Skip to comments.How to Use Violence When Arguing with Liberals
Posted on 01/19/2013 6:13:45 AM PST by AnonymousConservative
I was emailing with a reader, who has noticed the same things about Liberal debating tactics that I have. His perception was that every interaction must have a component which will shame the Liberal. It must have some aspect which the Liberal will not want anyone else to see. Of course the reason that such a component would be shameful, is due to the fact that if it became widely known, the Liberal would be out-grouped. It is the threat of being out-grouped which motivates the Liberal to abandon Liberalism. However, there may be more to it, and there may be subtleties that we may want to examine.
Of course, from an evolutionary, and r/K standpoint, shame will only carry Darwinian consequence in a K-selective environment. Only in such a resource-limited environment will one need to belong to a group. If conditions are r-selecting and resources are everywhere, then being ejected from a group will have less consequence on survival, and may even be advantageous, since you will no longer be sacrificing for the good of the group. Under r-selection, shamelessness may be highly adaptive, even as it will get you killed in a K-selective environment.
As the reader and I compared notes, and I reviewed his arguments and mine, one thing I noticed was the most effective shaming tactics may incorporate an opening with a subtle intimation that we are in a violent, K-selective environment. The opening may even personalize the threat this poses to the Liberal. This may be a necessary foundation which greatly enhances the effect of the subsequent out-grouping. If the Liberal has a slight frame in their head that they are threatened, and could get hurt, it may lead the Liberal to feel that they need a group to hide behind, if they are to survive. Because let’s face it, none of these characters would last a minute in a K-selective state of nature.
This introducing a threat frame prior to your argument may be important, given how we seem programmed to respond to these cues subconsciously. If threats are not everywhere, and violence is not seen as real, people may not be shamed as easily over their shameful behavior, since they may not care if they are part of a group or not. I think this is why a civilized, highly productive society will be afflicted with Liberalism to begin with. Under these conditions, being out-grouped may actually be advantageous evolutionarily, and they may embrace it. Just look at how shameless our society is today. I suspect if violence returns in the coming collapse, shame will as well.
This observation of the effectiveness of providing a threat frame, before making your case is supported by scientific research, as well.
John Jost noted that when examining adherence to ideological opinions,
Situational variablesincluding system threat and mortality salience… affect the degree to which an individual is drawn to liberal versus conservative leaders, parties, and opinions.
Much as the Great Depression precipitated rightward shifts in Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Japan, and other nations, heightened perceptions of uncertainty and threat in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, generally increased the appeal of conservative leaders and opinions
Since the publication of our meta-analysis, several additional studies have demonstrated that reminders of death and terrorism increase the attractiveness of conservative leaders and opinions.
Landau et al. (2004) demonstrated that subliminal and supraliminal 9/11 and death primes led college students (a relatively liberal population) to show increased support for President Bush and his counterterrorism policies and decreased support for the liberal challenger John Kerry. These effects were replicated by Cohen et al. (2005) immediately prior to the BushKerry election in 2004. A Spanish study found that in the aftermath of the Madrid terrorist attacks of March 11, 2004, survey respondents scored higher on measures of authoritarianism and prejudice and were more likely to endorse conservative values and less likely to endorse liberal values, compared with baseline levels calculated prior to the attacks (Echebarria & Ferna´ndez, 2006).
An experimental study by Jost, Fitzsimons, and Kay (2004) demonstrated that priming people with images evoking death (e.g., images of a funeral hearse, a Dead End street sign, and a chalk outline of a human body) led liberals and moderates as well as conservatives to more strongly endorse politically conservative opinions on issues such as taxation, same-sex marriage, and stem cell research, compared with a standard control condition in which participants were primed with images evoking pain (e.g., a dentists chair, a bandaged arm, and a bee sting removal). This finding is particularly important because it demonstrates that death reminders increase support for conservative opinions as well as leaders and therefore rules out charismatic leadership as an alternative explanation for the results (see Cohen et al., 2005).
A recently conducted study of the political attitudes of World Trade Center survivors provides further support for the notion that threat precipitates conservative shift even among people who were not initially conservative (Bonanno & Jost, in press).
