It has come to my attention that too often, conservatives will try to use logic where there is none. See, the violent branch of the left wing (just like the right wing) does not use logic, they use morals and emotions to win their arguments. I am going to deconstruct a left wing debate so that you can understand why this method works.
The far left works because each individual can use identity politics. See, any marginalized identity has a corresponding “ist” you do not want to be accused of. Logic is often not used. A few tools are used:
- This makes me uncomfortable
- I am triggered
- That is insensitive
- This is important
- I can’t talk to you anymore
- You are a bigot
If you have found yourself at the receiving end of these lines, this article is for you. See, most moderate left wingers are open to conversation. These compose the bulk majority of the left wing. They are kind, respectful, and attack the idea (not the person). The extremely loud and violent minority of the left wing however will assault you if given the chance. Here is how to deflect attacks and win every single debate.
Step 1. Accept that you will not win using regular common sense with a radical.
- This is the unfortunate truth. The individuals have become this far left by only being open to left wing ideals. The right wing, in their eyes, will never make sense. Not engaging in debate is your loss, and often times these debates will be provoked by them reacting to something conservative that you have said. Identifying as conservative to a radical is foolish and will get you nowhere, as they will likely walk away and come up with some way to shame you.
- Luckily for you there is another way!
Step 2. You must understand the intersectional number-line.
- The Intersectional number line is a timeline of privilege to not privileged and extends to infinity. This is because there are a near infinite number of combinations of marginalized identities. Knowledge of this is necessary because identity politics will certainly come into use if the aggressive leftist feels as if they are losing a debate.
Step 3. Use the element of surprise, and know your opponent.
- They are forbidden from assuming your gender or sexuality
- They are forbidden from offending you if you might identify as something that isn’t what they are assuming, because that makes them a bigot
- You never need to disclose your identities
- There is always another higher identity on the number-line
Step 4. When identity politics is used, you must recognize there is a radical in front of you.
- These individuals are violent and will use any means necessary to shut you down
- They are using it because they have recognized you might be conservative, and depending on your response they will label you
- Do not get labelled. Reject any label
- When they accuse you of being a (Insert Your Privileged Identity here) bigot you must respond with “Did you just assume my (repeat identity verbatim)?”
- They will immediately be placed on the defensive, as this is a conversation they often have with their fellow radicals. They test each other to kick them out of the pack if they might be not far left enough.
- They will ask for your identity. Your response should be “I don’t feel comfortable sharing that with you”.
- They will back off at this point or they are a bigot. If they challenge it further say “That is insensitive of you”.
Step 5. Frame everything from an even further left perspective, even if it doesn’t make sense to get your point across in a backwards way, to make the opponent reject your proposal and become the bigot.
- Here is a sample conversation:
- Communist A says “I support a socialist agenda with a minimum wage of $15”
- You say “That is ridiculous. A wage of $15 is livable for privileged individuals such as yourself as a (insert privileged identity here), however (insert some marginalized group higher on the number line here) people are victim to abuse and need further accommodation. I think it is insensitive of you to say something like that.”
- Communist A, now on the defensive will either respond in agreement out of fear at which point you can mess with them because you know you are not serious but they are, or they will oppose you.
- If they oppose you, you may say all the things that they would say to you. “I think its sort of bigoted of you to feel that $15 minimum wage across the board is acceptable when (insert marginalized identities here) are far less privileged” The net result is the opponent stops advocacy for a $15 minimum wage because they are not left wing enough. Do not specify that you think it should be raised always shift focus to another topic.
Step 6. Congratulations, you now have the tools to win every single debate with a radical.
- Radicals hunt in a pack.
- If you are a conservative you are more like a lone wolf.
- The ability to win resides in literally everyone because there is always a marginalized identity higher on the totem pole, and radical logic allows one to identify as such easily without consequence.
- Utilizing that they are serious and you are not, you can go further than them always. They should’ve used logic instead of feelings in their debate, so don’t feel ashamed using this tactic.