Pseudo-intellectual Pricks
He’s most likely educated, possibly a master’s degree in rhetoric. He could be a new atheist, possibly libertarian, most likely white. If you can’t smell his smugness, you can recognize him by the following tropes below.
Next time they use one of these on you, don’t waste your time. Copy and paste. Let them know they’re stereotyped.
The guy who’s always making that bigoted comment on your thread, and always ends with, “Let’s agree to disagree.” He may follow up with a disingenuous attempt at finding common ground.
Example: I’m just saying, that if poor people worked harder, they wouldn’t have to depend on the government. You obviously don’t think so. No need to get upset. Let’s just agree to disagree. We can certainly find common ground with the fact that there are definitely some poor people that work very hard.
More indignant than the smug pacifist, he feels you’re taking away his right to have an opinion.
Example: I’m allowed to have an opinion about homosexuality. I’m allowed to express my beliefs. I’m allowed to disagree without being attacked.
The Anecdotally Privileged
He’s white (and male) and he’s right. No matter what your experience is, his experience trumps it.
Example: Well, I lived in New York City for three years and the NYPD has always treated me with respect.
He responds with the old shock and awe routine about being misunderstood.
Example: You know who I am. I’m not a bad person. How can you call me a sexist?
He married into oppression (or is friends with the oppressed or spent time working among the oppressed), so now his opinion should have gravitas.
Example: My wife’s family is Mexican, and they also think illegal immigrants should be deported.
He indirectly insults your racial, gender, sexual identity, spiritual beliefs, or simply your intelligence. When you call him out on his bigotry, he is (huff huff) insulted. Then he plays the “call for civility.”
Example: I haven’t called you any names, but you called me a bigot. If you want to persuade people, you need to treat people with civility.
His go-to is the ad hominem. When you point out that he may not understand a racial problem because he’s white, he screams, “ad hominem!” and runs around with his underwear on his head. Another favorite is the straw man, where he claims you’ve ignored his real argument and are attacking an incorrect version of his argument.
Example: You’ve misunderstood my main point. I was talking about the prison industrial complex, not racism. Straw man!
The Claim of Ignorance/Innocence
He claims that he’s confused about your opinion on a personal matter and wants to discuss it. Don’t be fooled. He knows exactly what he wants to say and is trying to lead you down a path where he can claim you’ve made a logical fallacy. Then he will claim innocence again—that he was simply trying to have a discussion. He will call for civility. You can’t win.
Example: I’m confused. It’s just not natural to be with someone of the same sex.
He is calm, collected, and detached. He understands reason and logic. If you make it personal or emotional, that’s it. Conversation over.
Example: Simply put, I fail to see the logic of religion. All religions are the opiate of the masses. But there is one religion that kills people if you disagree with them. And that’s Islam. You don’t see Buddhist bombers, do you? Well, if you’re going to become emotional, then we can’t have this conversation.
He can view the situation from a neutral point of view, implying you cannot. Sure, he understands your POV. Because he’s neutral and wiser than you, he also understands the other side. Because of this ability to discern such (literally) black and white issues with no partiality, he is a better judge than you are.
Example: I followed the entire George Zimmerman case and listened to all the evidence presented. Though I find it all tragic, I have to agree with the jurors. You might have anecdotal evidence about racism in the law, but the law is the law.
gummygunk
dededos
annaxmalina
pixelskylines
titsay
