Some Suggestions on Etiquette, or, How to not be a ‘Sewer.’
Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, January 17, 2009 at 02:11 AM
Some suggestions to commenters and posters, in the interest of making this site a better experience for everyone:
I know it is tempting but do not post your personal life as a resume for why you are right. This is a logical fallacy, no matter who you are, even if you just cured cancer while winning an olympic running gold, your arguments must be judged on their own merit. What matters is what is true and what is false, not who is saying it. Leave your life story at the front door of your house and engage people on the issues.
Do not be coy or secretive about your views. Say up front what you desire to see as the future of this world, what place you think whites have in this world, how the laws should be, what philosophers you admire, what religion you belong to, etc. It is hard enough arguing with a view when we can’t even figure out what your view is. Eventually your credibility is shot because no one can tell what you are saying, whether it conflicts with what you said before, or if you have any point at all.
Do not insult your opponents. First off, whether they are awful people or not has no relevance to the issue, and whether it is true or false. Second, it distracts from the argument. Third, it only invites counter-insults and a general loss of civility that, as others have pointed out, makes majority rights a ‘sewer.’
Do not cite your own life circumstances as proof of a larger truth. Your entire life equals exactly one anecdote. If you add in your family and friends, you’ll have a representative sample of 100 people. The arguments on these boards are dealing with statistics with representative samples in the hundreds of millions and billions, often times dealing with the history of populations over thousands and tens of thousands of years. No matter what life experience you have, it means nothing to the larger picture—that larger picture is revealed by statistics in the present, and history in the past. Argue on this basis or concede the point.
Do not accuse people of saying and wanting things they haven’t actually said. Furthermore, don’t latch onto one ‘most horrible thing’ someone has said while leaving out the larger context of that post and their other posts and comments which could, for instance, paint a different meaning. Assume the best of your opponents and if you think they might be suggesting some awful evil deed, ask them if that is what they mean. It might turn out we’re much nicer people than your knee-jerk reaction assumes. Or maybe we’re much meaner. At the very least, it helps to clarify first, judge later.
Do not argue something is false or someone is wrong because his belief is not ‘popular’ or it ‘will drive away support.’ It’s a logical fallacy to appeal to popularity, just as it is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority. An argument stands on its own merit, regardless of who believes it, or how many. Whether something will ‘drive away support’ is a completely different question than whether it is true or false. Do not conflate the two, at the very least, list is as a separate problem you have with the post. As for me, I am with Thomas Jefferson when I say: There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world. Narrator said much the same in his own comments recently. Whether the truth generates support or loses it, will have no impact on our support for the truth. Ideally, I think our party should be the party of truth, and we could leave all lies to our opponents. Every lie on earth can belong to them, and every truth on earth should be a part of us. I am not convinced that lying is a better ‘strategy’ or that people lied to are the best ‘followers,’ and I am certainly convinced that in any contest of lies, whites will come out last and jews first, so the entire issue is moot regardless. We are not a good party of liars, we can be a wonderful party of truth-tellers—it’s in our moral fiber as a race to seek out and love truth. To shine light into the darkness of unanswered questions, unpopular views, and revolutionary ideals. This is why almost all progress in human history has been due to whites—we are the only race willing to embrace the truth and discard our ancient lies. No enemy of truth is a friend to whites, no friend of truth is an enemy to whites. I firmly believe this. Therefore, if you wish to dissuade people from their opinions, do not tell them it will ‘drive away support,’ just go about showing why it is not true. If it’s not true, that’s sin enough. If it is true, there’s no sin at all.
Do not ask newcomers what their personal life circumstances are. As an exact corollary to not citing your personal life to make your points, it also is a logical fallacy to try and discredit other people’s points by attacking their personal life. Either they are right or wrong, debate their points in the field of logic, reason, and facts, not on whether they are jewish, black, of mixed race, married outside their race, south asian, or whatever. If a jew came down and said “we should cease all immigration to white-majority nations” would you tell him he’s wrong because he’s a jew? Of course not. The only thing that matters is the issue, the argument, and whether it is right or wrong. Bullying people based on their life circumstances is rude, immature, and intimidating. Why should someone have to reveal their whole life situation before they can criticize our views? Leave them alone and discuss, courteously, the issue at hand—not their personal life.
For God’s sake, stop accusing people of being ‘Zionist agents’ or ‘agent provacateurs’. First off, it makes you look like tin-foil hat wearing paranoids. Second, it reveals that apparently you think so few honest patriots visit these boards that the vast majority of them are government planted secret agents—it betrays a lack of confidence in pro-white beliefs as likely to be held, honestly and genuinely, by anyone else on earth. Third, it falls under the uncivil insult category. Fourth, it falls under the category of not assuming the best of people when there is no way to know what is true about them. Unless you have their pay-stub or intercepted their phone call to their jewish overlord and have them on tape etc, just leave the paranoid delusions at the front door. Fifth, regardless of their status, that is a personal life situation and thus again, it is a logical fallacy for that to impact the truth or falsehood of their beliefs. Engage the issue, the argument, not the person. If he’s an evil agent provacateur, it should be rather easy to eviscerate his position, neh? Just go forth and do it, problem solved.
Do not nitpick over minor details that do not abrogate the larger point someone is trying to make. If you are fanatically interested in setting the record straight (much like people who fanatically correct pronunciation, grammar, and spelling whenever anyone speaks) Say “just for the record, this is the actual truth you’re wrong here.” Do not attempt to somehow segue that into his entire viewpoint or argument being false. Most of the time his mistakes and inaccuracies are irrelevant, playing gotcha and scoring ‘points’ by pointing out such errors may win the debate, but it does not further our understanding.
Throw in some words of praise for someone when you think he’s making some great points. With all the negativity that debating generally generates, it can get to feel like Majority Rights is an angry barroom, when in fact a lot of the time we are surrounded by the best friends a man can have: brave loyal patriots standing up for what is right at a great cost to themselves, because, at the very bottom of our motivations, we love white people—ie, we love each other!