“Have you ever had an experience where you have clearly laid out a complete train of thought for someone, only to have him stubbornly declare that you are wrong, that you must be wrong, and there is no possibility you could be correct, without pointing to a single flaw anywhere in your argument? You were speaking the wrong language. You were speaking in dialectic to a rhetoric-speaker, and it didn’t work, did it?”
Right now our nation is having a conversation. Some speaking the language of emotion, experience, and metanarratives of cosmic injustice. Others are speaking the language of facts, evidence, data, reason. Neither side hears each other, because, as Vox explains, both are in fact speaking different languages:
“Nearly everything I have observed about SJWs can ultimately be traced back to a very important observation made by one of Man’s greatest thinkers more than 2,337 years ago… In his book Rhetoric, which is said to be “the most important single work on persuasion ever written,” the Greek philosopher Aristotle divides the art of persuasion into two distinct forms, dialectic and rhetoric, concerning which he makes a very important observation. I can’t stress enough how vital this observation is, or how helpful it is to make the effort to understand it and take it to heart:
“Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.”
“There are people whom one cannot instruct.” One of Man’s greatest thinkers, a brilliant teacher who tutored one of history’s greatest generals, Alexander the Great, knew that there were people even he could not teach. He didn’t say it was difficult to get through to them, he didn’t say it would take a long time to instruct them, he simply concluded that it could not be done, at least not with mere knowledge.
“However, he went on to point out that it is possible to convince them to change their minds, only that one cannot do so by presenting them with knowledge. Instead, it is necessary to manipulate them, to play upon their emotions, in order to get them to change their minds. He even provided detailed instructions on how to go about communicating with these people who make decisions on the basis of their feelings rather than their logical capacities.
“As you can probably guess, SJWs fall squarely into the category of people who cannot be instructed and cannot be convinced by knowledge. This is the key to understanding their astonishing ability to cling to their Narrative in the face of evidence that obliterates it as well as their insistence on clinging to it even as it shifts and contradicts itself. The reason SJWs can believe seven impossible and mutually contradictory things before breakfast is their inability to be instructed by knowledge; as long as each of those seven things happens to be in line with whatever their emotions are at the moment, the SJW will not see the inherent contradictions that thinking people do.
“Because they do not think using logic, they cannot speak, or understand, what Aristotle describes as dialectic. Dialectic is based on the construction of logical syllogisms, which therefore makes it very easy to anyone who is capable of following those syllogisms and ascertaining their validity to detect when one is lying. Rhetoric, on the other hand, is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”
“When you speak in rhetoric to a dialectic-speaker, you will tend to sound very dishonest even when you are utilizing effective rhetoric that is perfectly in line with the truth. On the other hand, you can’t speak dialectic to a rhetoric-speaker for the obvious reason that they cannot be informed or persuaded by it. They simply don’t have the capacity.”
“I strongly prefer communicating in dialectic myself, but that is a language reserved for those who are intellectually honest and capable of changing their minds on the basis of information. So, I speak dialectic to those capable of communicating on that level and I speak rhetoric to those who are not. Recall that rhetoric, to which SJWs are uniformly limited, is based not on logic or reason, but emotion. However, because many SJWs attempt to cloak their rhetoric in pseudo-dialectic, you can use sound dialectic to strip them of that pseudo-dialectic cloak on behalf of those capable of following the real thing, while communicating directly in rhetoric to the SJWs. This requires a degree of fluency in both discourse-languages as well as the ability to switch back and forth between them at will, a skill that takes some time to develop.
“For example, consider the title of this book (“SJW’s Always Lie”). It is not strictly true, in the dialectical sense, to assert that SJWs never tell the truth. To be dialectically sound, one should say “SJWs frequently lie” or better yet, “SJWs have often been observed to lie in situations when doing so will serve their immediate interests.” But as Aristotle tells us, the best rhetoric is rooted in truth, and the statement “SJWs always lie” rings emotionally true because SJWs lie so often, and so reliably, that it resonates with every individual who has been witness to their habitual dishonesty. That is why “SJWs always lie” is flawed dialectic, but accurate and effective rhetoric.
“The interesting thing about rhetoric is that it makes very little sense to individuals who are limited to the dialectic. In fact, I didn’t fully grasp the way it worked until reading Rhetoric for the second time. It can be bewildering when people tell you that they have been convinced by something that you know can’t possibly have logically persuaded them to change their minds. In such cases, you know they have been persuaded by rhetoric, not facts, reason, or logic. And you should probably communicate with them through rhetoric in the future if you want them to understand you. Remember, even if you’re speaking dialectic, the rhetoric-speaker hears it as rhetoric. Or, not infrequently, as complete gibberish.”
