Winning arguments at

Here are some general principles to consider when constructing winning arguments at

1) The truth or falsehood of one's arguments, and the wisdom or folly of one's policy recommendations, are really only secondary considerations. (Sure, there is plenty of logical argument at -- when the right people are allowed to use it toward approved ends. See below.) What's important to constructing a winning argument is the degree to which one loves or hates Barack Obama. One must love Barack Obama to a particular degree to gain affinity with a particular subculture within Everything else goes under the heading of "supporting assertion." One's position on Barack Obama defines one's status within the overall tribal foreign relations that pervades the site, as tribal foreign relations have pervaded human society from its beginnings 200,000 years ago -- see e.g. Kees van der Pijl's Nomads, Empires, States for further elaboration.

2) Only certain people are allowed to make certain arguments. Since the merits of an argument per se are not important, what really matters is the identity of the arguer. Kosers believe that real truths can only be told by the correctly-positioned, before whom everyone should either shut up or applaud. People they dislike are judged as being incapable of saying anything correct.

3) Gaining general participation in a movement to improve the global state of affairs is approved-of at, but the actual nuts-and-bolts of proactive organizing for a better world are regarded as unimportant by many participants, or as a problem which has already been solved. What's important in gaining crowd favor is that all arguments be personalized -- we could have a better world except for the fact that Person X has a character flaw, and so all of our energies should be devoted to ostracizing Person X, those like him or her, and those who have associated with him or her at any time in their lives.

4) Politeness is generally regarded as more important than truth or wisdom, but one may be impolite to the degree to which one is generally regarded by the community as a whole as being righteous.

5) "Reading" at places great emphasis upon "hot button" words. One can invite an extensive pie-fight to one's diary by combining policy arguments using intermediate-level logic with strategically-placed "hot button" words. Pie-fighting is the essence of participation at, unless one has framed one's topic in a way which elicits general agreement across the spectrum of participating 'liberal Democrats." To write a consensus diary, start with home-run arguments ("murder is bad," or something nondirective of that sort) and add specificity sparingly, avoiding minefields as you go.

6) Actual political aims will be taken seriously to the extent that they conform to the bounds of "realism" (petition Congress, or the President, or do campaign work), or that they personalize the self-proclaimed identity of the proclaimer of said aims ("I am a progressive," "I am a socialist," and so on).   What matters for some is "what you do" -- though actual production of a positive outcome for world-society and planet Earth remains as out-of-reach as it ever was.





Your rating: None Average: 3 (5 votes)