Thus, if presented fearful/threatening mortal salience stimuli, individuals reflexively became more Conservative on subsequent questionnaires, and they do so across all measures of Conservatism. Perhaps he was presenting what should be a foundational structure of an out-grouping attack, and noting an openness to Conservatism motivated by a reflexive desire to avoid out-grouping.
It is important to note, this isn’t a threatening presentation, which the Liberal could use to out-group you as violent and unstable. It is not telling the Liberal you are going to kill him. That only works if you are able to, and about to swiftly follow-up on it (in which case, the Liberal will immediately agree with you). Rather what I am describing here is merely a wholly unemotional aside, pointing out impartially, that the environment that everyone inhabits is violent and dangerous, and the Liberal may have to face that danger, like everyone else.
Of course, I immediately see Colonel Connell when he began his brilliant out-grouping attack on Mike Wallace by saying,
Two days later they (the reporters Jennings and Wallace) are both walking off my hilltop and theyre 200 yards away, and they get ambushed and theyre lying there wounded. And theyre going to expect Im going to send Marines out there to get them.
You can’t create a perception of a K-selective environment much better than by creating an image of dead and dying Liberals, strewn across a battlefield, desperately screaming and begging for their lives, like the pathetic pansies they are – their only chance for survival being the group of K-selected Warriors they have just pissed off.
This was doubly beautiful, since it combined this violent threat frame with a Diminution of Stature attack, portraying the Liberal to the crowd as weak, helpless, and pathetic.
Is the presentation of violent imagery a necessary foundational opening to an out-grouping attack? I think the science and evidence says it is, and we will explore its use further in future posts as we continue this journey.
“Meanwhile, the country is being forced to scarcity of resources (crashing the civilization), so its probably a moot point.”
Yeah, we will be going K very shortly, so Conservatism will come back with a vengence.
It’s like animals. You can’t keep up the free resource availability forever. Sooner or later, you reach the carrying capacity, adn K-selection sets in.
Here is another approach I find helpful when assaulted by a liberal. When hit with a ridiculous liberal talking point, the natural tendency is to argue the point. That is usually a waste of time and it can be very intimidating to respond unless you have a lot of experience in public argumentation. Instead, when hit with the usual emotional and senseless statement, come back with a question that challenges the intelligence of your opponent. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with the topic presented. Keep three responses ready at all times. For example, in a friendly voice (that’s important), “Where did you go to school?” That throws them off their feat, gives you a moment to think, and amplifies their anxiety that they might have to prove they are intelligent as part of their argument. You can sometimes take command of the situation from that point. Alternatively, you can start asking logical questions that are simply statements of your point of view. You can ask, “Have you ever been to the Balkans?” That can channel the situation toward justifying their intelligence, in a subtle way. I then continue with, “I had a friend who traveled there in the early 90’s. She was pulled off a train by armed locals.” I then drive them down a road where they must justify not only their point of view but their intelligence. It is what they implicitly try to do to conservatives but are rarely logical enough to do it. It works better with the insecure, emotional leftists (most of them are).
That sort of reminds me what an economist (Sowell?) once said about money: The purpose of money is to allocate scarcity. It seems to me that having an infinite amount of money would be really bad, yet spreading that stuff around is the engine of Democrat politicians. The more the better. They’re making a bad societal situation worse, it seems.
Evolution defies the homogene and dopamine would explain their attraction to the violent lifestyle.
This isn't true. The appeal of conservative leaders and opinions was not increased. The opposite is what happened.
Am I missing something?
This seems politically cyclic. Conservative style leading to societal stability and economic prosperity creating an environment of available resources. Then the Liberal style
causes societal breakdown along with resource scarcity
resulting in a competitive mode again. This implies that solving a problem or ending a threat such as when the Soviet Union collapsed, initiates the decline of those who solved the problem and the curtailing of the rules that worked. It does seem to be the back and forth that we see
C’mon, Anonymous, Has history taught you nothing? The left is about to grab our guns because they are more stupid than we are? They own the media because they are more stupid than we are? They won the Presidency because...etc. How hard do we have to be smacked around before we wise up?
