Dear Friends,
It seems to me, when one lacks a logical argument… the resolute rascal can simply use the pejorative “racist,” as it is a good all around replacement for logic. Many times someone may lack a logical argument, when confronted by common sense, accosted by unassailable argument and when peddling a prevarication. Many times the sophist will have to change the subject rather than face a truth, he or she either cannot or would rather not answer, and so it is much better to go on the attack, inferring the other person is fundamentally a bad person, and since they are a bad person their arguments should be ignored by that fact alone. That attack is very effective. Our modern sophists, progressives, have elevated the slur to such heights, it can be used not only to attack a person directly, but to indirectly attack him or her, by attacking the very argument itself as racist. Anyone promoting lies has only this one tool to remember, the moment you have nothing to say that will not further your cause, call the other a “racist,” and you win by default.
When winning the argument is more important than what is right, truthful and correct, often it is necessary to use spurious logic and underhanded means to achieve that goal. Lets say, for the sake of argument, you wanted to be the supreme despotic autocrat of the world. To actually be that person, one must be by definition, cold to the suffering of others, else that position would never be attained nor held long if dropped in one’s lap. To be the despot is to be more than able to put someone to death for not doing what you ordered them to do, even if it was in direct violation of their personal self interest and human Rights… but to relish the act. Such a person would care nothing for lying or connivance. The tactic of changing the subject, sandbagging, ad homonym attacks and using the Hegelian dialectic would be well practiced.
Calling someone a racist shuts down real conversation. It changes the subject from what was being discussed, to the ad homonym attack implied, “why are you such a bad person?” One cannot argue under such circumstances. Not only does it both change the subject and make an ad homonym attack but it lowers the status of real racism. Exploiting such a tactic shows the person using it to be callous to the suffering of real racism, unwilling to argue the point on it’s merits, and by that admission alone, they concede they lost the argument. Because, if they had a real logical response, clearly that would have been the superior choice in the retort. Moreover, no real discussion, no exchange of information or meeting of the minds can be had, when one party is accusing the other of being a bad person.
Changing the subject to vilify the foe gets the winning argument off the table and replaces it with how bad your opponent is. Obviously, the conniver wants to be in the position to argue how bad his or her opponent is, rather than defend a lie they are pushing. Obviously it behooves the conniver to argue logically as long as permissible, but once a loose thread is pulled, the nuclear weapon… racist, can be pulled out, obliterating all conversation from that point on. The swindler believes he or she has won the argument but indeed they have instead admitted defeat. Diligent unbiased observers will quickly discern this, while partisans on the side of the deceiver will be blind to it, and those on the other side may not know in a fully articulated sense, how the floor was pulled from under them, but they will feel it. Because why argue a losing point when you can argue how bad a person your foe is?
What a wonderful tool that liars, connivers and reprobates have… in the word racist. To the true schemer, the question is not when to pull that tool from the tool bag but when. Should they change the subject to redirect the discussion, sandbag and claim it never happened, starting a crisis then feeding hysteria for that crisis to get people to demand what they would never have accepted before the crisis, (the Hegelian Dialectic), or change the subject to how terrible a human being the person arguing against them is. To someone willing to kill to make others do as they demand, such tactics are child’s play. Using them on the other hand, shows a callous nature to the suffering of others, no matter what propaganda they might spout. It shows to the disinterested observer that the swindler admits defeat in the arena of ideas, and so must go on the offensive in the arena of reputation, to save face. The diabolical tool or argumentation nuke, changing the subject to an ad homonym attack by claiming racism, is truly the tool of the infernal… and is used by progressives every chance they get.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
