Engaging, or not, Leftist arguments

Letters from O'Brien #40

Dear Mr Smith,

Recently I have been absorbing a lot of information in regards to dialectics and the role of dialogue within post-Critical Theory forms of socialism. My interest was sparked following a recent podcast by James Lindsay, who correctly noted that engagement with woke arguments practically never benefits the one who is arguing against it, and this is by design (thanks to a century of socialist philosophy and tactics crafted for these sort of debates). I think I’ve been aware of such tactics, but find myself befuddled when it comes to the most effective counter-stance.

I have been following James Lindsay since the beginning of his ‘political career’, and would recommend his resources. I would say his arguments and stances are not always perfect, but his insight usually comes at the right time, summarising things which those ‘in the know’ feel but cannot put their finger on. At least this is my experience of him.

Lindsay’s recent podcasts on how to defeat ‘woke’ are good, however I thought I would expand on some of his concepts, and add some others which have been bought up by other commentators. These ideas (and commentators) came to my attention after delving deeper into the connection between modern dialectics based in Hegel/Fichte, and how – following the Chinese Cultural Revolution – the ideas of Mao Zedong were adopted by western leftist intellectuals and used to create the woke socialism we see today.

DIALECTICS

What is abundantly clear to me now, is that one of the essential tools for the revolutionary socialist is the dialectical framework. It has taken on many forms over the century, depending on culture and context, however since the time of Mao Zedong and the Chinese Cultural Revolution, socialist intellectuals have reoriented their dialectical view to primarily focus on dialogue and engagement as the primary way to ‘fight the enemy’. Words take on double meanings (or entirely new meanings), so as to trap opponents. Good-faith dialogue is exploited in order to trip up political rivals. The goal is not to ‘debate’ with the intention of changing one or the other’s mind, but to advance a dialectical model of combat in which an opponent (a ‘reactionary’) engages a talking point – usually one which is deliberately absurd – in order to trap the ‘reactionary’ and prove a point.

This happens on all levels, be it in academia, in politics, in philosophy, in the workplace, in public, and perhaps most notably today, on social media. The ‘war’ waged on platforms such as Twitter usually sees dialecticians pitted against unknowing ‘reactionaries’ who are coming from a traditional perspective of dialogue and debate. For the opponents of the woke, this rarely, if ever, works.

As an example; an activist takes to Twitter and chooses a deliberately ridiculous and inflammatory topic to post about. Perhaps they post something like “every day hundreds of black people are executed by American police” or maybe “there is a trans genocide taking place in America”. Both tweets are evidently false, but that is precisely the point. The dialectical framework has been set up, now it awaits a response. When the response inevitably comes – such as a ‘right winger’ highlighting statistics on police shootings, or highlighting the massive support transgenders have from the US government – the bait has been taken. For the leftist, the facts do not matter. All that matters for the activist is that a ‘reactionary’ felt compelled to respond in a manner akin to justification, thus highlighting the implicit truth in their initial tweet (it’s not logical, I know). This is actually highlighted by leftist activists on Twitter regularly; after an argument has blown over, some may admit that their tweets were false, but justify it by claiming that the response from opponents proved that their initial tweet - while not ‘factually’ correct - contained inherent truths which resulted in backlash from reactionaries. These activist claims can then become a trend, and sooner or later major corporations – or even the White House – will put out a statements validating it. (I wish that were hyperbolic, but sadly it’s the reality of clown world today).

There are three primary advantages here: firstly, the opponent is forced into a circular argument in which they are making justifications against a ridiculous or hypothetical claim and the energy is used to fuel socialist talking points; Secondly, using the dialectical method, the activist is able to ‘study’ the responses of the reactionary who is engaging in dialogue; And thirdly, it is a massive waste of time for anyone who ends up engaging the tweet (who could otherwise be doing something constructive).

REACTIONARIES

I think that what many so called ‘anti-woke’ movements get wrong (apart from some being explicitly extreme in their ideology) is that they often choose to engage in debates and arguments with their political opponents. And in a way that does nothing more than adding fuel to the fire. Fighting back against the obviously absurd ideas put forth on social media by socialist intellectuals or activists does nothing, since they are not putting forth a point of debate with an open mind, but rather to deliberately trap their opponent in circular reasoning and justification.

I’ve found it completely fruitless to enter into dialogue with a woke activist online. I’m compelled to argue against the points put forward, but for the most part this is a mistake. When I want to ‘fight back’ against the ideologically framed argument, I end up doing exactly what the woke activist wants; entering into an argument. We cannot naively assume that the arguments put forward are made on the grounds of reason and rationalism, and thus can be defeated and the woke onlookers are suddenly converted. This is simply not the way it works. We are engaging with people who are immersed in Critical Theory and thus are bound to different rules and adhere to different terms. For the activist, the reactionary cannot ‘win’ the argument, they can only highlight their own conformity to the oppressive system and bring awareness to the dialectical contradictions within this system. To a Critical Theorist, the reactionary who using logic and reason to disprove a particular point is not ‘winning’, he is merely playing by the rules of the ‘existing society’ which must be overturned (hence why even logic and reason are increasingly smeared as ‘western constructs’).

AVOIDING DIALECTICAL ARGUMENTS

If we want to counter the verbal attacks of the woke, or revolutionary socialists more broadly, then we cannot play on their terms. We cannot play their game. This is one of the most common mistakes made when arguing against woke narratives, and it is a mistake made primarily by conservatives. For example, the Daily Wire – at least in the past – had attempted to retool woke arguments and frameworks against woke activists. Many other conservative commentators have also tried the same tactic. For example, using the framework and logic of Critical Race Theory to denounce anti-western ‘racism’, or using the framework of group identity and victim narratives in order to make a contrary point. This rarely works, since the games are deliberately rigged in favour of the socialist activist and intellectual.

