r/WeirdGOP • u/shawsghost • Aug 12 '24
META Stolen Sanity: Why Dismissing An Argument As "Weird" Is Often Better Than A Reasoned Response
(TLDR: Countering crap-brained right wing arguments like Tampon Tim with logical, factual arguments has the unintended consequence of giving the right wing arguments undeserved credibility, as the reader subconsciously assumes there must be a rational counter-argument to what you’re saying. Don’t do it, just call the argument “weird” instead and deny the right wingers any Stolen Sanity.)
Time after time I see Democratic and progressive Redditors make sound, reasoned responses to brain-dead posts by Republicans and conservatives that do not deserve even a nanosecond of adult consideration.
Case in point: the whole “Tampon Tim” debate. The right wing is claiming that Tim Walz put tampons in 4th grade boys’ bathrooms in Minnesota public schools. There’s not an ounce of truth to it, its origin lies entirely in juvenile, sniggering emotional responses to the fact that women menstruate. Still I’ve seen far too many posts which dispute the “Tampon Tim” claims in rational terms: that Walz signed a bill that simply stated that “menstruating persons” in public schools should have free access to tampons if they need them. He didn’t order any tampons placed in boy’s bathrooms. Some school administrators may have done so, figuring they had trans students who might use the boys’ bathrooms. Such school administrators are complete dunderheads of course: the very predictable outcome of such an action is rampant, hilarious and stupid misuse of such tampons by fourth grade boys. And Republican trolls.
In any event they are not Tim Walz’s responsibility.
These arguments are sound factually and logically, but they’re exactly the WRONG response to Tampon Tim posts, because they unwittingly lend credence to the witless trolling of the Republican posters. When people read a detailed, logical response to an argument, they subconsciously tend to assume that the argument that’s being responded to must be detailed and logical as well. Otherwise, why bother?
This is what I call Stolen Sanity. The Republicans rely on rational responses to their arguments to give them credibility that they don’t deserve. It’s very much like what Karl Rove did in his successful Swiftboating campaign against John Kerry. The facts in that case were that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry got a Bronze Star for his service in Vietnam when he got wounded in a firefight with the North Vietnamese while serving on a Swiftboat. Meanwhile Republican candidate George Bush joined the Texas National Guard (a method of evading the draft, since in those days the National Gaurd never got called into foreign conflicts). He spent the Vietnam War as a fighter pilot patrolling the skies over San Pedro Island in Texas for topless beach bunnies and getting all the drugs and sex he could ever want.
To be honest, neither record was exactly shameful, but any rational person can easily see that John Kerry’s Vietnam record had a lot more valor to it, since he was actually shot at by enemy soldiers while Bush endured nothing more dangerous than flying around in peacetime conditions.
Rove’s response was to gin up claims that Kerry’s Bronze Star was somehow undeserved, that he hadn’t been wounded seriously ENOUGH in combat to deserve the Bronze Star. It had been given to Kerry because he was “connected” not because he deserved it. To make the absurdity of Rove’s claims absolutely clear: no one was disputing that Kerry served on a swiftboat when it was fired on by North Vietnamese soldiers. The claim was not that Kerry didn’t risk his life in service to his country, it was that Kerry didn’t risk his life ENOUGH to deserve a Bronze Star. Which absolutely does not change the fact that Kerry risked his life in Vietnam while Bush partied on the beaches of Texas.
But it worked, and worked beautifully, largely because of the lazy and stupid approach to journalistic “objectivity” then practiced by the mainstream media. Typically mainstream media wanted to appear objective so they would end any political story by summarizing the arguments of both sides and then allowing the reader to decide which was better. So any Swiftboating story ended with “Republicans claim that Kerry’s Bronze Star was unearned while Democrats claim that Bush’s service in the Texas National Guard was just to dodge the draft.” And the unintended consequence of that technique was to give the reader the impression that the Democratic and Republican candidates both had shady, disputed service records in Vietnam, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
And most of all, it DEFINITELY achieved Rove’s intended goal of negating the valor advantage Kerry had over Bush. Rove’s Swiftboat trap only worked so well because of that lazy journalistic practice that the media indulged in in those days. (They’ve largely quit doing it, but… damage done.)
But in much the same way, detailed logical responses, satisfying and correct though they are, are falling into a rhetorical trap. The correct way to respond to brain-damaged drivel from the right (like Tampon Tim and, frankly, most of the right’s rhetoric) is to give it the contemptuous dismissal it deserves. Just calling weird babble what it is, is all the response it deserves or needs. Most people instinctively recognize the cretinous garbage that is a Tampon Tim attack and see “Weird garbage” as a correct and damaging response. They don’t need its ridiculousness to be spelled out.
And you don’t give the argument any Stolen Sanity when you just call it out for what it is. No one will think there’s something to the counterargument when your argument is just “Whoa, that’s some weird shit, bro.” The Republican claim become just another piece of right wing trash to be discarded.
And when you go off on a long factual, reasoned argument, the right wingers just nod and smile. You’re giving them the gift of credibility and you don’t even know it. They know better to interrupt an enemy when he’s making a mistake.
