Debunking Leftist Rhetoric, Pt. 1

And a Defence of the Freedom Convoy—Honk!

Just to let you know, I’m in the process of writing a series of posts on a particular topic, but it’ll be a little while before I begin to publish that. In the meantime, I hope you don’t mind some more “filler” posts for at least a couple more weeks.

Also, if you enjoy my content and if you find it valuable, would you consider sharing my posts with others? Share my blog with your spouse, children, parents, friends, or whoever else. I’d like to see how far I can take this blogging endeavour this year—both in the number of posts, and in the number of subscribers.

Anyway, without further ado, here’s today’s post proper.

---

If you’ve been paying attention over the last few weeks, then you should be aware of the Freedom Convoy protests that have been happening in Ottawa, across Canada, and even around the globe. In light of some of the things that have been said in defence of the protests, On Canada Project (OCP) posted this response on Instagram. It’s quite an instructive piece actually, insofar as it contains examples of bad arguments and leftist rhetorical tactics. As such, it’s worth discussing what it says, so you can be better equipped in your own thinking.

Of course, before proceeding, you should take a look at OCP’s post. Read it for yourself, form your own opinion, and take me to task if you think I’ve been unfair.

With that said, there are three things that I want to discuss: the use of labels or buzzwords, the use of Kafka traps, and the notion of coercion. Let’s begin with the first of these.

(1) Labels, Buzzwords, Name-Calling, and All of the Above

Leftists have a set of favourite words (e.g., “sexist,” “racist,” “homophobic,” etc.) that they use to denounce or dismiss those they disagree with. They often don’t engage in critical discussion (“critical” in the sense of conforming to the rules of logic and critical thinking), but instead use their favourite labels in order to dismiss their opponents. Instead of substantiating their own claims, and instead of providing rational arguments against their opponents’, they’ll use these buzzwords as rhetorical bludgeons in an attempt to denigrate their opponents and shutdown critical discussion altogether. It’s an easy enough tactic—why go through the trouble of making a good argument, when you can just dismiss your opponent outright with your favourite labels? And unfortunately, it’s a tactic that works. If it doesn’t shame an opponent into stunned silence, it reinforces an unreflective and uncritical attitude in many of those who see the leftist in the action. The tactic reinforces such an attitude in other leftists, and in those who might not be leftists themselves, but who are nonetheless sympathetic and deceived by the rhetoric. To such people, a leftist’s use of his favourite buzzwords gives the appearance that he has made a good point, or even that he has won the argument.

Besides their tactical use—and perhaps a partial explanation for their tactical success—the labels themselves are a form of linguistic hijacking (H/T: Bill Vallicella). Leftists strain or overload the meanings of these words, or otherwise misuse them, in order to achieve their ends, such as rhetorical or political success. For example, take the term “homophobic.” A phobia is an irrational fear, but “homophobic” gets overloaded with the connotation of hatred, and the term is used against anyone who has anything negative to say regarding homosexuals or homosexuality. Even if I have rational grounds to oppose, say, homosexual “marriage” (—are my scare quotes homophobic?) with one word someone can smear me as a person who hates gay people, and by doing so, my interlocutor (if he can be called that) shuts down any rational discussion. To onlookers, it might appear that I have lost the debate before it has even started. If I’m not prepared, I end up looking like a malicious creature, and my interlocutor a magnanimous soul.

There are plenty of words that leftists love to use and abuse. Dennis Prager coined the acronym SIXHIRB years ago to keep track of some of them:

Sexist
Intolerant
Xenophobic
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Racist
Bigoted

“Sexist” is interchangeable with “misogynist” (especially since no one really cares about misandry—I get it, we men are in power), and “xenophobic” with the more vogue “anti-immigrant/anti-immigration.” To keep up with contemporary cultural practices, I will also suggest NeWT:

Neo-Nazi
White Supremacist
Transphobic

“Neo-Nazi” is interchangeable with “fascist,” and “white supremacist” is interchangeable with “white nationalist” and probably also “racist”—since, of course, only white people can be racist.

To be sure, by identifying these labels, I don’t mean to say that there aren’t genuine cases of sexism, racism, white supremacy, or whatever. I just mean to point out some of the left’s favourite verbal clubs.

Anyway, going back to the OCP post which sparked this blog post, it’s no surprise that OCP made a generous use of leftist buzzwords. The result is a critique (if it can be called that) of the Freedom Convoy by a combination of the misrepresentation—via buzzwords—regarding certain organizers, leaders, and political parties, plus the fallacy of composition (attributing the property of a part(s) to the whole—the shingles of my house are black, but it doesn’t mean the whole house is). Some defenders of the Freedom Convoy might be tempted to concede that the organizers, leaders, and political parties are as the OCP represents them, and they might base their critique solely on the composition fallacy. However, after a little research, it wasn’t difficult to see that OCP misrepresented the people that they mentioned, nor was it difficult to see why they misrepresented them in the way they did. These people have advocated, for example, for limited immigration, which to a leftist is synonymous with anti-immigration, Islamophobia, and racism. Most of them are white, so in combination with said labels, they must also be white supremacists. (Oddly enough, Romana Didulo is a native Filipina who migrated to Canada—a true white supremacist and anti-immigration xenophobe if I ever saw one.) And since they advocate for limited government and better conditions for Canadian citizens, they are thereby also white nationalists, according to leftist logic.

As a takeaway from this post, I urge you to be wary of leftist vocabulary. If someone (not just a leftist, but anyone uses leftist vocabulary) claims that so-and-so person or such-and-such claim is racist, sexist, white supremacist, fascist, homophobic, transphobic, etc., and if you decide to engage with him, ask him to clarify what he means by his terms and ask him to provide evidence for his claims. But that’s if you decide to engage with that person. I doubt that it’s usually fruitful to engage with people so steeped in leftist ideas. What do you think? Perhaps you’ve had more positive experiences engaging with leftists or those sympathetic with their ideas. Maybe you have some instructive personal stories (positive or negative) that you can share.

I’ll end it here for now. I’m running out of mental steam for the day, so I’ll have to follow up with a part two on Kafka traps and coercion.

---

Graphic by Vecteezy