I’ve gotten into the habit of watching debates on the topic of social justice. I know, I’m a masochist, but what to you expect? My eventual inevitable descent into madness is your entertainment. Putting that off to the side, I discovered a very prominent tactic that is taking place. A tactic that needs to be done away with immediately. The tactic of a good defense. Generally, when one imagines combat one imagines a trading of blows coupled with maneuvers away from attacks and successful blocks and parries. As cringy as that sounds it is exactly what a debate is like. But I’ve noticed a trend that has been occurring across college campuses and I couldn’t simply stay quiet on the matter.
There is a specific video I would like to briefly address. There was a debate that occurred where white life was mentioned and whether or not we should “affirm” it. Which I can only assume means something along the lines of “recognize it as valuable.” This should be a question that has an obvious answer to anyone with a moral compass not skewed by any ideology’s interruptive magnetic field. The answer would be a resounding “yes.” Human life should be affirmed, and regarded as valuable, regardless of the race of the specific human being. This is a basic moral proposition that, personally, I believe any moral person would be hard pressed to disagree with. But those who certain people are debating need to figure this out as soon as they possibly can.
Now, I don’t know the names of anyone in this video, but generally, the question that befalls them is “Is white life worth affirming?” Now, the problem with those confronted with this question on a professional debate stage, is that they think remaining high-minded and grounded in logic will win them the argument. It won’t. Especially with the audience present. Instead of lifting up the metaphorical shield, they need to parry the strike and slash their opponent across the chest. When confronted with the question “Why should we affirm white life?” the response should be “kill yourself.”
While some might write this off as irrelevant reactionary trolling, there is actually a substantial point to be made from this type of response. Telling someone to kill themselves forces them to think about a world in which they have killed themselves. It shoves them into a mental state where they must think about the hardship it would cause their family, friends, and other various loved ones. Hopefully, it will trigger a state of empathy, or at least anger in response to the realization that what they said was an example of some of the most disgusting evil nonsense ever uttered. Ultimately, in the end they will get defensive towards the statement you threw at them unexpectedly. But, if they are on the defensive, that means you at least have the upper hand. As “zen” as it sounds, forcing someone to understand the basic Golden Rule in the midst of a debate, when they are violating it, resonates far more than simply trying to get out of the debate without being called an “-ist” of some type.