You want to fall back on “brain chemistry” as your barricade, then don’t belittle my observation that adrenaline powers conservative thought in a K threat environment, whatever the hell that is. And that adrenaline “thinking” is why we don’t have a thing to worry about? (slowly shakes head, wonders how the sam dog we got from the republicanism of our founding fathers to the “Republican Party USA” while managing to lose the whole enchilada). Somehow I just don’t see Abraham Lincoln shaking his fist in anyone’s face.
Just be ready to smile for the cameras cuz it ain’t set piece Napoleonic era warfare any longer, in case you haven’t noticed. It’s about media, son, and until we get media literate, we’ll be Ethiopia and they will be Benito Mussolini.
Just to recap, take a look around...we’re against the wall because we are *smarter* than they are. Did I sum that up pretty good? Did those asterisks make it all sparkly for you?
PS. In case you think that liberals will quail and fade when intimidated, let me take you back to Moscow and Leningrad 1917.
PPS. At our level of technological advancement, Malthusian scarcity is an artificial chimera. In case you haven’t noticed, humans are not animals, they invent stuff like transportation grids and refrigeration. This planet can produce enough of everything for everyone, it’s just a matter of ahem, WILL. Thank you for your attention. You can now let your thoughts rubber band back to amygdalaville...
Great response thank you.
It's more like, the guy who fights when fighting is not needed (like inner-city types who fight over being "disrespected") tends to have a short life, while the guy who avoids fights (but makes sure he is trained and prepared to win when fighting is unavoidable) will live a longer life.
I know you are trying to present a belief in a logical way, but would a true-blue liberal be convinced, who sees what your approach is? I haven't been very successful with persuading someone whose mind is already made up. Try any defiant oppositional type. Belief seems to be the issue. So, I've decided to stop wasting my time and theirs. If they will let me, that is.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a really smart sibling?
Could be; depends in which dimension one defines "smart." Why do you ask?
Thank you for the background science as to why I feel so genocidal lately.
Those rabbits gotta GO.
“what an economist (Sowell?) once said about money: The purpose of money is to allocate scarcity”
Wow. That is a brilliant quote. Thank you for that.
Jost is Liberal, which does change the peer review standards, but I think his point there was that overall, in those named countries, Conservative/groupism tendencies increased, so on the whole, threat and uncertainty increases Conservatism. The groupism might have even had a hand in setting the stage for WWII.
Unique attributes can bend the rules, (for example, if there are hundreds of Liberals and one Conservative, they may try to gang up on the Conservative, to redistirbute his stuff), but in most cases, Libs will go to ground, and avoid confrontation (or people genuinely become more Conservative - I’m not sure which myself), as people look for allies.
“The left is about to grab our guns because they are more stupid than we are? They own the media because they are more stupid than we are? They won the Presidency because...”
No, IQ has nothing to do with it (Though Woodley makes a good case that specialist intelligence (vs general intelligence) may tend to be an r-strategy of competition avoidance, but I digress).
What I am saying is Liberals process information differently, and this can be used against them. Present information in a certian way, and they cannot handle it. Check the Mike Wallace video at my site. For fifteen minutes, he argues with Conservatives who argue logically. He actually gets more vituperative.
One Marine presents info to him this way (Same argument, different presentation). He immeidately folds, looks ashamed, wrings his hands compulsively, and agress with the Marine.
Romney could have torn Obama apart with this type of argumentative style, making him look weak and pathetic, an both a rhetiric al sense, and in a body language sense, ala Wallace. I don’t know if Obama looking utterly dejected and pathetic would have overcome the flood of indigent voters, but it might have. Done over a long term period, this would change society’s view of our ideologies.
What you have to realize is I did not happen here by chance, or see all this due to a quirk. I got to know this psychology inside and out, due to unique circumstances which gave me a window into it most, yourself included, do not have.
And notice, as much as you want to criticize what I say (Though your writing indicates you barely read it), if you looked closer, you would see a fair amount of my piece is based on hard, peer reviewed work by John Jost, himself a Liberal. If you don’t beleive me, and know better than the current state of the art of the science yourself, Wow - I am impressed.
“Somehow I just dont see Abraham Lincoln shaking his fist in anyones face.”
If you think the psychology of the American populace is stable, and not in any way variable, and Lincoln’s America was just like today’s dopamine saturated, r-environment, you will never understand humans.
