SJWs Always Double Down: Anticipating the Thought Police (The Laws of Social Justice Book 2)

by Vox Day

  Therefore, the police are racist.

  You can perhaps remember the accident fallacy more easily if you think of it as the Valid Exception.

  Secundum quid sounds complicated, but it is actually nothing more than when the SJW refuses to recognize the difference between general rules with exceptions and rules that hold universally true that have no exceptions. Also known more usefully as Destroying the Rule, it is the converse of the Valid Exception, and involves attempting to claim, on the basis of the exception, that the rule does not exist at all. Example: “Did you see hear that someone painted a swastika on the building? That means that the university administration is run by Nazis!” SJWs often use Destroying the Rule as an attempt to falsely impute hypocrisy or to claim that a failure to meet a moral standard is indicative of the fact that the standard does not exist, and more insidiously, they also create fake hate crimes and commit other hoaxes in order to appeal to it.

  Irrelevant conclusion is self-explanatory, but is defined as an argument does not address the issue in question, regardless of whether the argument happens to be valid or not. We are informed that it is also known as missing the point, which effectively describes so many SJW arguments as to almost render the description useless. Indeed, it would be surprising if an analysis of the SJW arguments presented on social media did not find that a majority of SJW arguments commit this fallacy. It literally took me less than five seconds to find a fine example of what is formally known as ignoratio elenchi on Twitter by going to the President’s Twitter account.

  Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

  If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!

  Ed Krassenstein @EdKrassen 4h4 hours ago

  If America unfollows you on Twitter, we wouldn’t have to listen to a madman bickering first thing each morning!

  Ed Krassenstein @EdKrassen

  The First Amendment protects protests, but it doesn’t protect blocking people on Twitter. You are a hypocrite #takeaknee

  Ed Krassenstein @EdKrassen 4h4 hours ago

  The First Amendment also doesn’t protect rigging an election!

  This is almost certainly the most common fallacy to which social justice warriors are prone, as the greater part of SJW responses to statements and arguments fall into this category. Even when other common fallacies, such as Ambiguity and the Humpty Dumpty Dictionary, are utilized, they are often used in combination with Missing the Point.

  Begging the question is when the SJW has reached a conclusion on the basis of a premise that lacks support. Merriam-Webster claims that Assume the Conclusion would be a more accurate translation of the Aristotelian phrase petitio principii. A common form of Assuming the Conclusion is circular reasoning, which is when the SJW assumes the truth of his argument’s conclusion as part of the premises on which he is basing the argument, but the reasoning does not have to be circular in order for the error to qualify as begging the question. Regardless, begging the question does NOT mean to cause the question to be raised, as it is sometimes erroneously used, and as at least one SJW-converged dictionary is attempting to redefine it. It is very, very common for SJWs to Assume the Conclusion, in both circular and non-circular forms, especially when making accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia, where any denial of the charge is deemed to be evidence of its truth.

  False cause is precisely what it sounds like, assigning an incorrect cause to an event that is actually caused by something else. This fallacy is very frequently committed by SJWs when science is under discussion, indeed, one could quite reasonably argue that the entire discipline of social science exists on the basis of this fallacy. Three oft-heard examples of False Cause are when SJWs attribute crime to poverty or a lack of education, attempt to claim differences in average family income are the source of divergent average group performances on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, and blame global warming on human activity.

  Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy that is considerably less often encountered, although a crude and unsophisticated version of it that I call That Just Proves is utilized as a form of rhetoric by some SJWs. Another, more useful description is the confusion of necessity and sufficiency, which occurs when one infers the opposite from the original statement. To put it more simply, if X implies Y, that does not mean that Not-X necessarily is Not-Y. It might be, but it also might not be, so to say that it is would be wrong. Since it’s very unlikely that you will encounter this form of argument from an SJW or be able to coherently explain to him what is false about it, let’s just move on.

  Complex question is a technical term for what in practical terms is usually encountered as the Loaded Question. There is more to it than that in formal logic, but the Loaded Question is the form in which it is usually utilized by SJWs. A question is loaded when an SJW asks a question that assumes something that has either not been proven or has not been accepted by the other party. For example, when an SJW demands to know if you are racist or a white supremacist, he is asking a loaded and fallacious question because it artificially restricts the possible responses to being one or the other, when in fact one could could be either, both, or neither.

  A Catalog of SJW Tactics

  In my early encounters with SJWs in the science fiction community, I began to notice a pattern of similar behaviors across a fairly wide range of individuals. As those who have read SJWs Always Lie will recall, the SJW with whom I had the most frequent run-ins was John Scalzi, the science fiction writer who is published by Tor Books. In 2013, I happened to witness his encounter with another individual, and observed that he hadn’t changed what passes for his debating technique since at least 2005.

  Make an obviously questionable assertion.

  When the assertion is questioned, appeal to bachelor’s degree in philosophy of language from the University of Chicago.

  When the appeal to the bachelor’s degree is questioned, question the questioner’s intellect and/or good will.

