On the "Hate Speech" Psy-op | Luke Smith
How to shamelessly win arguments.
If you’re out there to “win arguments” without shame or honesty, the easiest way to do it is variously distort, shame and socially discredit everyone else to such an extent that impressionable people are left with a choice of either extreme social shame or taking your side no matter how patently dishonest and illogical you are.
This is really how the modern propaganda engine works.<br>It is never so good at justifying what it wants, but it is expert at herding very well-socialized people away from everything else.<br>This has given us the bizarre state of affairs where everyone openly consents to elite values, but privately knows they’re lies.
“Hate Speech”
The idea of “Hate Speech” is one of the most concise and pure-distilled examples of this technique that it has really become the tool of choice of the opinion-molding class.<br>It’s so easy, even a journalist could use it!
A lot of “conservative” people in pop-politics have definitely come to understand that the accusation of “hate speech” is tool used only on those it could not actually apply to.<br>But why this term of all other possible ones?<br>First, let’s inspect its traits:
If you accuse your opponent of “Hate Speech,” in fact, even use the word, you are creating the presuppositions that:
My opponent is emotional.
My opponent doesn’t have any real rational reasons to believe what he argues for due to that emotional motivation.
All people who believe his stance too are merely emotionally distorted.
My stance is so naturally obvious to people who are not emotional.
If you accuse someone in passing of “Hate speech,” you are making a tacit claim not just that they are governed by emotions, but that irrational emotions are the only possible justification for their stance.<br>It’s a great tool as an accusation because it’s throwing a quick emotional tar and feathers on a target to frame an argument—and the only way to extricate for a target to free himself is to painstakingly explain himself (which no one has time for) or for the audience to actually invest time into understanding the wider context.
As an aside, it is definitely true that most “debates” are not logical, but tactical: people make associations to make their enemies look bad, and throw out arguments not even that are necessarily good, but that require time and mental effort—and sometime some inspired conciseness—to dismiss.<br>Most debates are really emotional and mental gauntelets—and by “mental,” I don’t meant of intelligence or wit, but of sheer endurance of annoyance.
Either way, the normie, who lives in constant fear of being associated with scary buzzwords, scatters from the target of accusations of “hate speech” like a cockroach.<br>To even deconstruct the psy-op I just outlined that’s way more verbal effort and risk than most people are willing to do, even if they are aware of the well-poisoning that comes with the term “hate speech.”
Hermetically-sealed “Hate” Domains
Why there’s no platform for “Hate.”
I’m reminded of the old 1989 “debate” between Philippe Rushton and one David Suzuki which can thankfully still be found even on YouTube.
It is worth observing that spectacle.
The debate was supposed to about genetic differences across races, particularly Rushton’s forte of IQ, etc.<br>I stumbled across the debate as a teenage socialist and had never heard the research on race and genetics in Rushton’s 20 minute opening statement,<br>so I eagerly awaited Suzuki’s rebuttal.
The rebuttal never came.<br>Instead, Suzuki took the stage and chided the university for even allowing his opponent to speak.<br>His speaking time was a constant flurry of “Hate Speech”-style accusations that were honestly awkward and shameless, not to mention devoid of even inept attempts to negate Rushton’s case.<br>Suzuki at most only managed to repeat angrily a couple mantras of faith that everyone in the modern west is fed.
On a factual level and for “rational people,” Suzuki was loudly and embarrassingly admitting defeat.<br>But rhetorically, he won: he provided an emotional out for those who wanted to stay in denial, he promoted fear among the undecided, and he poisoned the very argument itself with the “Hate Speech” technique.
Surely the crowd of Canadian university leftists was in his pocket beforehand, but it just took a little social prodding to have them cheering for him.<br>If he had simply tried to rationally (and ineptly) tackle the science in front of him like an honest person, he would’ve “lost” the debate and many more of those leftists would have wavered in or lost their faith.
Racial genetic differences were such a losing issue for...