Talk:How to Argue with a Liberal/anti-liberal

Insertion #1

Here are the parts of Insertion #1 which don't relate to GW:

You will want to make sure to tread carefully on racial issues, as any facts that counter their groupthink dogma will earn you the ubiquitous "racist" label. Liberals, like psychologists, are the sworn enemies of guilt. This means that cultural differences cannot be responsible for the underachievement of minorities. For instance, a 70% illegitimacy rate in our African American community cannot, to the liberal mind, make any difference in their economic achievement. The best thing to do is to point out that a certain segment of the white population ALSO has a 70% illegitimacy rate, and suffers the same "discrimination" as evidenced by their similar poverty. The important thing is not to mention "trailer park" and use a phrase like "a discriminatory suppression of mobile dwelling inhabitants". Liberals love flowery words and they will likely begin to purse their lips and nod in agreement.

Liberals love to agree with seemingly intelligent conclusions, without ever considering the completeness of their data. That's why it's often useful to say "I thought the very same thing until I found out...". They will seem puzzled, then regurgitate a value-driven mantra, at which point you switch to the Socratic method to deflect their anger. Anger and indignation are the signs of self doubt, and the knife a liberal will always pull from their boot to cut your throat. Anger and ad hominem attacks are their staple, so asking questions at the tipping point is better than additional facts, as they've stopped listening anyway. Remember, you're shattering their world; the groupthink they picked up in college has been a warm blanket and you're trying to help them achieve actual thought. This is disconcerting for them, as they have been rigorously shielded from the eternal questions and their soul is slack. Try to be nice.

One thing I'm not sure you're getting: this is supposed to be satire; I'm really attacking conservatism, even though I sound like I'm attacking liberals. Please raise your hand if this isn't clear.

Whether or not your (inserted) attacks on liberalism are true and on target, the fact that they are attacking the same thing they sound like they're attacking means that you are not writing satire. You're welcome to write seriously, of course, but Issuepedia might be a better venue for it and in any case it doesn't belong inside my satire piece. (We can certainly discuss whether my attacks on conservatism are accurate or not, or whether liberalism is just as worthy of contempt, but not within the text of the article itself.)

Anyway... Breaking down the issues you bring up:

anti-racism (1st para.)

There may be some uber-liberals who react in the way you describe. If I were writing an article satirizing liberalism, I might even use this bit, with a few tweaks. Feel free to set up an account here and start your own piece of anti-liberal satire if you like (though you'll probably get more readers somewhere else like thisisby.us); for myself, I simply don't feel as much anger about excessive liberalism – which tends to be silly and pointless but only mildly harmful – as I do about excessive conservatism, which easily becomes hateful, ignorant, destructive, and damn downright scary.

pseudo-intellectualism (2nd para.)

This one's more tricky; I'm not sure I actually get what you're saying, even as literal criticism of liberals. Maybe some examples? I'd love to be able to turn this around and have Clearcut accusing liberals of ad hominem, groupthink, and anger (all conservative staples, from everything I've seen) in an entirely ironic way...

--Woozle 20:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)