“Just be ready to smile for the cameras cuz it aint set piece Napoleonic era warfare any longer, in case you havent noticed. Its about media, son, and until we get media literate, well be Ethiopia and they will be Benito Mussolini.”
What am I arguing here? How to present information.
Regardless, in my view, our course is unchangable. Even if we elected Romney, and an entire congress of Republicans, we would still see a collaspe of our government, just it would be delayed. Nobody has the ability to stop it. The war we are going to face is a Bosnian-type/ DC-Sniper War, and it will be nasty.
“slowly shakes head, wonders how the sam dog we got from the republicanism of our founding fathers to the Republican Party USA while managing to lose the whole enchilada”
I don’t know. Maybe we altered our psychology somehow, maybe it was an alteration that r/K Selection Theory would have predicited based on resource aailability, and which might be rooted in a physical, biological underpinning? One minute you criticise what I saw, and in the next, you lament that you don’t know the very thing which I just pointed out is explained in scientific journals.
Let me ask you this. What is different about today, from when Reagan was in office?
Answer? Reagan’s arugmentative style, which was short, aggressive, demeaning, and humerous/ridiculing. Liberals respond to it instinctively.
But by all means, present a calm logical argument to Liberals, and ask them to agree with you. I’m sure our Republic, as it was founded will rapidly return.
” At our level of technological advancement, Malthusian scarcity is an artificial chimera. In case you havent noticed, humans are not animals, they invent stuff like transportation grids and refrigeration. This planet can produce enough of everything for everyone, its just a matter of ahem, WILL. “
Oh, I am sure you are not a Leftist now.
“its just a matter of ahem, WILL”
And what role does changing dopamine sensitivity have on will/drive? Is there any difference between will (or the related competitiveness), and r and K-selected psychologies?
If scarcity can never happen, where did the Great Depression come from, after the roaring twenties? Why do I know a lady whose parents were turning starving people away from her back door, when they came begging for a single piece of bread?
Productivity is dependent on K-qualities. Competitiveness, drive, and group functionality. As we are r-selected, these traits diminish. This has ancillary effects. Money holds less value. People trust each other less, and eventually an economic collapse erodes the cooperation which produced the productivity which yielded the higher carrying capacity allowing for the r-environment, and then it all comes down.
It has happened before, as in Rome, where the technology was there, but everybody just lacked the WILL to produce enough to support themselves, and the welfare leaches, all together.
I point you to Greece today, where Golden Dawn is going around stabbing any immigrant they can find in the ass with an ambassador knife, to make them leave the nation.
Our economy will do the same thing, no matter who holds office in the coming years. And you will see our own Golden Dawn’s arise, many of which will probably be not so nice.
If you can’t acknowledge that the coming economic slowdown/collapse is going to be nasty, if you are still telling yourself that Malthusian scarcity is a myth, you are shielding your amygdala from the very anxiety this post produced in your first response here.
It will suck to be you in the coming years.
“Instead, when hit with the usual emotional and senseless statement, come back with a question that challenges the intelligence of your opponent. It doesnt have to have anything to do with the topic presented. Keep three responses ready at all times. For example, in a friendly voice (thats important), Where did you go to school? “
Very cool. This is actually a technique used in pickpocketing, called a “pattern interrupt.” It is funny to me you instinctively perceived its utility.
For more see:
“I know you are trying to present a belief in a logical way, but would a true-blue liberal be convinced, who sees what your approach is?”
He will learn to not advocate for what he is advocating. You are punishing him neurologically with panic and anxiety for trangsression against group cohesive behaviors, and he will not like it. As a reuslt he will learn not to transgress in such a manner in the future, even when you are not around. See the Mike Wallace video I reference, and ask yourself if he will make the same argument in public ever again, after you see his face when Colonel Connel is done with him.
“Could be; depends in which dimension one defines “smart.” Why do you ask?”
I am very sensitive to the flow of a conversation. You didn’t give me much in those three lines, but I detected a competitive nature to the interaction which was stong enough it began at a very early age, and was therefore likely a conditioned response to a sibling competition, more likely a younger sibling, of the same sex (male) though not guaranteed. You seem smart, you used fool in your tagline, I assumed that was the competition, ergo, smart sibling.
Not always 100%, but fun to play with.
Man, I love you.
Funny how quick brotherhoods build.