*puts on a mask*
Not long ago, I made a blog post about effectively making arguments. For the entirety, I advocate for using nothing but feelings, to show reality who is the boss.
To this day, I still stand by that statement. But, if you want to up your game, you can slander your opponents.
First, you can accuse them of lacking experiences with the things they hate.
You can accuse detractors of religions of religious inexperience, despite the fact that many grew up in strict religious environments. You can accuse car-free urban design proponents of inexperience with driving and car ownership, despite the fact that many grew up dependent on cars and some still are.
This method insinuates that your opponents don’t have good reasons hating the things they hate. They hate just for the sake of hating.
You can also enforce an extremely black-and-white view of the world to your opponents, in which everything is strictly an ‘either or’ situation.
If a Muslim acknowledges that Islamic extremism exists and yet he refuses to label all Muslims as extremists, then you must accuse him as an apologist.
If someone criticises both the US and its enemies, then you must accuse him of supporting US hegemony.
If someone supports legalisation of abortion, prostitution and recreational drug use while also expressing his dislike of said activities, then you must accuse him enjoying those activities.
You have to assert that fighting Islamic extremism is impossible without demonising Muslims. You have to assert that the lesser evil is automatically not evil. You have to assert that harm reduction is a non-existing concept.
You have to assert that a nuanced perspective and approach is the same as fence sitting and complicity.
You can also project yourself onto others.
You can accuse marginalised minorities of forcing their identities upon everyone, even though you are the one who wants to impose yours upon them.
You can accuse queer people of perversion, even though you are the one who are obsessed with trans people’s genitalia and what same-sex couples do in their bedroom, even though you are the ones who think pronouns are sexual.
You can accuse women and minorities’ rights activists of wanting to give women and minorities extra privileges, even though you support upholding extra privileges for men and the majority.
You can accuse those liberal commies of disregarding the rights of women, Jews and LGBT people because of their defence of Muslims, even though people like you have a long track records of opposing them.
You can accuse war opponents of trivialising human sufferings by not wanting to fight tyrants, even though your war-mongering ass never considers the long-term human effects of military invasions.
Those tactics work not because they persuade your opponents, but because they persuade your audience… and you better hope they are full of intellectually basic minds.
You need that kind of people because they are brainless sponges who can easily soak any skin-deep, cerebrally undemanding statements.
Apart from deviance against reality (which I have asserted in a previous blogpost), there is nothing which can empower your arguments better than popularity.
The more popular something is, the more people will defend it. The more defenders it has, the more credible it appears to be.
*takes off the mask*
Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.