If you criticize the views of woke Social justice Activists they'll attack your motivations and imply that you're not being honest about your true motives. The goal is to make the audience suspicious of your intentions so they won't trust you or believe anything you say.
1/
One of the most common tricks used by woke Social Justice activists to defend their view is to de-legitimize criticism by attacking the motives of the person who is opposing them. The goal is to undercut the moral authority and social standing of anyone who disagrees with them
If you criticize the views of woke Social justice Activists they'll attack your motivations and imply that you're not being honest about your true motives. The goal is to make the audience suspicious of your intentions so they won't trust you or believe anything you say.
By attacking your motives the woke activists can both discredit you while getting the audience to raise their level of skepticism toward you. This tactic is sometime referred to as "poisoning the well."
It is a dirty tactic, but it is effective.
Here @BrandonLBradfor attempts to smear Conservative Black thinkers by claiming the reason the Right listens to conservative blacks is to assuage their own insecurity. The implication is people don't really care about the ideas of conservative blacks, they just use them...
This implies that the ideas of conservative blacks are not worth listening too, and that even if conservative blacks had good ideas, nobody would care any way. This is the sort of pure cynicism that typifies Wokeness.
Here Joshua Harrington-Sealy uses critical race theory to say that certain lawyers objections to a Statement Of Principles (SOP) was a show, and that he can use Critical Race Theory to explain that is was *REALLY* about regressive politics, not principles.
Note that Mr. Sealy implies that the reasons people claimed to be agains the SOP are just a show, and he needs to pull back the curtain and tell you what everyone's *REAL* motives are.
Again, pure cynicism.
Here @kkdumez implies someone negatively reviewed her book in order to trivialize her scholarship because she's a woman. All of the reviewers objections to her book are just layers of nonsense that need to be cut through so you can see the real motivating force: sexism.
Woke activists do not want to win by defeating you intellectually, they want to win by tearing you down socially.
The goal is to destroy your credibility and make it look like you're hiding something and not being upfront with the audience.
It's a disgusting tactic.
Do not try to diffuse this tactic by insisting that you're honest. That turns the conversation from an intellectual discussion about facts and ideas into a referendum on your character. That's what woke activists want, don't fall into that trap. There's a better solution...
The right move is to make it obvious they're using a smear tactic. Simply saying "you're not using arguments you're just attacking my motives" is much more effective then trying to defend yourself because it makes the smear tactic obvious so people don't get taken in by it.
If you make it painfully obvious that the other person is using a smear tactic, refuse to react with anger or insults and direct the conversation back to the arguments and the facts, you can diffuse the smear while increasing your credibility with the audience.
Here is an excellent explanation of the principle explained perfectly by Jordan Peterson. He explains exactly how to respond to attacks from people. This is really excellent.
Because woke activists are very concerned with social power you can expect them to try to win debates or have their ideas win the day by using social power to enforce their view. That's not how we want to go about things. I've messed up in this area and had to apologize...
More from Wokal Distance
1/
Time to talk Trumpers.
This is Cori Bush's bill to expel from congress anyone who supported election challenges yesterday.
Yesterday was Jan 6.
The bill is dated Jan 5.
*SHE KNEW YOU WOULD PROTEST, LOSE CONTROL, AND GET VIOLENT. AND SHE HAD A BILL READY FOR WHEN YOU DID*
2/
You guys are going to take the "L" here and quite frankly you deserve it. Cori Bush is going to eat your lunch every day until Biden is inaugurated and there isn't a thing you can do about it.
So....
Let's talk about how to make sure this never, ever, happens again.
3/
How did Cori Bush know you guys were going to have problems and violence?
Because she was trained in the lefty protest movement. Lefty organizing are what she did for years, that's her area of expertise. So she knows just how quickly and easily protests go off the rails...
4/
She knew that this was likely planned by people who did not understand how easily protests go bad, and she knew there was a high likelihood of something going wrong.
Someone is going to say "They had people planted to make it go violent, it is not our fault..."
5/
So what?
