How to shamelessly win arguments.
If you’re out there to “win arguments” without shame or honesty, the easiest way to do it is variously distort, shame and socially discredit everyone else to such an extent that impressionable people are left with a choice of either extreme social shame or taking your side no matter how patently dishonest and illogical you are.
This is really how the modern propaganda engine works. It is never so good at justifying what it wants, but it is expert at herding very well-socialized people away from everything else. This has given us the bizarre state of affairs where everyone openly consents to elite values, but privately knows they’re lies.
“Hate Speech”
The idea of “Hate Speech” is one of the most concise and pure-distilled examples of this technique that it has really become the tool of choice of the opinion-molding class. It’s so easy, even a journalist could use it!
A lot of “conservative” people in pop-politics have definitely come to understand that the accusation of “hate speech” is tool used only on those it could not actually apply to. But why this term of all other possible ones? First, let’s inspect its traits:
If you accuse your opponent of “Hate Speech,” in fact, even use the word, you are creating the presuppositions that:
- My opponent is emotional.
- My opponent doesn’t have any real rational reasons to believe what he argues for due to that emotional motivation.
- All people who believe his stance too are merely emotionally distorted.
- My stance is so naturally obvious to people who are not emotional.
If you accuse someone in passing of “Hate speech,” you are making a tacit claim not just that they are governed by emotions, but that irrational emotions are the only possible justification for their stance. It’s a great tool as an accusation because it’s throwing a quick emotional tar and feathers on a target to frame an argument—and the only way to extricate for a target to free himself is to painstakingly explain himself (which no one has time for) or for the audience to actually invest time into understanding the wider context.
As an aside, it is definitely true that most “debates” are not logical, but tactical: people make associations to make their enemies look bad, and throw out arguments not even that are necessarily good, but that require time and mental effort—and sometime some inspired conciseness—to dismiss. Most debates are really emotional and mental gauntelets—and by “mental,” I don’t meant of intelligence or wit, but of sheer endurance of annoyance.
Either way, the normie, who lives in constant fear of being associated with scary buzzwords, scatters from the target of accusations of “hate speech” like a cockroach. To even deconstruct the psy-op I just outlined that’s way more verbal effort and risk than most people are willing to do, even if they are aware of the well-poisoning that comes with the term “hate speech.”
Hermetically-sealed “Hate” Domains
“Hate” is so liberally used that there are entire domains where it is
They don’t have to turn you into
Why there’s no platform for “Hate.”
I’m reminded of the old 1989 “debate” between Philippe Rushton and one David Suzuki which can thankfully still be found even on YouTube.
It is worth observing that spectacle.
The debate was supposed to about genetic differences across races, particularly Rushton’s forte of IQ, etc. I stumbled across the debate as a teenage socialist and had never heard the research on race and genetics in Rushton’s 20 minute opening statement, so I eagerly awaited Suzuki’s rebuttal.
The rebuttal never came. Instead, Suzuki took the stage and chided the university for even allowing his opponent to speak. His speaking time was a constant flurry of “Hate Speech”-style accusations that were honestly awkward and shameless, not to mention devoid of even inept attempts to negate Rushton’s case. Suzuki at most only managed to repeat angrily a couple mantras of faith that everyone in the modern west is fed.
On a factual level and for “rational people,” Suzuki was loudly and embarrassingly admitting defeat. But rhetorically, he won: he provided an emotional out for those who wanted to stay in denial, he promoted fear among the undecided, and he poisoned the very argument itself with the “Hate Speech” technique.
Surely the crowd of Canadian university leftists was in his pocket beforehand, but it just took a little social prodding to have them cheering for him. If he had simply tried to rationally (and ineptly) tackle the science in front of him like an honest person, he would’ve “lost” the debate and many more of those leftists would have wavered in or lost their faith.
Racial genetic differences were such a losing issue for leftist intelligentsia that they have been so perfectly suppressed—and are really the Patient Zero issue for “Hate Speech” accusations. Even seeing a packed stadium in the Rushton debate is cause for nostalgia: congregating 10 people on a university campus to talk about racial genetics nowadays is sure to fall victim of a bomb threat, terroristic reprisals and official condemnation and expulsion from the university itself.
This is the power of the “Hate Speech” psyop. You don’t have to have a case. In fact, it might be better if you don’t. Calling something “Hate Speech” is what they call talking past the sale.
The leftist professor merely publicly presupposed that his opponent was wrong, and took the discussion to, “Since we suppose that he is wrong and evilly motivated, how can we suppress him?” This of course, is the same thing that a modern journalist does.
This is substantially more effective than honestly taking the L.
“Hate Speech” to create “hate.”
