Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03



    From Keith Burgess-Jackson, in April 2010 (hey, I just saw it, but it’s timeless):

    Two comments on the Tea Party movement. First, progressives refer to its members as angry. This is an attempt to replace a cognitive state (belief) with an affective state (anger), and thereby to diminish the movement. The label makes it seem as though Tea Partiers aren’t thinking; they’re merely feeling. Progressives are notorious for being emoters, so this is likely a case of projection. Second, it’s very important for progressives that the Tea Partiers not represent a broad-based movement for limited government, for that would spell trouble for social engineers and wealth spreaders. They must make it seem as though it is nothing more than a group of racists or Obama-haters.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    raven | June 25, 2012 at 7:47 am

    It’s about more than the Tea Party. The Tea Party, coming along at the long-awaited moment of Leftist emergence into mainstream power, simply focused their rage and pathological projection. But it’s a theme or dynamic seen throughout the history of the Left: that is, the characterization of all ideological opposition as irrational, illegitimate, subhuman, unworthy of existence. It is a sweeping and necessary dehumanization–necessary to their moral superiority and insecurity. George Bush was retarded and evil (at the same time), Sarah Palin a hick monster and mother of deformed children, Ronald Reagan a moronic ogre. It becomes worse as the threat becomes greater. This is why you see the degeneration of Bill Maher’s slurs: now he asserts that conservatism is not even an ideology but a facade for subhumans to act out. They’re in panic mode now — Obama was their big chance, and they needed eight years from him to lay waste and establish dominion.

    But, in general, if the Left were to admit that conservatism was legitimate, it would open the possibility that their own ideology was not perfect and insuperable. Once that happened, the house of cards would collapse.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to raven. | June 25, 2012 at 11:32 am

      In other words, a primary Alinsky tactic, and the standard progressive/liberal response to opposition, is the ad hominem fallacy of logic. Demonize the messenger.

      In close second is the straw man argument, the practice of misrepresenting your opponents’ argument, changing it into something you can actually refute.

      Third is the ad populum fallacy of logic, where you appeal to (fake) numbers of people who believe as liberals believe: “all professional economists say” or “all serious environmentalist agree”. It is never true (“all”), but even if it were, it is entirely possible for all of any group to be totally wrong. Truth is not a democracy; proof of an assertion is in the evidence for it, not in how many people believe the assertion. If truth were determined by how many believe a thing, what’s the cut-off number? If 999 people believe it, it’s not considered truth yet, but if 1,000 believe it, by God, it’s true? No, a single person with the proving facts beats out a million experts who share an opinion.

      punfundit in reply to raven. | June 25, 2012 at 4:52 pm

      “If the Left were to admit that conservatism was legitimate, it would open the possibility that their own ideology was not perfect and insuperable…”

      You nailed it. The left can permit ZERO alternative thought. They must instill and enforce in the mass mind The One True Faith of eternal social friction healed by collective salvation at the hands of an enlightened few. Thus, butcher the infidel.

    Henry Hawkins | June 25, 2012 at 11:45 am

    One of the things I appreciate most about this blog and WAJ is how he is careful to recognize he may be wrong, and a general theme of devil’s advocacy as a bulwark against fooling one’s self. He is an attorney and an educator, but this trait is pure scientific philosophy. This said in preamble to the most inportant logical fallacy for those who value truth:

    The Fallacist’s Fallacy – Just because one has refuted an opponent’s argument by identifying the logical fallacy(ies) employed to support it, this doesn’t mean the opponent’s assertion is wrong. It only means his/her manner of argument has been negated – they could be accidentally correct. Refuting the basic assertion then requires its own set of logical argument(s).

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend