[Vision2020] Neo-Confederate argumentation tactics, as given exposition by Mr. Johnson/How not to respond

[Edward Sebesta]

One of the first thing you need to learn about people who I call
Neo-Confederates is their tactics in their responses to their exposure.
I would call it the rhetoric of distraction.

Mr. Rodney Johnson's recent posting is a classic.

It doesn't actually discuss the substance/issues of the Quinlan/Ramsey
piece. It is a very cleaver piece of distraction. It is meant to provoke
and distract from the substance of the Quinlan/Ramsey piece by dragging
in all sorts of issues.  It is interlaced with personal attacks on the
opposition attempting to stereotype them. It makes many assertions based
on nothing.  

The tactical goal is to engage the opposition with these irrelevant
issues thus forgetting the substance of the Quinlan/Ramsey piece.
However, the most important tactical goal of a posting like this, is
that it allows the Neo-Confederates to set the opposition's agenda, by
having the opposition reduced to reacting to the Neo-Confederate
assertions. The more outrageous and colorful the Neo-Confederate claim
the better, for it is likely to provoke an opponent to just react. Also,
if you can engage the opposition in debating these really ridiculous
claims, the opposition is harnessed to give them credibility. 

I saw from the "Daily News" that someone actually spoke up against the
"boring" claim at the Townhall. Debating this, is to fall for their
tactic hook, line, and sinker.

The Johnson piece is brilliant in the sense of psyching out the
opposition. It starts on the topic of the Quinlan/Ramsey paper, but
doesn't discuss the issues, but focuses on slandering the authors, the
university, and for a real good touch, makes some claim that it is a
violation of a civil rights act. Thus they set themselves up as a
victim. 

Then it veers off to general complaints about their opposition, heavily
loaded with painting negative pictures of their opposition. It also
builds up victimization. It tries to portray the opposition as snobs and
intolerant. 

The simple fact is that in a society where you have free speech, you can
publically speak your mind no matter how nasty your views. However,
other people may want to use their free speech rights and say, "your
views are nasty." 

When you are unwilling to defend in public your beliefs, the tactic is
to drag in as many irrelevancies as possible, and get the public
conversation shifted to these irrelevancies, thus avoiding having to
discuss the issues. Cultivating your own victimization is the greatest
way to distract the public discussion from your views. 


HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THESE TYPES OF NEO-CONFEDERATE ARGUMENTS

1. You can consider just not responding. Keep on your topic. Discuss the
facts. This to a large extent defeats the purpose. 

2. Don't react to an argument. Consider what the tactics are, don't fall
for them. Speak to the tactics employed, but not to the numerous things
they throw up. 

Ed Sebesta