The Law of Canceling Hypocrisy

A month or so ago in Democrats Face a Pandora Dilemma I described the wiretapping situation as being one where the left had to decide whether to condemn the actions that took place under Obama or to normalize them at a time when Trump holds the same powers. As predicted, they've opted to accept the activities that occurred under Obama and to even attack Trump for daring to criticize them. Let's look at today's article from Business Insider, Congress is poking holes in a key Trump talking point about Obama-era surveillance. Note the tactics they employ in the headline, because they know in the facebook era most people will 'Like' articles based on the headline alone, and assume that the article supports the headline, and thus the headline can be taken as fact. They're trying to make it look like it's an article about what Congress is saying, and not just a propaganda piece. And yet the sources are, as usual, anonymous US officials. From the first sentence:

Obama administration officials did not act inappropriately in trying to unmask officials on President Donald Trump's transition team whose conversations with foreign officials were incidentally collected during routine intelligence-gathering operations.

When I said they're normalizing it I meant that in the literal sense. The first sentence comes right out and says Trump was monitored in routine intelligence-gathering operations. Totally normal.

Let's look at some more language from the article.

Trump's accusation, for which he offered no evidence...

Well duh, the evidence is classified. We assume that if the case can be made it will be eventually made to the American public. No one expects a secretive kangaroo court like, I dunno, the FISA Court that was used to spy on Trump in the first place.

Nunes reiterated in multiple press conferences that there was still no evidence to suggest that Trump or his team had ever been surveilled illegally.

Yes but the surveillance may have been done in way that obeyed the letter but not the spirit of the law. Just because they got a FISA warrant doesn't mean they should have. And the bigger question here anyway is about the unmasking.. Improper unmasking and dissemination is spying whether or not the initial collection was incidental, and especially if it was "incidental."

that investigation was ultimately fruitless

Are they saying the investigation is over? Then what are they even talking about?

Rice's requests to unmask US persons were neither unusual nor against the law. 

So long, Pandora's lid.

Rice requests were neither unusual nor against the law. That means that Trump's people can do the exact same thing to their political opponents. Not just can, but should. In fact my biggest worry about Trump is not that he'll turn into a neocon (and that's a big concern) but that'll he'll refuse to use his enemies' own tools against them. He should use the foreign intelligence apparatus to spy on political opponents. He should circumvent rules of government transparency in the ways the left excused Hillary Clinton for. He should use the IRS to target opposing political organizations. He should funnel government money to friendly NGOs.

He should do all those things. Because that's what his predecessors did, and no one was ever punished. If he doesn't do those things, then he's just leaving them for the next Democrat to pick up and run with. The worst thing Trump could do would be to worry about being called a hypocrite. They'll make up things to call him a hypocrite anyway, so it doesn't matter. Let me put forth what I shall dub the Law of Canceling Hypocrisy.

Tenet: hypocrisy is not a valid argument against hypocrisy. Perceived hypocrisy is immaterial if the accuser must engage in hypocrisy to make the case.

If Trump set up a secret, private email server the left would scream it was the biggest hypocrisy they had ever encountered. But they must be hypocritical to make the case because they've already excused Clinton's behavior, and she faced no legal repercussions. Because they've declared those actions to be acceptable they cannot reasonably condemn Trump for engaging in what they allowed to become precedented behavior, even if he was previously opposed to it.

Remember, When They Go Low, We Go Low. When the opponent engages in "cheating" behavior, they must be punished and, if they are not punished, the behavior must then be used against them. If your opponent fights with knives, you must fight with knives. And if he brings a gun, well we all know the sage wisdom about not bringing a knife to a gun fight. It is not hypocritical to bring a gun to a gunfight, no matter how much you might have railed against gunfights in the past.

Stop at their Worst Argument

If you're like me, your are prone to argue, and maybe just a little aspy. So it's very tempting to push arguments to their logical conclusion. Ideally it should go something like this.

1. You make a claim
2. They make a claim
3. You provide evidence
4. They provide evidence
5. You demonstrate how their claims are faulty
6. You dismantle their arguments that your claims are faulty
7. They concede your claims are the valid ones

This like, NEVER happens. It really doesn't. Even if they believe you're correct they'll never say so. Logical arguments ignore the very real effect of the human ego. Your approach should be to sow seeds of doubt, and to leave your opponent looking weak.

If you're effectively dismantling their arguments, they will normally start to throw anything they can at you: primarily illogical and emotional assertions. The natural instinct is to go for the kill. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. As we use to say when I was a kid

Finally you can rip your opponent's head off!! Refuse the temptation to do so. You have already won. It won't get any better for you; you will only get into the mud and risk looking petty, obsessive, and cruel. Remember no one is going to change their mind in the middle of a debate. The best-case scenario is to let them say something particularly awful or stupid and leave it right there. That's what people will remember. That's what will linger. You don't want the last impression to be you autistically desconstructing arguments in a debate you've already won.

You're goal should be to force your opponent to say something absurd and end the argument right there. 

How to Honeypot the Left

Something I'm noticing about liberals lately is that when judging a statement or action, they don't care what was said, but who said it. That is it. You can argue with them until you're red in the face. It doesn't matter. They have their side, you're on the other side, so nothing gets through.

The only way to deal with this is through ridicule and using their own words against them. For instance, they were quite irate today that Ben Carson compared slaves to immigrants. They said he was basically insane. Then later it was shown that Barack Obama had said nearly the same thing on numerous occasions. This is the perfect response. Not an explanation based in reason, but using their own biases against themselves.

In an adversarial debate your goal is to get the opponent to contradict himself without doing so yourself. If you are in a debate with a liberal, you have a powerful card in your hand: you know his primary motivator.

Liberals are primarily motivated by attacking Donald Trump

It might be that this principle is generally true in that they are primarily motivated by attacking the right, but they are currently consumed with Trump. Absolutely obsessed. So in your argument you can lay some bait, something that gives them a chance to criticize Trump. But it's a trap, because you then can use his logic against him.

For instance, if you knew that both Barack Obama and Ben Carson referred to slaves as immigrants, you could lay Carson out there as bait, let them lecture from a position of moral superiority on the subject, and then counter with Obama. Hopefully it helps with the general argument you are making but it doesn't have to. Anything to get your opponent to contradict himself is a win.

Please comment if you have success or failures with this. I'm just putting this together myself but I hope to try it out a bit and I'll post some case studies if I have any success with it. I've not yet had any outright success because they actually seem to be somewhat adept at sniffing them out. I'm used to them falling right into logical traps, but really those aren't very effective in these kinds of debates, sadly. For that to work the opponent has to be capable of grokking intellectual arguments and of acting in good faith. And if someone fits those requirements, well you likely won't be debating against them to begin with.

To recap:

• Liberals only care who said it, not what was said
• They can be baited if they think think can attack the right (particularly Trump) from a position of moral superiority