The Era of Rhetorical Tricks

JeremyLishner-GrayStatuePhoto-CoveringEyes-featured

Here’s an interesting thing I’ve noticed in general commentary and in private email threads that I’ve somehow found myself to be on:  Everything is a rhetorical trick.  “Experts” and “intellectuals” are apt to devolve into lists of acronyms to prove how smart they are rather than answer the simple question of whether they actually care whether fraudulent techniques of media, politics, and even the electoral process won Biden his victory.  Not whether it’s correct, but whether they care if it is or isn’t.

It seems they think their clever arguments will continue to deceive the public.  Or maybe they’re just so thoroughly trained and acculturated to them that they don’t even realize what they’re doing.

This must be something like the tyranny of “white logic” that those who espouse “antiracism” see in our “institutionally racist” society, only it isn’t a racial category but a class one.  Our betters think they’ve structured logic itself such that they win at every turn.

So, put forward the opinion that the 2020 election was fraudulent, and the response will be that there is no evidence.  Points out evidence of obvious fraud, even throwing in conspicuous “errors” or “mistakes,” and the Bidenites will note that the incidents, even in the thousands, do not add up to enough votes to have made a difference.  It’s a tally of specifics.

If, on the other hand, you point to the bigger picture and note how implausible it is that, with scarcely any campaigning or visible enthusiasm (and a half century in the public eye), Joe Biden was able to shatter every vote record on the books, including that for Barack Obama, or maybe you note the statistical implausibility of the voter turnout and vote swings in key cities and the complete failure of almost every bellwether county to predict this outcome for the first time in decades, then the claim is that this is not “evidence.”

The fraud-skeptics’ methods cannot be overcome, because they are total.

In short, to “prove” impropriety, they apparently would require Trump supporters to document and prove beyond the shadow of a doubt every single suspect vote.  Some of them will go so far as to point out that this is impossible because the mailing materials were separated from the mailed-in ballots long ago.  To them, this isn’t evidence of potential taint; it’s taken as evidence that there was no fraud because fraud cannot be proven.

This is as much as to say that fraud only exists if it is proven in court, and the disappearance of evidence means it can never be proven in court, so therefore, there can have been no fraud.  This was the most fraud-free election in the history of the universe!  It’s an intellectual trick to allow the beautiful people to comfortably believe what they want to be true.  They make it safe to believe a falsehood because they feel they have this protective barrier of logical impossibility.

This same social cohort, by the way, has demonstrably different standards in different circumstances.  A single anecdote of bias in an individual somewhere in the country is sufficient evidence that some large group or organization is something-ist.  On the other hand, statistical evaluations of police stops or pay rates is sufficient evidence of “institutional something-ism” without a single instance of bias being proven, or even specifically alleged.  Never mind the claims of the same cohort about the supposed crimes and illegitimacy of Donald Trump.

None of this matters, because they consider themselves the judges of what counts, with no objective measurement.  This is why they devolve into credentialism.  Obama was “scandal free” because they chose not to count anything that happened under his administration as a “scandal.”  It’s a tautology.

Just so, they claim that no fraud has been proven or even alleged, except by “crackpot lawyers,” because, naturally, no lawyer but a crackpot would allege such a thing.  See how neat and tidy that logic is?  There cannot possibly be evidence because anybody who brings forward evidence cannot be believed simply by the fact that he or she brought forward evidence.

Then, if you somehow get past that circular defense, you must deal with their assertion that our legal system is the central (even the only) tool for figuring out what’s true.  In other circumstances, the same people will either cite the corruption of judges to explain an outcome they didn’t like or, more intellectually, acknowledge that judges aren’t really tasked with discerning deep truth, but merely determining how the law should apply.  I’ve heard this from police, judges, and ethics commissioners:  “The behavior you’re complaining about may very well be wrong and unjust, but my job is only to make final determinations applying a particular body of law to a specific situation.”  Except when it isn’t.

When this cohort thinks the law is not in their favor, you will find them qualifying each judge’s name with the political party under which he or she was appointed (as in, “Republican-appointed judge”).  When they think they will get their way from a judge, you can expect a dramatic elevation of that politically appointed or elected person.  He or she will instantly become something more like the judges of the Old Testament, who were much closer to “wise kings.”

Those of us who believe this election to have been a sham should stride confidently through these rhetorical tricks.  If we’re correct, then a majority of Americans did not vote for the ostensibly incoming administration.  Even large numbers of people who hoped for a Biden victory believe there was fraud involved.  Our time is better spent thinking about those Americans and how they can be reached and represented.