“Dialectic and rhetoric are two different languages, and the number of people who can speak both of them fluently is relatively small. I wouldn’t expect an individual who only speaks one form of discourse to be any more able to follow me into the other se passo a scrivere in italiano o francese senza preavviso dopo l’inizio di una frase in inglese. Il est déroutant quand quelqu’un se coupe subitement langues sur vous, nicht wahr?
“In case it is not already apparent, this chapter is primarily written for dialectic-speakers. Rhetoric-speakers, especially SJWs who are inclined to think badly of me, will only see “blah blah blah, Aristotle, blah blah blah, I’m so smart, blah blah blah, spaghetti spaghetti” and scan through what looks like total word salad to them trying to find something they can use to minimize or disqualify me.
“And that is exactly what an SJW does to you whenever you are trying to communicate with one using logic. Have you ever had an experience where you have clearly laid out a complete train of thought for someone, only to have him stubbornly declare that you are wrong, that you must be wrong, and there is no possibility you could be correct, without pointing to a single flaw anywhere in your argument? You were speaking the wrong language. You were speaking in dialectic to a rhetoric-speaker, and it didn’t work, did it?
“Even SJWs who can more or less understand dialectic don’t speak it themselves. That is why they are infamous for never admitting they are wrong even when everyone else can see it, and why they are constantly moving the goalposts and revising the history of what everyone knows actually happened. It is absolutely pointless to speak in dialectic to them; unless you are actually talking to them for the benefit of an audience, there is no reason not to go directly to rhetoric and hammer on their emotions rather than relying on reason to accomplish the impossible.
“The correct strategy is to fight dialectic with dialectic, expose pseudo-dialectic with dialectic, and fight rhetoric with rhetoric. And the most important thing about implementing that strategy is to understand that with rhetoric, the actual information content is largely irrelevant.”
“Rhetoric is all about what emotions you trigger in the other person…The basic idea is that if you can make the other person feel small or angry, you are winning at SJW rhetoric. This is why SJWs are constantly accusing other people of being mad or upset; it’s just another way of them claiming to be winning the conversation. If you can make the other person submit, run away, or fall silent, then you have won the conversation and you are higher in the SJW hierarchy than they are. So it doesn’t matter what you actually say, and in fact, resorting to straight-up name-calling, the more ridiculous the better, is often the fastest and most efficient way to get through the conversational process with an SJW. If they launch the usual “sexist, racist, homophobic, Nazi” line, don’t blink, just hit them right back with “racist, child molester, pedophile, monster” and watch them run. If you’re of a more delicate constitution and are not willing to go that far even when attacked unprovoked, try “creepy” and “stalker” on the men and “psycho” or “ugly” on the women and it will usually have much the same effect. You know your rhetoric is effective when they block you online, or in person if their eyes widen with shock and their jaw drops. You will know you have mastered the art of rhetoric if you can make an SJW retreat in tears or cause a room full of people to gasp in disbelief before bursting out laughing at the SJW.”
“Again, you must keep in mind that the actual information content is irrelevant. SJWs communicate in competitive emotion. If you’re not doing the same, then you’re not communicating with them, you’re doing little more than play punching bag for their verbal strikes. I realize this probably doesn’t make sense, but that’s because you are a normal, sane individual who thinks rather than feels. But keep in mind that just as their argument “X is Not X because feelbad” makes no sense to you, your argument that “X cannot be Not X due to the law of non-contradiction” makes no sense to an SJW.
“Don’t try to work through the logic of it all. Just try it. It works. Chances are that you’ll be as surprised as I was to discover how effective it can be to speak in rhetoric to the rhetoric-speakers. When Milo Yiannopoulos destroyed a feminist on live television during a public debate concerning modern Britain’s hostility to men, it wasn’t his smooth recitation of relevant facts that left her reeling in shock and disarray; she blithely ignored all of that. It was his dismissive use of the word “darling” that literally muted her. Her wide, staring eyes and gaping mouth made it very clear how powerful a well-placed, well-timed rhetorical bomb can be.”
“Remember that there is no truth content in emotion-based rhetorical speech, all that matters is for the emotion to be genuine in the moment. And that is why SJWs always lie. Because as long as they don’t feel as if they’re lying, they don’t believe they are lying, regardless of what objective reality might have to say about the falsity of their assertions.
“This connection between social justice warriors and emotion is neither a new nor an original observation; F.A. Hayek made the connection 40 years ago in The Mirage of Social Justice when he wrote, “The commitment to ‘social justice’ has in fact become the chief outlet for moral emotion, the distinguishing attribute of the good man, and the recognized sign of the possession of a moral conscience.”
“So, with support from the brilliant minds of Aristotle and von Hayek, you can be assured that you are on sound intellectual ground when, instead of relying on information and dialectic to convince the SJWs with whom you are communicating, you focus on using rhetoric to manipulate their emotions and thereby their behavior.”
Excerpt From: Vox Day. SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police. Excerpt is less than 10% of book, thus within compliance of copyright laws.