Swatting Leftists in 6 Easy Steps: Part One – Read and Prepare

TMR’s special on swatting leftists begins in earnest with Part One: Read and Prepare. In case you missed the foreword, it’s here.

For obvious reasons (to non-leftists), reading and preparing are arguably the most important things you can do when it comes to debating – and you need to get started on both of them long before you go leftie hunting.

Reading without preparing is similar to having ‘strategy without tactics’ (i.e. the slowest route to victory) – a principle often attributed to Sun Tzu. Preparing without reading on the other hand would make you a leftist.

It feels a bit silly recommending obvious things like ‘reading’. However, the simple fact is that people simply do not read stuff, let alone the stuff they’re going to mouth-off to other people on. Given that we’re supposed to be experiencing the ‘age of information’, it amazes me how little interest people actually have in helping themselves to some of it. I guess some things will never change – which creates a big opportunity when it comes to the next self-righteous leftist that comes preaching your way.

By reading and preparing, I don’t mean cram a few articles just before a debate like a university student does to pass an exam. I also don’t mean read The Sydney Morning Herald every day (and nothing else) and then call yourself ‘informed’. If all you do is watch either or both Sunrise and the 6.00 nightly news, then please stop reading here. This article is not for you. I think Millionaire Hotseat might be on. Off you go.

When it comes to reading, I mean:

  • stop scrolling through your social media ‘news’ feeds and informing yourself about what people (who you don’t even make the time to see anymore) ate for dinner last night;
  • read, re-read, watch videos, listen to radio shows and podcasts and any other forms of media you can sensibly learn from – and immerse yourself in a wide variety of opinions (including some phenomenally moronic ones) on whatever it is you are going to have a debate on; and
  • check and re-check the opinions by looking up basic and non-negotiable facts on the topic.

On top of these things, you must also:

  • understand how leftists form their opinions and narratives and read their poorly hidden and shamelessly artificial ‘winning methods‘; and

From there, you will need to refine your thoughts, form your own opinion and challenge it wherever you can. Know the absolute facts and take a logical position on the inevitable grey areas.

So, to summarise:

  • Reading – absorb as much relevant information from other people and sources as you can.
  • Preparing – organise and refine your thoughts on that material in a sensible fashion (this is also known as ‘thinking’). For extra brownie points, try committing your thoughts to writing and put them out there for others to read.

As a non-leftist, if you’re not intimately familiar with the material in question, then there’s a good chance that you’re going to have a bad time. This is because if two uninformed people are shooting from the hip, the one signalling the most apparent virtue will win by default – and all uninformed observers will be much the poorer for the experience. You must avoid this at all costs. It is a leftist’s natural advantage and it can only be countered with facts and logic, delivered in an entertaining and persuasive manner.

As for Doctor Peterson (video re-produced below), he has clearly spent a his whole career researching and understanding the psychological differences between men and women and the reasons why there is an aggregate pay gap between them. He also knows that the reasons for the gap are numerous and have little to do with ‘the patriarchy’ or simply gender by itself [TMR: otherwise the gap would be a lot larger among other things]. Examples include:

  • choice of job – spoiler alert: men and women prefer different types of jobs and some jobs pay more than others (it’s ok, I’ll wait for you to recover…);
  • choice of lifestyle – I’ve heard that women have children every now and then and some of the crazier ones like to stay home and look after them;
  • agreeableness… the list goes on.

As for Newman, she isn’t able to move beyond the raw, aggregate figure of the 9% ‘pay gap’. To her, this means something and everything of itself. So while Doctor Peterson is armed with advanced weapons (e.g. at 6:00 ‘if you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a uni-variate analysis’), Newman has little more than sticks to throw back in return.

NB: I have noticed some people claiming that the study giving rise to the 9% pay gap figure was a proper multivariate analysis. This is horsesh… I mean, completely untrue. To be fair though, it was more advanced on the topic than Cathy Newman.

As for the debate between Newman and Doctor Peterson, the whole affair quickly becomes farcical by the time Peterson makes the obvious point that equality should only ever be in opportunity, not outcome (see 12:30 on) – to which Newman pitifully retorts with the following diet-piffle:

  • At 15:43 on:

Doctor Peterson: I said that equal outcomes aren’t desirable. That’s what I said. It’s a bad social call. I didn’t say that women shouldn’t be striving for the top or anything like that, because I don’t believe that for a second.

Newman: Striving for the top – but you’re going to put all those hurdles in their way, as has been in their way for centuries! And that’s fine, you’re saying that’s fine!

Doctor Peterson: (Smiling) No, no.

Newman: The patriarchal system is just fine!