The insiders’ trick will work only if we turn away from that broad population of Americans in order to debate people who prove by their very arguments that they are immune to persuasion.



  • ShannonEntropy
    • Lou

      So predictable, Shanny. Isn’t it time for your bleach injection? At least Joe’s waving to them. Your boy called them “losers” and “suckers”.

      • ShannonEntropy

        Even a bleach injection won’t wipe the stain of the disgrace of this election from the memory of my soul

      • StalinLovesCIAfakeMSM

        There’s actual AUDIO of fkg Biden saying that to troops on youtube, while the bullshit story your referring to from the Atlantic was utterly destroyed by eyewitnesses. Keep believing the lies of a media that told you zero WMDs, lied about 9-11, lied about Gulf of Tonkin, lied about the events that led to Pearl, and even going back the the CENTURY that was BEFORE the LAST century was behind pushing the bullshit “Remember the USS Maine!” lie that Spain blew up that ship when the Navy did it itself and killed it’s own sailors in order to ignite an excuse for the Spanish American War… But hey, you can trust 6 foreign zioglobalists who now own via Mega Trust Media Uber Monopolies ALL AMERICAN MEDIA through just SIX multi connected media conglomorotes with interlocking boards, right? New high in bleating your a good sheep has been reached. WTF do you think the media and establishment hate Trump so much??? We can disprove every fkg media lie with the CIA Mockingbird presses [gee wtf would they EVER call it THAAAAT????] OWN FOOTAGE and REPORTS from BEFORE they got their 4AM narrative talking points on any specific issue, such as Mail in Ballots and Dominion systems, all still up on youtube from Now This, from NPR from fucking MSNBC CNN ABC CBS DEMOCRACY NOW etc, You people are just fucking unblievable. WAKE TFUP

  • Mario

    “note how implausible it is that, with scarcely any campaigning or
    visible enthusiasm (and a half century in the public eye), Joe Biden was
    able to shatter every vote record on the books, including that for
    Barack Obama”

    I find it even less plausible that people could watch the events of the last four years and give Trump more total votes than he got last time, but here we are. If you dismiss the shattered records as a simple result of voting being made easier than ever, you would notice that both parties benefited from it, and all we saw in the Trump/Biden matchup was a modestly better performance out of Biden than what far less-popular Hillary had when she also received millions more votes than Trump.

    • OceanStateCurrent

      You’re mixing “implausibles.” You may find it implausible that people would want to vote for President Trump, but the enthusiasm was clear, as were indications that he did better with minorities, and so on. Even with increased ease of voting, just the comparison of enthusiasm with Barack Obama in 2008 versus Biden now is jaw-dropping.

      But even the simple explanation of the ease of voting isn’t good enough. That ease was introduced selectively, and in some key places, it was introduced through questionable legal maneuvers in the name of a pandemic. In other words, it’s part of the fraud.

      • Mario

        I saw a lot more enthusiasm to vote against Trump than vote for him, never mind my own enthusiastic support for Biden. I’d suggest that you only think the pro-Trump enthusiasm was clear because you live in a media bubble that tells you fairly ridiculous but pleasant-sounding things like that on a regular basis. I’ve told you this before. I probably see something similar in reverse, except that I have the benefit of seeing the election results more or less confirm my expectations, while you are forced to struggle with the cognitive dissonance.

        Honestly, if you just take a step back and look at the people lining up on either side of this fake issue, I can’t see how anyone would feel comfortable placing a bet that Guiliani & Co. are the few honest brokers looking for the truth (while openly requesting Presidential pardons for unspecified crimes) while literally everyone else, including sitting Republican governors and Secretaries of State, are involved in a massive fraud.

        • Justin Katz

          Except that we all just watched four years of get-Trump with ridiculous stories and stratospheric bias. Yes, massive fraud, from corruption in the intelligence agencies to manipulation of the election process justified by COVID to the news media behaving as a shameless arm of the Democrat Party to social media censorship to statistically implausible results in key places to outright dirty-old-fraud. Each providing an incremental gain. I guess you could say that these results are exactly in line with my expectation’s, too.

          I wouldn’t say anybody in the game should be considered an “honest broker,” but I’ll take Giuliani’s side over the alternative any day. Whoever is the President on January 21, we’re in a fight to save our democracy and protect our rights.

