How to argue like a white supremacist
Principles of Productive Discourse, Part 2
“I wanna rub Purell on my brain…”
-Annie Edison
That’s how I feel after researching this piece. Get excited.
…
In Part 1, we briefly discussed the importance the word and concept “no” plays in our relationships. If we can’t give or receive “no” in a relationship, we lose all sincerity, honesty, and relational health. Today, we’re going to look at how identitarians argue, the problems with their rhetorical framework, and how to avoid falling into these traps ourselves.
The technical term for attacking an individual rather than their argument is ad hominem, which is Latin for “to the man.” In other words, you direct your argument at the identity of the person, rather than the content or quality of their ideas. If you’re interested in learning more about this pervasive and caustic rhetorical strategy, I’d recommend the video I made about it back in 2018. For our purposes here, we’re examining the worst forms of identitarian ad hominem, extracted directly from one of the largest repositories of internet idiocy: alt-right Twitter.
If you’re unfamiliar with this corner of the internet, consider yourself lucky. Please avoid at all costs. If you see someone with a Twitter picture that is some crude derivation of a fat-faced frog, ignore that person. This the alt-right, and they hail from all over the globe. Their bigotry isn’t thinly-veiled, and it’s this type of shallow ideological and rhetorical framework we’ll be examining.
“But Truman, aren’t you doing the very thing you’re supposedly criticizing? You’re broadly labeling all of these individuals as racist.” Ah, keen observation my friend. There is a difference between criticizing someone’s intrinsic character traits (racial heritage, for example), and criticizing something you can opt-in to. In other words, it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize all KKK members as a group, because they opted into that group, and are unified by belief in a set of ideas they have chosen to accept as individuals. In other words, criticizing the ideas of a bigot has little to do with that individual’s intrinsic character traits. Let us continue on with our examples, four tweets from four separate individuals:
“White people have enough to deal with without constantly having to worry about every other race’s problems.”
“Juneteenth is such a stupid word… you can tell blacks made it up.”
“Blah blah blah. I’m placing blame where blame should be placed. I have not diverted any attention away from the Barbary Slave Trade. We Europeans were not doing that, and what a COINCIDENCE! You Jews were shipping Europeans to Africa as slaves, even castrating the men.”
“People often ask me how I’ve avoided suspension on Twitter after receiving my 7 day suspension in 2018. The answer is don’t interact with tweets from women or verified accounts under any circumstances”
Believe it or not, these disgusting tweets are some of the mildest ones I found, when compared to the overwhelming hate and stupidity that lives in this corner of the internet. See now why I want to rub Purell on my brain? As an aside, I think it’s important for the average person to remember that while idiots like this have virtually no power outside of their little echo chambers, they do exist. They’re increasingly rare (perhaps from inability to find someone to breed with, as much as general societal progress), but they still exist. Also, it’s worth remembering that stupid people will always exist. That said, if we were to distill their arguments down, what would we find?
“Those problems are the concern of X racial group, not my racial group.”
“I don’t like how ‘Juneteenth’ sounds, so it must be attributable to X racial group.”
“X group is responsible for slavery, not my group.”
“The only reason someone would take issue with what I say is if they are verified on Twitter, or if they are a woman.”
What is the substance of these arguments? Do you even see a legitimate idea to be engaged with? I don’t. They’re shutting down the conversation before it even starts, by making all criticisms and discussions about arbitrarily chosen intrinsic identity traits. They attack identity, because their arguments have no merit outside of the context of these ridiculous premises. “You only dislike my tweets because you’re a woman” is another way of saying “I can’t defend my ideas on their own merit.” This reductive and shallow reasoning only makes sense in a world where all people who possess X arbitrarily chosen intrinsic character traits think alike, live identical lives, and share no differences in beliefs or opinions among each other. This perspective is something most reasonable people know to be false.
So, what framework does a white supremacist, or a misogynist, or any other identitarian with bad ideas use to argue those bad ideas?
1) Divide people into arbitrarily or selectively chosen groups.
2) Begin with the assumption that all people in those groups have the same thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and life experience.
3) Also assume that these intrinsic identity traits are the most important aspect of that person’s life. Above being a parent, spouse, employee, community member, painter, employer, athlete, or any other chosen identity marker, they are first a member of X group(s), or their unchosen identity markers.
Then, proceed accordingly.
If arguing for an idea:
-Appeal to your own group membership as means of using subjective experience to substantiate objective claims about reality. “My experience as X proves that all X are like this.”
-If you are not a member of the group you claim to be advocating for, establish credentials. “I have talked to these members of X group, and they agree.” This is merely an extra step in the process listed above. Note that “I represent all members of my group” is not qualitatively different from “My friend in X group represents all members of that group.” Both statements are reflections of #2, “All people in X group are the same.”
If arguing against an idea:
-Appeal to the group membership of the individual you are talking to. “You are in X group, therefore you are wrong.”
-If arguing with someone whose group identity defies the assumptions of #2 (they belong to X group, but do not conform to your statements about group X), simply create an additional group distinction. “You may be in group X, but you’re also in group Y. And we all know how group Y is.” Again, this is merely an additional step in reaching the same conclusion, and follows the same framework of invalidating someone’s argument due to group membership without actually engaging the ideas they present.
If you’re a misogynist, you dismiss the arguments of a woman. If you’re a white supremacist, you dismiss the arguments of non-white people. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to argue like a narrow-minded bigot. All you really have to do is make the same types of assumptions bigots make. Refuse to see people as individuals, and focus exclusively on their group identities. Lump groups together. Stereotype. Ignore facts that dis-confirm your worldview. Find an ideological echo chamber, and spend day after day having your biases confirmed. Lose all interest in objective truth. You may also find it helpful to establish qualitative differences between groups, so as to create the illusion of moral superiority to your arguments. This moral superiority will be pure delusion, but you’ll probably find it helpful all the same.
There you have it, now you know how to argue like a white supremacist. More importantly, you now have a few tools with which to spot the kinds of arguments these identitarians make. Sadly, this shallow ideological framework and rhetorical style is not limited to white supremacists and misogynists; anyone who has abandoned pursuit of truth can find themselves making similar assumptions, whether they realize it or not. Even those who genuinely believe their intentions are noble can nevertheless find themselves making arguments virtually indistinguishable from a neo-Nazi. How’s that for a scary thought? I wanna rub Purell on my brain…
Next time: Rethinking our options when engaging in disagreement.