Doctor Peterson: I really think that’s silly. I do. I think that’s silly. I really do. I mean look at your situation. You’re hardly unsuccessful.

Newman: Yeah, and I have battled quite hard to get where I’ve got to.

[TMR: Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you… Oxford’s ‘first’ in English!!!]

Doctor Peterson: Exactly! Good for you!

Newman: So that’s ok? Battling is good? This is all about the fight?’

Doctor Peterson: (Smiling) It’s inevitable!

Newman: But you talk about men and fighting. Let me just put another thing to you…

Doctor Peterson: Why wouldn’t you have to battle for a high quality position?’

(Sound of crickets chirping)

  • At 17:30 on:

Newman: Well here’s a radical idea, why don’t the bosses adopt – the male bosses shall we say – adopt some female traits, so that women don’t have to have to fight and get their sharp elbows out for the pay rises, it’s just accepted that if they’re doing the same job they get the same pay?

Doctor Peterson: I would say partly because it’s not so easy to determine what constitutes the same job.

Touche Doctor Peterson.

As for the rest of you, get reading…

Next up: Part Two – Get Comfortable.

This entry was posted in Politics of the Left and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Swatting Leftists in 6 Easy Steps: Part One – Read and Prepare

  1. Caviar

    Someone very intelligent once pointed out that if you know your opponent’s position better than them then you will never lose a debate…

    HOWEVER, that assumes your opponent is arguing in good faith. You have to understand that if you are arguing dialectically and your opponent is throwing rhetoric then no amount of facts and reason will win. You have to fight on emotion to win. This is how Trump won. Rather than taking the high ground and losing like every Republican he got down and dirty and beat the leftists at their own game.

  2. Boambee John

    “Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man.” – Francis Bacon quotes from BrainyQuote.com.

  3. stackja

    Don’t waste time with the MSM. The Cat is the place to go. Thank you for a good summary.

  4. stackja

    choice of job – spoiler alert: men and women prefer different types of jobs and some jobs pay more than others (it’s ok, I’ll wait for you to recover…);

    Men seem to monopolise plumbing. Why? Women seem to monopolise childbearing. Why? It is a mystery!

  5. Rafe Champion

    I think Trump played smart more than dirty. That is very different.
    His set speeches got to be very good by the end of his campaign. Not that the MSM would have noticed.

  6. MACK

    Indeed. As an example, ask your leftist friends what they think about those elements in the Trump tax package which involved reduction of tax deductibility of housing mortgage costs and state-level income taxes. Because they never read anything outside of Fairfax, the Guardian or the New York Times, not one of them will know anything about this rabidly socialist initiative.

  7. struth

    As a non-leftist, if you’re not intimately familiar with the material in question, then there’s a good chance that you’re going to have a bad time. This is because if two uninformed people are shooting from the hip, the one signalling the most apparent virtue will win by default – and all uninformed observers will be much the poorer for the experience. You must avoid this at all costs. It is a leftist’s natural advantage and it can only be countered with facts and logic, delivered in an entertaining and persuasive manner.

    This is not correct at all.
    I find this article useful and agree with it’s sentiments and yes it is good to know what you are talking about.

    But you are assuming the lefty does?
    You are assuming the lefty isn’t lying and yet his lips are moving.

    You are setting yourself up for a fall, because inevitably they will just lie.
    And if you are arguing in front of others, they won’t know what is the truth.
    What you are saying or what the lefty is.

    The other assumption that is wrong is that the lefty has the upper hand because they will fall back an SJW virtue signalling and emotion.

    Believe me, as someone who has spent a life time in Tourism dealing with raging lefties that I was not allowed to argue with, (my paying customers) and we were dealing with hot topics like aboriginies out in the bush, I know for a fact that their virtue signalling is their weakness and not their strength.

    You don’t need to know the subject that well (although it helps) because you are not going to be discussing facts.
    You are going to be discussing their emotional or “moral” stance on an issue, and this will be delivered via virtue signalling.
    You don’t need to know the subject that well.
    You need to know what makes lefties tick and you need to know them well.
    What they say through virtue signalling will always actually be racist, or hypocritical, envy ridden, full of hate, and with no concept of how wealth is created.
    You attack there.
    I couldn’t argue with anyone but I could ask how they came to that reason ing if this and this was the case.

    Look the best way to tackle a lefty is to be confident in your own ethics.
    To know you are right and you are dealing with flawed logic and lies.
    But their virtue signalling is an instant win for you, because you can analyse it for what it really is, always, collectivist, anti western dribble, and usually, because it is collectivist is highly racist, and hideous in it’s reality.
    You kick them where they really are at fault.
    In their dark hearts.
    They throw at you what you can easily win against, and that’s their virtue signalling.
    They never usually hear anyone arguing with them on that score and it’s exactly what is their whole existence and reason for breathing.
    Get them to virtue signal.
    Think about what they are actually saying, as it will always be racist, sexist etc.
    Be comfortable and secure in your righteousness and get stuck in.
    I learned to ask them hard questions as to why they thought that way, because I couldn’t argue with them, but get stuck straight into their black hearts, don’t worry too much about knowing all vthe facts because they will just lie about them.
    Hit them where it hurts.

  8. struth

    To win against a lefty all you really must do is truly believe that your politics is far more beneficial for the plight of the poor and downtrodden.
    Which it is.
    Never give them that moral high ground, as it is completely unearned and indeed anti – humanity.
    Never let them go there, because they have no right to it.

    Facts in an argument against lefties?
    Spare me.
    If lefties could be convinced of anything factual, they wouldn’t exist.
    Hit their black hearts.
    Entice out the virtue signaller.
    It’s their weakness, not their strength.
    In doing so, they expose their black hearts, and you have ’em.
    It’s actually good fun.

  9. struth

    Also, there are old chestnuts that will be thrown around that they love to bring up .
    I am a tradesman (diesel mechanic) and have never been to Uni.
    But I have travelled this entire country (again and again) and studied it’s history so as to teach others, it’s Flora and fauna, geology and taught ornithologists about birds, and all it’s aboriginal culture.
    I have dealt with and shown people from all over the world this country, and learned their ways, and have travelled extensively overseas myself.
    I have had a very broad education, as have many cats here, but the point being…………
    I don’t get put off by some wanker lefty who tells me “hey Struth, you don’t have to be scared of the educated” as they attempt to brush me off.
    That’s a bog standard line.
    You haven’t been educated, you’ve attended an institution and been institutionalised, is my response.
    Never back down, they have nothing.
    They wallow in their own ignorance and only mix with those that don’t threaten it.
    But they also, and I’ve always found it funny, have bog standard lines that are always good to know before they blurt them out.
    Has arguing facts with Monster done any good?
    I always attack him for what makes him come to his politics.
    His dark, envious heart.

  10. struth

    If I was Peterson, I would have just asked if she could show me examples of different rates of pay for the same job based on sex.

    I would then ask if she thinks management should be appointed or work their way up through the industry from the bottom, as to really understand it.
    Seeing that women don’t want equality in the workplace, just in the office, should those men that have worked their way up from the bottom, in the filthy hard industries women chose not to go in at entry level,
    be forced to stay down?

    Take for example interstate truck driving.
    Managers have often started at the bottom, greasing trucks and sweeping the workshop floor.
    Loading and tarping loads and doing pickups and drops around town, before getting up into the bigger trucks and heading interstate and eventually moving into the office.
    If women aren’t prepared to do that, why would they expect there to be an equal amount of management across the whole workforce?
    Isn’t it somewhat classism and elitist, and sexist to believe you should get the job because you have a management degree from The University of Marx and a pair of tits, instead of the poor guy from the poor side of town who is trying to better himself and has devoted his life to the industry?
    What have you got against people who aren’t privileged enough to get to university, working their way up through the ranks?
    Attack the virtue signalling .
    It is always either sexist, racist, elitist, or all of the above and more.
    Always , without fail.
    Hypocrisy is the left.

  11. Has arguing facts with Monster done any good?
    I always attack him for what makes him come to his politics.
    His dark, envious heart.

    I agree with this, Struth – arguing with facts always seems to be an uphill battle.

    However, Peterson succeeded with Newman because he refused to allow her to dictate the ground rules of the interview, and, of course, he could argue from the factual data, which she could not. His training and enormous experience in the clinical field as a psychologist also ensured his equanimity in the face of her attack.

    So, I’m not sure that trying to unmask Lefties is the only successful method. It’s just that you have to be damn good, like Peterson, to penetrate their emotional and ideological defence.

  12. min

    It is very difficult to argue facts with someone who is convinced what he knows are facts when it is only repeated opinion. One trick is to quote research such as Zhu et al 2015 found…. If they are ignorant enough blind them with science they won’t know what et al. means so go a head and you could even make up Who did research they arte not like.y to check it.

  13. Tom

    Beaut post, Marcus. Thank you.

    I especially like the explanation of Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals from the point of view of the civilisation they are designed to destroy.

  14. struth

    So, I’m not sure that trying to unmask Lefties is the only successful method. It’s just that you have to be damn good, like Peterson, to penetrate their emotional and ideological defence.

    Generally speaking, lefties aren’t going to be up against a Peterson.
    Just the likes of you and me.
    If you prove a lefty wrong on facts, it really isn’t that important to them, as long as they come away looking like they have the moral high ground.
    That’s all that’s important.
    “Even if what he said was right, and I doubt it, I just care so much about the plight of young women today and their self esteem”
    No you don’t.
    You don’t let them have the moral high ground.
    The “feelings”, because it is a lie, and we know it.
    That’s when they lose, and lose in the eyes of those witnessing the clash.
    You don’t have to be Peterson to take on a lefty.
    Just a moral, just person.
    You don’t have to be smart.
    Just a moral, just, decent person.
    You and I can’t argue with that bitch like Peterson did.
    They wouldn’t accept it from non “professors from a University”.
    But their emotions and ideology is flawed, and you don’t have to be smart.
    Just decent.
    If you go into it realising she is not very smart, because she has allowed her emotions to Trump clear rational thought (leftism) no matter how she appears, and full of emotional arguments that don’t stand up to decent morality and justice, than as long as you are doing this, you will win.
    And you will win.
    If you let them get the moral high ground, you lose , no matter the facts.
    I would argue that Peterson didn’t push hard enough on exposing her hypocrisy, sexism, and elitism.
    She still came away as dumb, but caring.
    She doesn’t give a shit about women in the workplace, the effects her policies have on the poor, and if that had been exposed clearly, he would have truly won.

  15. Confused Old Misfit

    Struth, I love yah!

  16. Boambee John

    struth at 1322

    Believe me, as someone who has spent a life time in Tourism dealing with raging lefties that I was not allowed to argue with, (my paying customers) and we were dealing with hot topics like aboriginies out in the bush, I know for a fact that their virtue signalling is their weakness and not their strength.

    I suspect that the aborigines involved in tourism have generally seen through the virtue signallers. During a tour in the NT some years ago, the aboriginal guides at East Alligator River and Katherine Gorge both made sly comments taking the urine out of virtue signalling left fascists.

    At Katherine Gorge, I looked across at the guide after one comment, he was wearing a broad smile, and gave me a wink.

  17. Mak Siccar

    This post – thank you marcus – and the comments so far – particular thanks to struth – have been most interesting, thoughtful and useful. Many thanks to all of you and I look forward to more of this so that I can effectively deal with the family lefties that I encounter from time to time. Thanks also to Sinc for this blog.

  18. struth

    I ‘d also like to say that I am not disagreeing with anything Marcus is saying.
    I think it’s a great subject to talk about (obviously).
    I think Marcus is great for posting this.
    I only point out that their virtue signalling is always, always flawed and there is never an exception to it.
    Never.

    This is because if two uninformed people are shooting from the hip, the one signalling the most apparent virtue will win by default

    I just don’t agree with this.
    Their virtue signalling is the key to bringing them down.
    Take it to them personally.
    They own their hypocritical, sexist, racist virtue signalling, and make sure they do.

  19. Watching that pompous feminist put words in Peterson’s mouth was irritating. I lost count of the times he had to check her, I didn’t say that, or that’s not what I am saying. He tries to be accommodating, and she walks all over him smirking. What a stupid bitch.

  20. classical_hero

    So what you are saying is that we become one?

    I couldn’t resist.

  21. Faceache

    I said to my highly educated son in law recently ” of course trickle down economics works otherwise my Centrelink dependent neighbours wouldn’t be driving a new car and going to Bali for a holiday and have all the mod cons that J D Rockefeller could only dream about.” He stared at me for a full 30 seconds and actually dribbled.

  22. HGS

    “Look the best way to tackle a lefty is to be confident in your own ethics.
    To know you are right and you are dealing with flawed logic and lies.”

    And this is all you ever need; because it is all you will ever have, that will ever work. Facts, they really don’t seem to matter anymore. No fact is self evident or non negotiable to too many people.

  23. JohnA

    Yes, a very informative article and thread.

    Would it help if we got past the jargon and unravelled the phrase “virtue signalling”?

    They (careful, because we need to maintain our personal respect for the individual we are facing) wish always to signal their virtue to the world as a demonstration of how much they “care” about the issue at hand.

    But as Marcus, struth and others have pointed out, they don’t really care because they have not studied the issue fully (sometimes not at all).

    So as well as having the facts to show that they don’t really know what they are talking about, we need to spear their hollow, fake virtue. They are not being virtuous, they are merely being political.

    The truly virtuous are the ones who get on with the arduous task of finding solutions, fixing the problem out of sight of the cameras (like say, Tony Abbott on Aboriginal issues).

  24. You’re all missing the point; Newman was promoting by stealth a 10% male tax surcharge.
    That would eliminate her definition of any ‘pay gap’.

Comments are closed.