          • Lou

            “Except that we all just watched four years of get-Trump with ridiculous stories and stratospheric bias.”… Did you happen to watch Fox News for the eight years of the Obama administration?

            “I’ll take Giuliani’s side over the alternative any day.” I believe that. You believe he was tucking his shirt in too, right?

          • bagida’wewinini
        • Justin Katz

          Another point, directed toward your suggestion that just taking a step back would show me that I’m in a bubble while you’ve got some objective facts to tilt objectivity toward your bubble: Given the anti-Trump rhetoric that was directed toward the President, it should absolutely have been expected that large numbers of people would think they were in “whatever it takes” territory to get him out. (This is in keeping with the refusal of even seemingly reasonable people to say that or whether they even care if massive fraud made the difference.)

          Even more-moderate people, including Republicans, who don’t believe the craziest of the anti-Trump talk find themselves in a position that acknowledging the BAMN methods used against him would require action to be taken, perhaps up to the point of questioning the actions of the prior President (who must be protected for the history books as The First Black President). It’s much more comfortable just to pretend everything is within the range of normal and hope that we all go back to something closer to the rules of the game once Trump is off the stage.

          Well, he’s not getting off the stage, and I suspect the experience of the last couple months and the last four years has radicalized many others.

          • Lou

            “Well, he’s not getting off the stage”…you may be right about that. The problem is the show left town and he’s the only one left on stage with a couple of die-hards clapping vigorously in the audience. I guess a few of you aren’t tired of “winning” yet.

        • OceanStateCurrent

          Mario: It just occurred to me to enter into evidence the (sometimes successful) attempts to deprive the Trump campaign of legal representation through harassment and threats. At the very least, that reduces the force of your “literally everyone else.”

          • Mario

            I think the threats and intimidation are flying pretty thick on both ends here. In that regard, the sitting President of the United States, head of the GOP, and leader of a fervent, irrational personality cult isn’t exactly a powerless victim, even if that’s how he likes to portray himself. Woe is Trump.

          • Justin Katz

            Maybe I am in a bubble, because I haven’t seen any information about an overt and coordinated attempt to harm the careers of lawyers simply for taking a job representing the interests of Biden or the Democrats. For that matter, I haven’t seen anybody on that side condemning such attacks on their political opponents.

            It’s like y’all think there’s a big Trump exception to the principles you supposedly hold. Only, we all know that the Trump exception will simply transfer to the next-biggest target if he exits the stage.

            Fascist is as fascist does.

          • Mario

            You don’t think there is a concerted attempt to get Republican officials to undermine their own state’s elections? Look at Doug Ducey and Brian Kemp have to put up with. There are absolutely attempts being made to destroy their careers, and Trump himself is taking part. They are being asked to pretend that up is down as a bizarre loyalty test. The only reason his bullying hasn’t worked is that what he is asking for is so far outside of acceptable behavior that only the most craven are willing to pretend that there is sense behind it. Everyone else is trying to find a way to slowly and gently break the news to Trump and his supporters that he just didn’t win. I can’t see why what Trump is doing is not substantially worse than the actions of people on the left who probably don’t even support Biden. Biden gets blamed for every die-hard Bernie supporter and non-voting anarchist, while Trump isn’t even responsible for the things he says.

          • Justin Katz

            So what you’re saying is that I’m not in a bubble. There actually is not an overt and coordinated attempt to harm the careers of Democrat lawyers for acting on behalf of their clients as there is in the other direction. There are also mainstream Democrat voices calling for truth commissions and reeducation and “accountability” for any Trump supporters. In opposition you cite political pressure being put on politicians? Come on, man.

            As I said… it’s a Trump exception, which isn’t really a Trump exception at all, but a way to justify imbalanced standards.

          • Mario

            This isn’t run-of-the-mill political pressure. He’s asking them to commit crimes on his behalf. You are willing to give it a pass because you’d prefer the one result over the other. Don’t talk about double standards.

            And what Democratic lawyers are involved? There aren’t two sides here; this is Trump vs. democracy, not Trump vs. Democrats, so the people on the other side are politicians by necessity, Attorneys General, and whatnot, forced to defend the the perfectly normal functions of their governments because someone can’t accept the truth. But the threats against them don’t count. No one should be threatening Trump’s lawyers, but there is so little merit to the arguments and what they are asking for as a remedy is so outrageous (and frankly unAmerican) that anyone willing to take on a case like this should be worried about being disbarred. If there is an equally insane case being waged by the Democrats, show it to me and I’ll say the same thing. Gore’s case in 2000 was weak, but not patently ridiculous.