Your job is to make sure your people behave, and that you have enough trained people to handle agitators looking to make trouble.
The left knows how to do this. The hold peaceful protests *WHEN THEY WANT TO*
Look at the Women's march, 2 million people, no violence
Time to talk Trumpers.
This is Cori Bush's bill to expel from congress anyone who supported election challenges yesterday.
Yesterday was Jan 6.
The bill is dated Jan 5.
*SHE KNEW YOU WOULD PROTEST, LOSE CONTROL, AND GET VIOLENT. AND SHE HAD A BILL READY FOR WHEN YOU DID*
I believe the Republican members of Congress who have incited this domestic terror attack through their attempts to overturn the election must face consequences. They have broken their sacred Oath of Office.
— Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) January 6, 2021
I will be introducing a resolution calling for their expulsion. pic.twitter.com/JMTlQ4IfnR
2/
You guys are going to take the "L" here and quite frankly you deserve it. Cori Bush is going to eat your lunch every day until Biden is inaugurated and there isn't a thing you can do about it.
So....
Let's talk about how to make sure this never, ever, happens again.
3/
How did Cori Bush know you guys were going to have problems and violence?
Because she was trained in the lefty protest movement. Lefty organizing are what she did for years, that's her area of expertise. So she knows just how quickly and easily protests go off the rails...
4/
She knew that this was likely planned by people who did not understand how easily protests go bad, and she knew there was a high likelihood of something going wrong.
Someone is going to say "They had people planted to make it go violent, it is not our fault..."
5/
So what?
Your job is to make sure your people behave, and that you have enough trained people to handle agitators looking to make trouble.
The left knows how to do this. The hold peaceful protests *WHEN THEY WANT TO*
Look at the Women's march, 2 million people, no violence
More from Society
1/ One year of destroyed economies, social isolation & deep social splits calls for an anniversary ⬇️thread ⬇️ to celebrate the RT-qPCR manuscript by Christian Drosten (@c_drosten) & Victor Corman (@vmcorman), submitted on 21st Jan 2020 to @Eurosurveillanc. #UnbiasedScience
2/ Before this very publication, virologists were neither treated like superstars, nor were they considered icons or half-gods. In 2009, Drosten almost succeeded in installing the false premise virology could supersede holistic medical sciences as discussed in this thread.
3/ Drosten is a virologist. He neither has any background in epidemiology, nor has he ever worked in the civil service. He also doesn’t have a background in public health. Yet he and his colleagues affect our daily lives to the level of whom to meet up or how to flush the toilet.
4/ Before January 2020, Drosten and Corman were common virologists at Charité Berlin, whenever they were not involved in economic implications (https://t.co/UTDwG8U7Du). Other than that, they looked at coronaviruses in dromedary calves in the Middle East or Africa. 😍 #cute
5/ Finally in Jan 2020, the published paper laid the theoretical grounds for the current pandemic, the RT-qPCR mass testing-religion, for which he was awarded his second German Federal Cross of Merit (he received the first one in 2005 for developing the SARS-CoV PCR test).
2/ Before this very publication, virologists were neither treated like superstars, nor were they considered icons or half-gods. In 2009, Drosten almost succeeded in installing the false premise virology could supersede holistic medical sciences as discussed in this thread.
3/ Drosten is a virologist. He neither has any background in epidemiology, nor has he ever worked in the civil service. He also doesn’t have a background in public health. Yet he and his colleagues affect our daily lives to the level of whom to meet up or how to flush the toilet.
4/ Before January 2020, Drosten and Corman were common virologists at Charité Berlin, whenever they were not involved in economic implications (https://t.co/UTDwG8U7Du). Other than that, they looked at coronaviruses in dromedary calves in the Middle East or Africa. 😍 #cute
5/ Finally in Jan 2020, the published paper laid the theoretical grounds for the current pandemic, the RT-qPCR mass testing-religion, for which he was awarded his second German Federal Cross of Merit (he received the first one in 2005 for developing the SARS-CoV PCR test).