The use of the term “Hate Speech” is agit-prop and tactical frustration in itself. It’s such a mendacious and condescending rhetorical technique because it is targeted at people who aren’t at all emotional about their stances with the specific goal to make them emotional.
Compare the pose of Rushton and his supporters with his debate opponent and his supporters in the video above. Who is hateful? Who is motivated by emotion and ignorance?
Nonetheless, the goal is to make politically persecuted people upset by categorically dismissing their needs and to provoke them to anger, thus simultaneously creating and proving the concept of “hate” as a motivation.
It’s the political equivalent of “Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?” It’s a game where a powerful party humiliates their underlings with hopes of attempted retribution.
Accusations of “hate speech” are not leveled to decrease some amorphous ball of “hate” out in society, but to rapidly increase it. I’ve talked about this technique used by the media in videos, but the very obvious goal is to provoke public fury and use that fury as a justification to tightening the screws even more severely.
Requisite Propaganda
Obviously, only a fool would think anyone could accuse someone of “hate speech” and it be effective just by those magical words itself. “Hate” is a gun that only fires rightward. That’s why it’s a useful weapon for the powers that be. It’s a weapon that one cannot fight back with.
This is because the media has brought us up with an unrelenting stream of imaginary archetypes of “hate.” Only if the accusation matches one of these archetypes is it truly the “hate” of “hate speech.” When someone is called a hater, that accusation only resonates in the mind of brainwashed westerners if it matches the thousands of force-fed incidents of micro-drama we’ve gotten from television, film and social media.
How many times has a TV show shown you a vignette of, say, a perfectly innocent black man who out of the blue is mercilessly terrified by a evil white person? Everyone in the scene looks on in shame, but no one stands up for the harmless colored gentleman, so the show or film can pull each emotional string until the sickened and confused audience privately fumes with hatred against those odious white haters. Every person with at least a toe in reality viscerally notices how out-of-sync such scenes are with real life, but the psychological effect of the constant stream of exactly this type of brainwashing causes people to accept there must be some reality to this “hate.”
We are supposed to think whites “hate” non-whites. We will get a constant stream of imaginary examples of these in TV shows which have no correspondence to reality. Men “hate” women. Attractive people “hate” unattractive people. Christians “hate” other religions. Jocks/chads “hate” losers. The strong “hate” the weak. And everyone “hates” the poor, innocent Jews.
In each case, this “hate” is only depicted in one direction. Therefore using the acclamation of “hate speech” only works when it is buttressed by the many media vignette one holds in his memory of subconscious. Therefore, accusing a man, Christian or an attractive jock of “hate” works, but accusing a vindictive woman, Jew or nerd of the same for some reason doesn’t, when more accurate.
The inundation of propaganda is so intense that it continues on its own momentum. If you want to peek down a confusing rabbit hole, there is an entire cottage industry of social media accounts make professionally-produced imaginary scenarios that mimic mainstream “hate” propaganda. Stranger than that, you might notice that in the comments to such videos, perhaps a strong majority of people don’t seem to notice that these are fictional videos—obviously staged for either clicks or for more pernicious brainwashing content.
We can laugh at those commenters, but it’s probable that you haven’t noticed the same fictionality in the TV and media you grew up with. Even if you rejected the fakery of specific hoaxes, the wider gestalt of what we are supposed to believe remains. You might realize that each and every imaginary “Nazi” event in mass-media fiction is, in fact, fiction—but all people, even the most “red-pilled” walk away from the TV with some idea that there must be some kind of truth to, say, the idea of secret Nazis lurking everywhere in the shadows ready to “hate” unsuspecting victims. At the very least you might feel the need to differentiate yourself from these phantasmagorical Nazis.
Because of this, Hollywood can publish very absurd agit-prop to get you to actually hate men/whites/chads/Christians or whichever target group they have prepped as being most important to undermine for their program or personal vindiction. Nowadays they are becoming more artless, blatant and ham-fisted, so you get films like this or things like Tarantino’s films about Nazis or southerners that are passed off as “fun jokes” and “exaggeration,” but have already been transmuted from ludicrous myth to assumed history in the mainstream mind.
Ultimately, there is no blood libel too ridiculous for them to accuse their enemies of. Logic is a line they want to cross, because when they do, you—their target—might leap into anger and reactivity.
Overcome Evil with Good
It is most important, however, that you not read this as agit-prop. Indeed, we should have natural reactions of disgust to lies and propaganda, but the entire point of the “hate speech” psy-op is to frustrate the target into embodying the very accusation. Enough haranguing and the most sensible people become more the imaginary Nazis the media is looking for—well, at least something somewhat like them.
But as Saint Paul says simply, “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” I’m describing an illness in this article, not so you can get upset at the people who inflict it, but so that when you know what it is and how it works, you don’t have too react or otherwise be psy-opped by the rhetoric.