  Avoid further questions.

  Posture as if one has thoroughly proved one’s point.

  Not long after this, a reader mentioned that he, too, had noticed the same strange pattern of behavior. He described a long argument he had with Scalzi where the writer had insulted him over and over again, failed to read a single post he wrote, argued against strawmen, and demonstrated what the reader described as a disturbing ignorance of what most people actually believe. And, to put the icing on the cake, Scalzi even threw around the mighty weight of his academic credentials, the aforementioned bachelor’s degree, which entirely failed to impress the reader, who happened to possess a master’s degree in philosophy himself.

  That was when I realized that SJWs tend to utilize the exact same tactics over and over again, and even to repeat the very same arguments no matter with whom they are arguing, or what the subject is. They like to pose as if they are intelligent and well-educated, and they often possess academic credentials of one sort or another, but they are observably incompetent as well as dishonest and intentionally deceptive. Most of them exhibit what is described as the Dunning-Kruger effect, which, in accordance with the Third Law of Social Justice, they not infrequently attempt to impute to their opponents.

  Dunning and Kruger explained that incompetent people tend to overestimate their own level of skill, fail to recognize genuine skill in others, and fail to recognize the extent of their own inadequacy. This is frequently true of social justice warriors, as they prefer to place their faith in credentials and successful posturing instead of material achievement and successful demonstrations of competence.

  Over the years, I have encountered literally hundreds of social justice warriors, great and small, from famous authors and media stars to Internet nobodies, and in that time I have mentally noted a number of the tactics and techniques I have seen them utilize. This is a list of the tactics, both individual and organizational, that they commonly use, which will help you anticipate and
prepare for their actions.

  Individual Tactics

  The Tag Team: If you take down an SJWs argument with dialectic and successfully explain why his position makes absolutely no sense under any circumstances, he’ll disappear, but another SJW will promptly show up to attack your position from a different direction.

  The Brave Sir Robin: When overmatched, the SJW will run away and declare victory.

  The Dog Pile: If triggered by a rhetorical response to his own attack, the SJW will broadcast it as far and wide as he can in order to summon reinforcements. This tactic is also known as the Swarm, and is the desired result of the Point-and-Shriek.

  The Bait and Ban: The SJW attempts to draw you into a discussion, often by asking seemingly innocent questions or pretending to be seeking information about something that he’s just heard about. His questions will increasingly turn prosecutorial, then devolve into outright attacks. If you respond, he will try to amplify your responses until he has something that he can take to the relevant authorities in order to get you fired or kicked off the social media site.

  DARVO: This stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. Often used by sexual offenders who project their own crimes onto their victims, SJWs frequently resort to this tactic when they are playing the victim. When the SFWA Board voted to expel me for using an unofficial Twitter account to link to an attack on another member on my blog, they pretended to be unaware that I had a) been publicly slandered by the “victim” at her Guest of Honor speech at a science fiction convention, and b) that SFWA members had linked to that attack on me, a fellow member, in the SFWA’s own forums. One of those members was the President, who was a member of the Board that voted to expel me despite being guilty himself of the “crime” of which I was falsely accused.

  Crying Wolf: When an SJW is feeling overmatched, or is responded to rhetorically in kind, he will often make false claims of abuse, harassment, and stalking. This is particularly common if the SJW is female or black.

  The Move On: When the SJW helpfully tries to get you to just admit you made a mistake so everyone can move on. This, of course, is similar to the “all we want is an apology” tactic, and any admission of guilt will result in the SJW moving on to the prosecution stage.

  The Custom Dictionary: This is the same as Aristotle’s Ambiguity, or the Humpty Dumpty Dictionary, in which the SJW selects, or utilizes, whatever definition he finds most useful to his cause at the moment, regardless of what you actually meant.

  The Gatling Gun: The SJW spams you with insults until they find one they believe triggers you or makes you look sufficiently bad to others. This doesn’t necessarily mean one that actually serves either purpose, which can be confusing.

  The Woodstock 1969: The SJW claims you were at a place, did something, or had a conversation that could have never taken place. The more outlandish the claim, the more effective this tactic is, because it tends to confuse the target and it can be difficult to convincingly disprove a negative, especially when the accusation is coming from a stranger on the Internet. The aim is to discredit and disqualify the target.

  The Planted Seed: This is when the SJW intentionally plants a false claim with the aim of getting enough of their allies in the media or high visibility sites to repeat it. The ultimate goal is to get it repeated by a media outlet considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Once it does, the false claim becomes a part of the official narrative. As a result of my very successful 2015 Rabid Puppies campaign, I have had this tactic used against me, which resulted in Mike VanHelder of Popular Science writing “Big winner Vox Day is an outspoken white supremacist”, which led to false claims of my being a white supremacist being repeated by Jeet Heer of the New Republic, Olivia Nuzzi of New York Magazine, and eventually, Wikipedia. As of 1 September 2017, the Wikipedia entry about me includes this Planted Seed:

  Writing for Publishers Weekly, Kimberly Winston described Day as a “fundamentalist Southern Baptist”, but other journalists have made more pointed characterizations, such as Mike VanHelder’s assertion in Popular Science that Day’s views are “white supremacist.”

