The “Neener Neener” Gambit–part 1.

From a comment in my previous postlinda apparently thinks I’ve given up hope of avoiding Civil War II.  Not exactly. I have hope, just no reason for it. What must be done, I don’t believe will be.

But my “hope for hope” can be found within a slight misstatement of Linda’s:

The left can’t change tactics anymore than we can. To change tactics is to lose.

Not quite. If “strategy” indicates the destination, “tactics” is your preferred path. You change the path if conditions warrant, but you don’t lose until you give up on the trip.

She’s correct that leftists can’t change. No more than a drone ant can abandon a pheremone trail. They smear, therefore they are.

But guess what? Ad hominems work! Mudslinging. Muckraking. Dirty pool. Tarring with the same brush. Hatchet job.

There’s a political spectrum with Tea Partys and progressives at each end.  Between them are the vastly more numerous middle Americans.  Millions of those Americans are fed the left’s filthy lies on a daily basis.

The left can’t change. But the right just won’t. Could, but won’t. And the space between “can” and “won’t” is where my reasonless hope resides.

To avoid Civil War II, the right must beat the left at their own game. The “game” isn’t leftist lies and smears. The name of the game is emotional warfare.

Why even try to reason with irrational Americans? (By “irrational” I mean when emotion and reason are in conflict, they always sacrifice reason.) Let’s look at a typical “debate”:

Conservative: “It’s irresponsible to increase deficit spending when the private sector is contracting and-”

Progressive: “Racists! Nazis! Babykillers!”

Who wins this debate? Both. And neither. Again, there are two battlefields. Each side is only fighting on one. So be honest. Who wins that emotional battlespace?

The right has the (rational) moral people, sure. But to preserve the Union the (emotional) moral people are necessary as well. And this can be done.

The rational front is utterly safe. Lefty double standards and hypocrisy are everywhere. Heck, they need things like JournoList to secretly test seeming logic and make sure it doesn’t turn around and bite their heinies. The only effect progressives have on moral and rational Americans is to drive them rightward.

So let’s say you’re fighting a war, and your stronghold is utterly impregnable to the enemy. (You are, and it is.) You cannot be defeated in your home lands. Given that…how long until you win the war?

Never! Never never NEVER NEVER!

Why? Because you dadgum ratsa-fratsin’ military geniuses won’t invade the enemies’ territory! We are rationally inviolate, they are not emotionally invulnerable. So march into their domain, meet them on their terms, and destroy them in a manner they can understand! Keep the iron hand of logic, just wrap it in the velvet glove of touchy-feelyness. Then start poking lefty eyeballs.

Simple, hey? Not easy. But simple. Next post describes just how simple it really is.

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The “Neener Neener” Gambit–part 1.

  1. Pointing out the flaws in my argument? Impudent megadrile.

    But clever. That statement of mine started out as “we could start using their tactics, but that would make us no better than them,” but “to change tactics is to lose” just sounded more artful.

    Either way, it’s wrong. Dagnabit. Because, as you have pointed out, the emotional argument is equally low only if we have no argument to back it up.

    But we do.

    This idea gains further weight when I consider some of my favorite conservatives: Breitbart, O’Keefe, Sharp Elbows, King Shamus, you, to name a few. Junkyard dogs, really. Not shy about wording conclusions in the worst possible light, right out of the gate.

    • wormme says:

      Oh, none of them come close to phrasing things in the worst possible light. And the stunt would never have occurred to me if weren’t for the sterling example of our foes. But once learned, better done:

      Pro-affirmative action? “You think black folks are inferior, eh?”

      Anti-second amendment? “So you don’t want frail women to be able to defend themselves…”

      Prosecute men for rape but let women get away with false witness about it? “Sure…assuming women are morally inferior.”

      And so on.

      UPDATE–Just wanted to add, this crap is an attempt to communicate with leftists in their own language. They’re shown that they don’t understand ours. Instead, we keep trying to reason with them. Why? We’re stupid. But how often do you try to teach your dog calculus? Just think of how amazing it would be if it worked!

      It never does.

  2. Pingback: Who wins in a vote between right-handers and left-handers? | World's Only Rational Man

  3. Pingback: “Fiscal judo”, Part One – background information. | World's Only Rational Man

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s