Monday, January 2, 2017

Bulverism, Cant, Obfuscatory Nonsense & "Point and Shriek"

Librul thought, or the attempt thereat, has been the topic of several right-minded thinkers in recent days.

Steve Sailer, quoting Wikipedia, defines a term "coined by C. S. Lewis to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking" that "assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive" — Bulverism. A Sailerian example:
    I get this all the time: What kind of horrible character flaw must have motivated me to have learned so many quantitative facts and have thought so logically about the topic that everybody agrees is important: diversity?
John Derbyshire, quoting Samuel Johnson's counsel to "clear your mind of cant," defines that term from Dr. Johnson's Dictionary of 1766 as the "whining pretension to goodness, in formal and affected terms" and from as "insincere, especially conventional expressions of enthusiasm for high ideals, goodness, or piety" — A Whining Pretension to Goodness. The Derb gives some examples:
    Practically anything you read or hear about racism, sexism, and homophobia is cant. The most punctilious anti-racists flee like rats from black neighborhoods; the dearth of female mathematicians, in an age when women form an actual majority of college students, is widely understood to be a matter of female preferences, not discrimination; and sensible parents do not leave their kids alone with sexually eccentric adults. Yet the cant goes on.
Jim Goad gives an example of "the sort of logic-defying, obfuscatory nonsense that has been a hallmark of their flailing attempts at discourse for generations now," in this case a recent "argument" that "since there’s no such thing as 'white people,' there could not possibly be anything such as 'white genocide'" — Laughing About White Genocide. The "obfuscatory nonsense" gets even worse:
    Modern leftists—since they’re brainwashed zombies who’d rather eat a bullet than possibly admit that they’re wrong—dismiss all talk of “white genocide” as paranoid conspiracy-mongering by “racists,” an odious breed of exclusively white people who obviously need to be exterminated by all means necessary. While openly applauding the notion that whites are a “dying breed,” they will gaslight the living hell out of anyone who dares to notice that whites are a dying breed.
James Delingpole reminds us, among many other things, that "so much of the left-liberal ‘argument’ has to do with raw emotion rather than logic" — Rules for Righties — a War-Winning Manifesto for 2017. He continues explaining what boils down to a debased form of Bulverism:
    [T]hey’ll almost never engage with us on detail, preferring simply to use what Vox Day calls “point and shriek” tactics, or to try to belittle and demean us with emotive (but meaningless) pejoratives like “racist”, “homophobe”, “misogynist”, “Islamophobe”, “climate change denier.”
Knowing how the enemy thinks, or attempts to think, is the first step in defeating it. But let us close with Mr. Delingpole's reminder to be charitable:
    People on the liberal-left are just like us, really, only slightly less evolved. Their brains are stuck in that stage of evolution just before ours – the hunter-gatherer stage when we were all roaming the plains and were programmed to respond in the most basic way to our most primal instincts.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share


Post a Comment

<< Home