  False De-escalation: When the SJW feels that he is losing the rhetorical argument or the sympathy of the onlookers, he may falsely assume a conciliatory position. This is not genuine, and he will return to the attack whenever he feels the situation is more favorable to him.

  The Worst Person in the World: This is the MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann’s shtick, but SJWs seem to feel that it is effective. The SJW claims you are “worse than Hitler” due to your violation of the Narrative, at least until the next worst person in the world comes along.

  The False Ally: One SJW pretends to take your side while the other SJW presents the SJW case. The first SJW then pretends to be convinced and demands to know how you could fail to be similarly convinced. He acts betrayed when you fail to go along with his sudden conversion.

  Attack the Family: SJWs will always go after your wife and children. Many SJWs are sexual deviants, even more are incapable of maintaining long term relationships, and most are childless, so they have none of the normal restraints that have caused people over the centuries to regard families as being off-limits. The fury of the target’s response and the complete lack of sympathy for the SJW from third parties often leaves the SJW reeling in confusion.

  The Promotion: SJWs always attempt to elevate a leader of the opposition in order to freeze, isolate, and marginalize him, thereby weakening the opposition. It is almost comical to observe how many times the #1 Amazon bestselling author and former Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos has been promoted to the leadership of the Alt-Right by SJWs in the media, despite his sole contribution to the Alt-Right being the co-authorship of one of the first media pieces about it.

  The Fight Promoter: There is nothing SJWs like better than “let’s you and him fight”. SJWs always seek to sow miscommunication and disagreement between their opponents. If Mike Cernovich, Stefan Molyneux, or Paul Joseph Watson say something that can somehow be taken as a disagreement with me, I always hear about it right away from SJWs eager to promote a fight between us.

  The Challenging Assertion:

  This is when the SJW makes a statement of opinion presented as fact, daring you to contradict it and thereby reveal yourself as a Narrative-denier and legitimate target for the SJW. SJWs often like to use this tactic in order to start political arguments at family gatherings. It is particularly effective in social situations where conflict is uncomfortable because, knowing that the SJW is the unreasonable party, the moderates almost invariably side against whoever takes up the gauntlet. It is also used in combination with The Predicted Demise in an attempt to demoralize opponents.

  It’s Just This One Brick: SJWs always defend the next tactical step towards their long-term objective as being totally unrelated to all their past and future efforts. Apparently they believe their opponents are too clueless to realize that the wall they are constructing with those bricks is visible to the observer. In fairness, this approach does seem to work very well with moderates, who are always eager to end an impasse by giving the SJWs what they demand.

  The False Fallacy: SJWs are limited to the use of rhetoric, but the more intelligent ones recognize the power of dialectic and attempt to use pseudo-dialectic to impress those unable to distinguish between it and the real thing. When confronted, they will often claim the opponent has made a logical fallacy, although when asked which specific fallacy was made, they are not only unable to identify it, but even point out where in the argument it happened. Another variant of this is the Ad Humbug, which is when the SJW confuses a straightforward insult with an actual Ad Hominum argument. Neither “You’re stupid” nor “Your argument is wrong and you are stupid” are ad hominum. “Your argument is wrong BECAUSE you’re racist” is an example of an actual argumentum ad hominum, which, of course, is a typical SJW argument.

  Andrew Flick @AndrewFlick87

  So many logical fallacies here.

  Supreme D
ark Lord @voxday

  Name them. Specifically. Is it Ambiguity, Amphiboly, Combination, Division… wait, is it Accent?

  Andrew Flick @AndrewFlick87

  Btw False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when they are not.

  Supreme Dark Lord @voxday

  That does not apply here. Where does the equivalence fail? Moreover, you said there were “so many” logical fallacies. How many, eight?

  Andrew Flick @AndrewFlick87

  Promoting hate speech and promoting upholding of civil rights are not equivalent. Also, suck a big fat cock and choke on it. Have a nice day

  The Straw Man’s Advocate: The SJW assumes a position for his opponent, then pontificates on how this assumed position is contrary to something that the opponent has said, creating a hitherto nonexistent dichotomy between the opponent’s two positions. Any failure to rectify the real position with the imaginary one is proof that the opponent is wrong and a hypocrite. Example: “I am sure you would agree that racism is bad. Can’t you see your position is racist?”

  The Straw Man’s Mask: This is when the SJW incorrectly summarizes the opponent’s position in order to better attack it. This tactic is almost invariably presented with weasel words such as “it appears”, “it seems”, or “apparently”. The following is an actual quote from an SJW on Twitter in a discussion about the NFL national anthem protests. Example: “It appears you’re admitting to being a Nazi based on your reasoning.”