your opponents or getting yourself out of trouble. The Boy Who Cried Racist! is the song of our age and will be until we experience another major moral shift akin to the social revolution of the 1960s.
Great comment. This is why I am going to more sporting events, so I can be with people who understand meritocracy and "steer clear" of the moralists.
thanks!
It wasn’t a master stroke. The Civil Rights movement was Marxist from the beginning.
Biden funded the "woke" grifters, such as "diversity" consultants, with $2 billion. *
Ultimately it is about corruption and the hijacking of the civil rights/social justice movements by neo-communists/neo-marxists (or those brainwashed by them) to satisfy their greed, hunger for power and need for social and political status.
---
* Biden spends $billions on "woke" nonsense.
[broken URL?]
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-s-push-for-billions-in-spending-on-gender-race-ideology-under-fire/ar-BB1kLXsE
www. msn. com /en-us/news/politics/biden-s-push-for-billions-in-spending-on-gender-race-ideology-under-fire/ar-BB1kLXsE
---
Biden spends $billions on "woke" nonsense.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_8e9ce1fc-ede0-11ee-8c29-93e4adcf157f.html
www. thecentersquare. com /national/article_8e9ce1fc-ede0-11ee-8c29-93e4adcf157f.html
Yes, once you understand their tactics, it is easy to see that they are psychologically fragile people trying to deflect attention away from the fact that they have no logical argument to support their case.
What we are actually dealing with are Cluster B personality disorders that are organized, targeted and rationalized by ideology:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/where-does-ideology-come-from
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/radical-ideologies-feast-on-mental
Good discussion, but you need a proofreader - lots of spelling and usage errors in this article.
When I was a gay child the deep south I was hounded on and off by christian youth for being a heinous sinner. I pointed out that to be a sinner you have to believe in sin.. There was something about that simple statement which confounded them. I didn't believe in the supernatural - a supernatural god or ghosts or pixies - and they were stumped by childs logic.
Racism is similar - you have to "believe" in race to have a racial bias. Being accused of a phobia has the same flavor - phobias are diagnosed, not accused.
Ad hominem should provoke a laugh and a "sizzle".
They were confounded because they were children.
You do believe in sin even if you don’t believe in God. You believe that there are moral rights and wrongs and that some people are evil and should be condemned. You understood then that when they called you a sinner, they meant you should be condemned.
Likewise, while you may not believe in race, you know there are groups of people who look different from one another, but have similar values and act in similar ways within those groups. So when you’re called a racist, you understand what you are being accused of regardless of whether you believe in race.
I’m afraid you’re giving me attributions which I just don’t have.
“Sin” is a supernatural transgression in the context it’s often if not almost always used. If you don’t believe in the supernatural, violating the proscription of a ghost is a quaint idea. Religious people easily find me a sinner. I can’t. “Sin” has no more meaning to me than “soul” or “reincarnation”.
Likewise, once you understand human “race” is not a scientifically defined, testable “real” concept - there are no genetic markers which separate races - it’s difficult but you can shed that baggage too. Religion and Race are human defined phantoms which vary across time and geography almost whimsically. This is consistent with the concept, for instance, that Irish, English and Scots were in the past seen as distinct races in the UK, or that Italians and previously enslaved Africans in the south were both “nonwhite” races. German Catholics settling in the US southwest, separated by a border between US and Mexico were “white” on one side and “Latino” on the other. Indian and Asian populations are even more whimsical vis-a-vis race (perhaps we can say India is an Asian population). Don’t take it from me, I’m clear on an agreement with a view from the UN, geneticists, historians and anthropologists and science generally.
“Race” and “Religion” become much more interchangeable terms, as “Racism” and “Religism” do - I prefer “Religiosity” - in thinking about human interactions purely on the basis of undefinable, fictional or mystical features, subject to the whim of the observers across time and place.
The impact of Racism and Religiosity are quite clear. People have been killed or rewarded, controlled or privileged, lionized and despised on the basis of either fictional category across history. I will never claim otherwise.
We haven’t quite evolved or removed words to operate without the fictions. But “sin” - quaint. “Race”? Needs to be out on the dustbins of history along with “physiognomy”, “birth sign”, “caste”, “temperament” (phlegmatic, choleric, sanguine and melancholic), “Ayurvedic Doshas”, “Meyers-Briggs” types, “Eneageams” - the list is endless.
Done with it.
Fart spray! A wonderful rhetorical counter ironically putting the bad guys into a bad odor.
The teacher should have sent the kid to the principal's office the moment his fat fingers touched the spray button, and the principal should have suspended him for intent to severely disrupt other students' educations with a very bad joke.
Agree. Since the ad hominem is not a weapon only the Critical Social Justice people use, the general rules for the defense against these rhetorical combat strategies apply. The first rule about personal attacks is to not respond talking about the attack points - when accused of being racist don’t talk about your ideas (or absence of such) about race.
The better reaction is exactly as you describe it: Describe what the other side is doing. I’d stick to as precise a description as you can manage and add a challenge: „So, you’re attacking my character instead of dealing with the point I make. Is that all you have or do you actually have a serious response.“
I wish Andrew Sullivan had been better equipped to fight the bad faith he encountered …
PS: Greg Lukianoff and Ricky Schlott‘s term „rhetorical fortress“ describes the ways the woke devalue their opponents really well.
Great piece. Thanks for the advice.
In the spirit of being helpful, I want to point out that there were a few minor typos you missed that you might want to correct:
* "By stigmatizing a position as racist, sexist, bigoted, and so fourth..." (it should be "so forth")
* "This is being do so Bond and Stewart..." (...is being *done* so...)
* "...stop being fooled by those rhetorical tricks" (you left out the closing period)
* "The kicker is this: he woman who called Andrew Sullivan a racist " (should be "*the* woman who...")
John Stewart. The self-loathing Jew. He has lost all credibility. Once a comedian with political wit. Now…a total douche.
Lisa Bond: I am shutting down this discussion... And this is cause by us not talking about these issues... we need to have this discussion.
That's a weird way to admit you're the problem but ok
Applies also to people yelling "Islamophobia"at any attempt to criticise the militant and intolerant Islamists.
Great post! I totally agree that the last thing you should do when accused is to be on the defensive. Here is my own analysis of exactly the same situation (Jon Stewart versus Andrew Sullivan + race4 dinner): https://altaifland.substack.com/p/white-supremacy-all-whites-are-racist
Calling or insinuating someone is a racist who is not is a shitty move and they should pay a social cost it. I have thought less of John Stewart since this Sullivan appearance from this simple perspective of is he (Stewart) a good human. His friend John Oliver is much worse. So wrong about many things he is righteous about. Both guys get the gender affirming care for kids thing wrong and act as if science is firmly on the side of sterilizing kids. It’s not.
This applies to people on the "woke" left and the "woke" right, right? Each side wants to taint anyone who doesn't agree with their desires or demands.
As Andrew mentioned in the video, progressivism is losing steam. “Regular” Americans regardless of the color of their skin are not buying into elite white moralizing. The only real solution to wokeness is more wokeness. It doesn’t mean we don’t fight to expose because we absolutely should and are. I think we’re actually doing very well with the whole “I fucking told you so.”
But woke policy is what’s really destroying wokeness. Nothing has destroyed progressivism more than rampant crime, drug abuse and homelessness and inflation (rampant spending of printed money). The end results of their policies are what drives change. Obviously, stop voting for democrats. Their base is progressive and activist right now - thusly elite. They have zero desire to ally themselves with regular folks. They need a new rabble that wholesale dependent upon their policy - illegal aliens.
It’s right there in front of us.