          • Justin Katz

            Honestly, I don’t know how you could call the case for corruption patently ridiculous. I think your bubble must be thicker than mine.

          • Mario

            Is there a single case that hasn’t been quickly laughed out of court? They make a lot of noise about irregularities and say that they have proof, but it never seems to be there when it comes time to show it. I have my suspicions as to why that is, but I suppose every setback is just proof that the conspiracy goes deeper than we ever imagined. I just found out that AG Barr was part of the resistance, like Sessions was before him. Who knew?

          • Justin Katz

            There’s the bubble. Substantive cases are still being filed, and some were expected to wind up with SCOTUS from the beginning. Meanwhile, Barr has said the AP mischaracterized what he said. After four years of fraudulent news, it’s not surprising that it continues.

          • Mario

            There is no reason to expect the Supreme Court to take up any of these cases. There is no disagreement among the lower courts, no question of law to look at. They only talk about the Supreme Court because they know they can’t win on the law; they’re looking for a political solution to a math problem. Plus, I’m sure the legal defense $$$ is rolling in.

        • StalinLovesCIAfakeMSM

          No you didn’t, or you just weren’t paying attention. And rioting isn’t enthusiasm not to vote for trump or even TO vote for anyone or anything other than Stalin.

      • Lou

        “he did better with minorities”…sure he did, better than 0%.
        18% of Black men and 36% of Latino men voted for Trump…and that proves what?

        “introduced selectively”…what is that even implying? Did your folk’s belief of low voter turnout and voter suppression not result in victory in this election?

        • StalinLovesCIAfakeMSM

          Son, he got the highest amount of black men any Republican EVER got and THAT number was in the 38% range. You cannot use percentages from CNN and other CIA Mockingbird Press fake news [do you even know why it’s called that?] because those tables have footnotes explaining how they have fudged the numbers completely. EVERYTIME. Look into it stop being lied to.

    • ShannonEntropy

      https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-magically-outperformed-election-norms/?fbclid=IwAR0TsOy7l7j581E1g5GSlYBVkljJGMHaKLLUkLojrcezCP_YNycwXMuwWp8

      Okay, so Justin happened to make a lot of the same points as that Federalist article

      The ProJo’s Froma Harrop routinely steals ideas for her columns from stuff she reads in National Review

      But alas with the entire MSM, academia, Hollywood, the justice system and the Deep State against Trump… the rigged game is over

      • Justin Katz

        It wasn’t my intent to steal. I’ve seen some of these points in multiple places (not surprising, since some of them are so obvious I’m sure they occurred to thousands of people at the same time). But I’ve set aside that Federalist essay for separate reference when I have some time.

  • Lou

    So disappointing, Justin. You were able to resist the siren’s call of temptation only for so long, but ultimately succumbed to become yet another casualty. I was pulling for you.

    Show us the “obvious fraud” and “sham” support (that means without your anecdotes), Justin! No need to be “proven in court” or victim of “rhetorical tricks”, we’ll be your jury. I suspect you’ll find similar “evidence” for gravity’s upward pull, and the round earth “hoax”.

    BTW “failure of almost every bellwether county to predict this outcome”… what are you talking about? Who predicted a Trump victory?

    • ShannonEntropy
      • Lou

        Your sources are becoming less and less credible, Shanny.

        https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/

        “Overall, we rate The Federalist a borderline Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of pseudoscience and several failed fact checks.”

        • ShannonEntropy

          You and your tapeworm are smearing The Federalist ?? just cuz they “always favor the right” ??

          The Federalist Society https://fedsoc.org/ is one of the few remaining conservative groups that are not — yet — victims of your Leftist “cancel culture” gas chambers that will likely wipe the last six million of us off the face of the earth now that Joe and Kamal-face will soon be in charge

          The Culture Wars are over, and The Left has won. But you won’t be happy until every conservative voice has been silenced, will you ??

          • Mario

            The Federalist and the Federalist Society are two different groups.

          • Lou

            ‘won’t be happy until every conservative voice has been silenced, will you ??”…At this point, I’m not sure anything productive is being derived by the nonsense being spouted by you unhinged conspiracy theorists.

  • StalinLovesCIAfakeMSM

    Benevolent Military Dictatorship NOW ARREST THESE SCUMBAGS AND HANG THEM