Talking Points: Reducing the Absurd

As the holidays draw near, most of us warmly anticipate the gathering of friends and family to remember the reasons for the seasons, whether it’s Thanksgiving and contemplation of the good things in our lives or the celebration of Christian charity and grace. On the other hand, some of us dread the uncomfortable confrontations put upon us by our Aunt Jennifer’s daughter, “Journey,” with her electric blue bob cut and her several chins.

I’ve got a bit of an early Christmas present for you. It’s a response to virtually any left-wing shitposting that comes your way, whether it’s from your dear cousin, the next inevitable halftime show performer giving a black power salute, or one of your kinsmen who decides to turn on CNN.

“White people suck.”

The magic of these three simple words is that it strips the sugar-coating and frosting off the leftist rhetorical turd. Chateau Heartiste calls this “agree and amplify,” along with some other clever rhetorical exercises worth your time. The stoics called it “reductio ad absurdum.” By using this one neat trick, you leave a leftist forced to defend her retarded and idiotic worldview to a skeptical and hostile audience. Expect extreme frustration and hysterics from the standard NPC. Expect a TL;DR impromptu lecture on interior semiotics or some other poo-poo pee-pee leftist psychobabble from NPCs capable of running more advanced algorithms. Neither play well to the audience.

Assuming they are capable of formulating a word-based response, NPCs may either agree that white/straight/Southern/Christian/etc. people suck, or they may attempt to point to a single figure or group i.e. Nazis, Ann Coulter, Trump, meenie-weenie slave owners, or Richard Spencer. If they aren’t stupid, they will try to create rhetorical distance between their statement and yours by focusing on an individual or group that they feel obviously sucks.

“Ok, so we’re talking about a person or group that sucks.”

I know, I know. You’re being more than a little facetious and disingenuous here and it feels like you’re giving up some ground, but you have to stick to the landing. The leftist wants you to change the subject and defend the shitlord she offered up as an example of “bad” so she can “REEEE” about how awful he is, and the audience has also more-than-likely withstood an awful lot of programming to agree. Besides, the leftist has put her entire thesis on a deliberate misrepresentation of her position. You want to highlight that.

Next, the leftist has two options. She can either concede that maybe some people just suck but most people are good, a thesis leftists used to be able to maintain but can’t anymore thanks to “silence is violence,” or she can say, “no, this is indicative of wider trends in white cultural imperialism and violence towards disabled black Islamic lesbian transexuals.” When she does this, she accuses you of making a deliberate misrepresentation, which is comical considering your two sentences are merely highlighting a distinction without difference that they can’t defend between “bad man” we’re told to hate and “bad people” who we are conditioned to hate through rhetorical bait-and-switch. Which brings us back to…….

“White people suck.”

Endless hours of entertainment. It’s a simple formula.

  1. Postulate that X hate demographic (whites, straights, Southerners, Christians, men) sucks
    1. Leftist agrees and loses the game. Point and laugh.
    2. Leftist disagrees and attempts to redirect to hated individual or group leading to step 2
  2. When the leftist walks back claim, postulate that individuals suck
    1. Leftist attempts to use individuals to characterize entire hate demographic leading to step 3
  3. Postulate that aforementioned hate demographic sucks
    1. Leftist gives up
    2. Leftist attempts argument again, resume from step 2
    3. Leftist postulates that entire hate demographic sucks. Point and laugh.

Now, on your third or so rhetorical trip around the sun, things can get boring. It’s at this point that I change the game a bit with my personal favorite:

“White people suck. The Musical.”

The two extra words bring a bit of levity back into the conversation and make it clear to the audience that this is a farce and that if they’re not already laughing, they ought to start.

If you note that the primary magic of this technique comes from the audience, you’d be right. You might be surprised to note that historically, debates (even philosophical ones) were public and the intent rested in converting the audience to your point of view. Your opponent isn’t another fighter to subdue. They’re a punching bag. Your opponent, an ideologue, will typically never convert based on your arguments, and if they do, it almost certainly won’t occur on the spot. Largely they have to be shamed by the public (audience) into behaving. For this reason, this argument doesn’t work nearly as well in a one-on-one exchange. But then why on Earth would you talk to an ideological leftist anyways? We already know what they’re going to say.

That said, this technique isn’t an appeal to the audience. It’s an appeal to the last shred of common sense we still have as a society. It forces the leftist into a corner and makes her admit her end-goal: a pair of Jordans stomping on a white face, forever.

I’d only advocate using this on particularly belligerent family members who insist on ruining a holiday. After all, they started it. Family gatherings are for sharing memories, time together, and hopes for the future. I’d be lying if I said there wasn’t some esoteric shitposting going on in the basement next to the liquor shelf at most of my family gatherings with some other woke blokes in the family, but I like to think of Christian holidays as times to step out of the mundanity of the world and into family and Faith.

This rhetorical move is evergreen. It works anywhere against virtually anybody. It costs you little in terms of showing your wokeness power level or garnering an aggressive reputation. You don’t even have to use it on specific people. Watch TV; every time an eye-rolling antiracist sentiment or something similar comes up, roll your eyes and give your most sarcastic “white people suck” you can muster. It gets people to associate esoteric and subtle anti-white, anti-straight, anti-male messaging with the exoteric “truths” the messages are supposed to instill, and it totally ruins the effect. The weird thing about mind control and cultural programming is that they don’t work as well when you’re aware of them.

One comment

  1. excellent! “a pair of Jordans stomping on a white face forever”
    25 years ago i played a version of this game with libs:
    Lib: “OMG Rush Limbaugh’s the worst thing ever”
    Me: “What is it he says that you disagree with?”
    Lib: –silence–
    still works, whether they hate Trump, Richard Spencer, etc:)