I can see why the conservative would do this; the natural assumption is that the ‘debate’ in question is a reasonable dialogue in which one can play the game of the other in order to prove a point and change the mind of ones opponent. Unfortunately, this is exactly the opposite of what the socialist intellectual and activist seeks to do, instead using the debate as a tool to highlight a contradiction and frame a narrative.

As mentioned earlier, the goal with these arguments is to both waste resources and trap the opponent in circular justifications. No matter how ridiculous or false the claim is, the activist (using the dialectic) can take any repose to be proof of the ‘inherent’ or ‘underlying truth’ within their initial statement. For example – as they may say – if it were so ridiculous and false, why did one feel the compulsion to respond and argue against it?

As such, it is not only a waste of time to engage with these arguments, but it is actually counter productive. Taking part in the argument adds fuel to their ideological fire, and by proxy strengthens their position almost all of the time.

HIGHLIGHT THEIR RATIONALE AND GOAL

Rather than engaging with the arguments and claims put forward by these activists and intellectuals, one should instead call out the arguments for what they are: bait. This is something James Lindsay has proposed as an effective tactic against woke arguments, particularly when applied to social media discussions. If a ridiculous claim is put forward, one should not try and counter it (thus entering into their game) but rather explain the logic and the goal behind the tweet (or post). Rather than wasting time ‘disproving’ what is obviously false, instead, highlight how it is bait in order to elicit a response, and that this response will be used to justify a particular narrative.

If the majority of people took this approach, these socialist arguments and traps would be void; they would receive no real engagement with their ridiculous claims, and the tactic would be nullified. All it takes is an increase of this response on social media (particularly Twitter) for there to be a collapse of woke arguments.

ARGUMENTS WHICH FORCE A RESPONSE

Something I have heard several commentators mention is how a better use of time online is presenting arguments which force a response, and by proxy reveal the actual intentions behind particularly agendas. This is not necessarily the dialectical game played by socialists on the left, but rather one based on reason and sound argument.

For example, it has been noted by many that ‘fact checkers’ within the media often slip up into a type of all-out justification, which is useful in highlighting the actual truth of a claim. Case in point; fact checkers ironically helped fuel the rise of the 15-minute-city concern. This appears to have been in response to a small amount of critics online who questioned the smart city rollout in Oxford. What followed was an all out attack on these individuals by fact checkers and the media more broadly, who labelled them as ‘far right conspiracy theorists’ and claimed that the 15 minute city concept was a ‘dangerous conspiracy’. Meanwhile, other publications (in a major slip up) fell into contradiction, claiming that concern over 15-minute-cities was tied with ‘racism’ and ‘climate denialism’, and that such city planning is happening and is good.

It is also apparent that ‘fact checking’ can plant particular concepts within the minds of those who listen, and inadvertently bring up more questions than settling the matter. As an example, an unknowing reader may come across a ‘fact check’ claiming that the World Economic Forum is not trying to centralise the global economy. The uninformed reader, who likely has no idea what the World Economic Forum is, has now correlated that concept with the idea of state centralisation of power. Thus, media fact checkers ironically bring concepts unknown to most readers to the forefront of the argument, or at the very least provoke questions - a very good thing.

This sort of media differs from the socialist intellectual and activist mentioned previously. Unlike those individuals, the media rarely plays by the dialectical rules. Thus, the media is far more simplistic in its all-out attack on perceived enemies. By extension, it is far easier to create an argument which will show the media to be nothing more than an ideological megaphone. This has already been done many times by coercing journalists into arguments – a well known example being the ‘tradwife’ or ‘return to tradition’ trend – which results in the publication labeling anyone within these broad movements (many of which are actually byproducts of memes or jokes) into the category of ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘fascist’, and other such ridiculous things. At this point most people will tune out, since it becomes obvious that the journalist is touting ideological nonsense. (When I use the word ‘journalist’ here I do not mean the honestly truth seeking journalist, but the propaganda puppets - I’m sure you can picture a few right now). Another well known example; the media outlet which was convinced – after being sent several emails by trolls – that the ‘OK’ hand gesture was actually a secret code for ‘White Supremacy’. This ridiculous claim was run by many major news outlets, and few people took it seriously, since it was immediately revealed to be a prank. Despite this, the story ran on for some time, despite the fact that the only people watching these reports by this point were aware of the prank.

This simply highlights what we already know; that there is evidently a huge disconnect between ideologically motivated journalists and the middle and lower classes. The groups and ideas which are regularly attacked by the media are often made up of middle and lower class people, thus furthering the divide. Few people can see it, but most can feel that they are being talked down to by leftist academics, journalists, and public intellectuals (again, not all academics, journalists and intellectuals, but the propaganda puppet ones. You can almost see the invisible strings as they all act together in some sort of weird synchrony) . Thus, allowing journalists to lash out in emotional outbursts or ideological rants (which is increasingly common) is perhaps one of the most effective methods of discrediting these very mouthpieces. It speaks for itself, and due to the disconnect, most people (who cannot relate to the struggles of a socialist revolutionary) will see straight through it and lose respect for it.

But back to my original point for a second – the dialectic trap by the leftist is a different animal and it’s best to either not engage, or point out the technique itself, rather than the claims being presented.

Thank you for your attention once again Mr Smith. I do appreciate being party to your platform. Let’s hope that Substack will continue to protect free speech in the face of various legislation wanting to control such platforms.

Sincerely yours,

O’Brien