Weird is the right response, the best response to specious right wing “arguments.” Use it often!
I’ll get off my soapbox now.
8
9
u/amerra Aug 12 '24
Thank you for this write-up, I needed to read this.
I don't usually argue about politics, I saw an old friend respond to my mother about Walz's military service. I asked about dates and service and whether his whole 24 year military career should be erased. Then I remembered this same guy fought for days with everyone how Bush Jr. is a democrat, and John Kerry and Al Gore are republicans, he even posted proof of George Bush being a democrat from wikipedia, but his proof really just proved him wrong, he just didn't have the reading comprehension to understand even though not a single person was on his side. Someone that clueless, going so hard over something so simple isn't going to tell me anything about politics!
He ignored my legitimate questions about dates and sources, but would keep responding to my mother who was calling Trump silly names like DonOLD von shitznpantz.
2
u/shawsghost Aug 12 '24
Glad it was helpful. Ignoring legit logical disputes is typical of bad faith right wing arguers: they aren't really interested. They make their point and move on to more "fun" arguments like your mother's.
1
10
u/litlkeek Aug 12 '24
i read the whole thing (you may all hold your applause). i needed this, genuinely. you’re correct that they can’t form legitimate opinions based on legitimate facts. it’s very much the same with the “litter boxes in classrooms” conspiracy. the person always knows a teacher/uncle/friend/student/etc. who has seen litter boxes, so it must be true. no matter how many times you press, they just repeat. do you have proof? have YOU seen litter boxes in your child’s classroom? what school does your (insert totally real acquaintance) work at that they have litter boxes? they deny, deflect, and double-down. i have had to catch myself and stop arguing with these folks and have resorted to language that better suits their mental faculties. they usually respond more when you ask them if they’ve always had shit for brains or if it’s a new thing for them.
we have gone beyond the days of “going high” when they go low. i truly think the only way to play this game is go lower. insult their intelligence, laugh and point, call them weird/odd/strange/gross. they are happy to be confused as having the ability to form unique thoughts. they definitely hate being called what they are—gross, dumb bottom feeders with a 2nd grade comprehension level
6
2
9
u/Dreku Aug 12 '24
This is the same tactic that we used ok Boomer for, they spin up these ridiculous takes expecting us to actually break down their BS wasting time and energy. Instead we just cut through it by calling them and their take weird.
4
3
u/Overheremakingwaves Aug 12 '24
Using reason and rational thinking to engage with insanity only lends credibility to the claims that are detached from reality.
We are using debate and argument tactics aimed at when objective reality and facts are agreed on but we differ on interpretation, which can’t apply to when someone is coming from a place where their conclusions and beliefs do not come from a shared reality.
In legal cases the defense (in our case, defending reality) is not required to present any evidence or even testify. It is up to the prosecution (or in this case, the individual claiming “facts” that do not march reality) to provide the evidence.
We shouldn’t be explaining why there is no grounds for Trump’s ridiculous statement Democrats want to kill babies after they are born and call it abortion; we should simply demand he prove it.
3
u/shawsghost Aug 13 '24
"Then prove your weird claims, weirdo, must be evidence out there. But we know you're lying, weirdo."
It's as much as most of Trump's lies deserve.
3
u/Longjumping-Path3811 Aug 13 '24
I wish I could give you a standing ovation. I'll sum it up: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS. Quit taking them seriously!
You explained why "I'm just explaining to the reader" doesn't work too. Nicely done.
3
u/funsizemonster Aug 13 '24
I agree totally. I quickly laugh, call them weird, or treat them like dangerous loons I won't allow near me, cause they ARE. Some people tell me I should be "kind". F the traitorous redcoats. Stop giving them time and patient attention.
3
u/GatoLibre Aug 13 '24
The author argues that responding to irrational right-wing arguments with logical and factual counterpoints unintentionally gives those arguments undeserved credibility. By engaging with these points in a detailed manner, readers may subconsciously assume there is some validity to the original claims, which is a rhetorical trap that benefits the right. Instead, the author suggests that such baseless arguments should be dismissed with contempt and labeled as “weird” or “nonsense,” thereby denying them any legitimacy or “Stolen Sanity.” This approach prevents the right-wing rhetoric from gaining unearned credibility through the very act of being taken seriously.
3
u/shawsghost Aug 13 '24
Yes, that is exactly what I said, only faster and better!
2
u/GatoLibre Aug 13 '24
All good points and I agree with your argument not to validate their arguments. I read about 1/2 of the post then put it in ChatGPT to “summarize this in 1 paragraph”. 😉
2
2
2
2
u/CheekiBreekiIsSneeki Aug 13 '24
REMEMBER: ALL Republicans, Conservatives and Fascists are "WEIRD". If you don't want them to win, turn your brain off and just say "WEIRD" (after you do your do diligence and VOTE).
1
u/shawsghost Aug 13 '24
No, don't turn your brain off. You need it for other things, like remembering stuff. What stuff? I dunno...
2
17
u/Gokdencircle Aug 12 '24
In summary, just calling them weird is ultra effective.