Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Friday, March 23, 2007

Sean... The Montage Is Coming

Be on the look out for a Sean montage coming to a YouTube near you.


Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...

Focus, Sean! Focus!

WSUCollegeRepublican said...

Why can't liberals and the ultra-left debate us on our topic. Why do they always have to go off and talk about feelings and emotions? What is wrong with learning english and functioning in society. You can speak any language you want... but you need to learn english to function. How would you function in college without it? We are tired of getting that race card pulled.

Paul E. Zimmerman, M.A. said...


Andrew Wilkow of the Patriot channel on Sirius has a great explanation of this: it's called the "proxy argument."

Leftists know that their arguments, stated rationally, are absurd. To avoid having to concede this (i.e. lose), they engage in distracting arguments. If you argue with them over border security, they bring up race. If you argue with them over language standards, they bring up Ireland (hahaha... couldn't resist). That way, instead of arguing the issues, they attempt to argue you - they try to cast your position in terms of something socially undesirable, such as racism, and then attempt to force you to defend yourself against that accusation instead of answering your real arguments. For example:

You: "We need to establish a secure border."

Your opponent disagrees and wants a wide-open border that just anyone can cross. Everyone knows why that's just a stupid idea. But instead of saying that, they say...

Them: "If we do that, some children will be separated from their parents, so you want to punish children! You're against families!"

It's all they can do, because what they really want would be rejected by the majority of Americans.

Tom Forbes said...

Vox Day summarized it at World Net Daily:

How to Argue Like a Liberal:

1. Make an untrue statement, preferably on the subject of something about which you know nothing.

2. Express astonishment that your source could possibly be inaccurate.

3. Demand what motivation your source would have to lie.

4. Assert that the other party's inability to articulate this motivation is tantamount to proof that your source is not lying.

5. Question the motivation of the contrary source.

6. Argue that all sources are equal and that therefore the contrary source is irrelevant.

7. Change the subject.

Alternatively ...

1. Make an untrue statement.

2. Deny that you said what you said.

3. Deny that the other party understood what you said.

4. Deny that the words you used mean what the other party claims they mean.

5. Redefine your definition and hope the other person forgets the previous one. Repeat as needed.

6. Assert that since definitions are irrelevant and subjective, the other person is mean-spirited, racist, sexist, intolerant and obsessive.

7. Change the subject.

Scotty said...

From cougster.com's staff pay list.

GALLEGOS,SEAN MICHAEL Academic Coordinator $2,916.00