Now if you notice, this host right here – Mr. Touré - is pretty slick. What he does first is establish a broad framework – that we “live in a patriarchy” – a framework through which the rest of the debate (if you want to call it that) will be filtered. And then what he does is ask Dr. Sommers a very specific and narrow question about the rough and tumble play boys. By asking her this question, he effectively denies her the chance to reframe the argument – to say, perhaps, that the world is not as one-sided as Mr. Touré is presenting it. It is not truly a “denial” per se, however, but rather a trap that Dr. Sommers falls into.
Instead of answering the question about the rough and tumble play, I would say, “well actually, Mr. Touré, I would like to go back to what you said earlier about the idea that the world is one-sided, with men on the top and women on the bottom and that’s the reason why we shouldn’t care about boys.” After listing the fact that men are at the bottom of society as well, I would then say some things that should be obvious – that gender equity is not a zero-sum game, and that we all have issues, and that both sexes deserve our compassion and support. But this idea is apparently not something that is shared by these MSNBC hosts, and if you have been following along with the videos on this channel you know that it is not something shared by a great many Feminists and academics as well.
These are interesting observations, and I recommend that you go and read the whole thing, but I want to focus on the tactics the progtard TV gang used against Dr. Sommers here.
I often wonder why folks who espouse ideas contrary to favored progtard narratives seem to come off so badly in TV debating encounters. As near as I can tell, there are several factors at work, but the primary one is that the game is rigged.
Here’s an example: Over a 12 year period I’ve posted millions of words of analysis and debate on the issues I concern myself with. I know my own arguments very well, and I have advanced and defended them thousands of times, generally successfully, even in the face of occasionally intelligent opposition. I am, in other words, a pro at this. If you want to debate me, be prepared to take no prisoners, because I sure as hell won’t.
This is what the average non-progtard faces in trying to advance an idea in disfavor with progtard beliefs. First, the playing field will not be level. The moderator, the umpire, the TV announcer, will be a progtard, and he or she will attempt to place their opponent at an immediate disadvantage. And he will be extremely experienced and successful at doing so.
Second, the opponent will be outnumbered. There will generally be two or three “experts,” (who are mostly expert in pro-progtard debating tactics) armed with as many context-free factoids as seem useful.
Finally, the non-progtard will likely be an amateur at this sort of thing, naively believing in free, open, balanced debate, and further encumbered with the idea that what the interview is seeking to do is get at the truth.
Nothing, of course, could be further from the case. The subject of the interview may think that is so, but everybody else thoroughly understands that the object of this ritual mass pile-on is to discredit and destroy, by any means necessary, the arguments and positions being presented by their enemy.
This is one reason why I like Newt Gingrich so much. Remember this one?
Note what happened: John King tried to trap Gingrich into a “have you stopped beating your wife” situation when he framed his question as being about the “rule of law,” and whether Gingrich would, or would not, permit the U.S. government to kill an American citizen who was waging war on the United States.
Gingrich, a smart guy and an old hand, rather than biting on this, instead blew King completely out of the water by challenging King’s assertion that such an act would be outside “the rule of law.”
I don’t know what the solution to this imbalance might be. There aren’t all that many Gingrich-style pros out there able and willing to do verbal battle with the left and think and respond effectively while doing so.
Maybe the answer is to send a lot of rough-and-tumble bloggers into the fray. We’re used to seeing these tactics and defeating them. And if we’ve been at it for a while, we’re usually pretty good at it.
I mean, if Mr. Tourettes (and yeah, I’d probably have snuck that one in there under the guise of a slip of the tongue – all’s fair, remember?) had laid that ancient “patriarchy” chestnut on me, I would not only have not let it pass, I would have blasted it into smoking rubble as soon as the words left his mouth. It’s not, after all, as if I haven’t seen, and smashed, this particular argument before.
And, in fact, the totality of the progtard narrative is, at base, extremely limited, not to mention flimsy. Because progtardia is based on fantasy and delusion, and a deliberate refusal to address reality. When your entire argument is comprised of lies and hallucinations, and you run into somebody who not only understands this, but has a large arsenal of reality to deploy against it, you lose.
Each and every time.
Unfortunately, since the progtards control the podium, they won’t be letting people like me into their ritual sacrifices and ongoing circle jerks any time soon. They may be dishonest and irrational, but they aren’t suicidally stupid.
About this stuff, at least.