Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.4K

What the MSM does, and has always done, is to back every piece of narrative up with a single piece of justification, in a way that makes normies think the narrative is sound and can't be debated further.

  • Example: all men are privileged because (reason)

  • Or: silence is the same as violence because (reason)

The reason given is always a highbrow sounding one, so that normies revere the narrative. When Trump gave people simple reasons normies just mocked him for talking at their level.

When I used to be blue pilled I would often accept the reason given without questioning whether it was telling the whole story or whether there might be 100 other reasons why the narrative view was garbage, unless they were talking about my own field of course.

Anyway, there's a clear logical fallacy in accepting a comfortable "expert" narrative as true based on an unbalanced justification like this. But what's it called?

I feel like if we can name that fallacy in terminology that normies haven't learned yet, then we have a tool to shut down normies with on social media, in the very way they've been trained to accept.

  • Example: "correction: all men are not privileged, that's an example of (......) fallacy".

  • Or: "correction: silence is not violence, that's an example of (.......) fallacy"

That's it. Done. Normie has been put back in his place with a high brow response that doesn't give him room to argue back. Call him a conspiracy theorist if he tries.

What the MSM does, and has always done, is to back every piece of narrative up with a single piece of justification, in a way that makes normies think the narrative is sound and can't be debated further. - Example: all men are privileged because (reason) - Or: silence is the same as violence because (reason) The reason given is always a highbrow sounding one, so that normies revere the narrative. When Trump gave people simple reasons normies just mocked him for talking at their level. When I used to be blue pilled I would often accept the reason given without questioning whether it was telling the whole story or whether there might be 100 other reasons why the narrative view was garbage, unless they were talking about my own field of course. Anyway, there's a clear logical fallacy in accepting a comfortable "expert" narrative as true based on an unbalanced justification like this. But what's it called? **I feel like if we can name that fallacy in terminology that normies haven't learned yet, then we have a tool to shut down normies with on social media, in the very way they've been trained to accept.** - Example: "correction: all men are not privileged, that's an example of (......) fallacy". - Or: "correction: silence is not violence, that's an example of (.......) fallacy" That's it. Done. Normie has been put back in his place with a high brow response that doesn't give him room to argue back. Call him a conspiracy theorist if he tries.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (18).
[–] • 0 pt

I like your thinking!

Right wingers generally don't understand leftist language.

When leftists say "privilege", they mean "unfairness".

Why is it being unfair to be white? Because whites are successful. The left and the right both claim there are no biological differences between the races, except superficial ones. The only reasonable conclusion, is that something sinister and unfair is propelling whites to the top.

The only way to combat leftist ideas, is to correct this error. Whites and blacks are not equal. Men and women are not equal. Christianity and Islam are not equal. Decency and degeneracy are not equal. Procreation and sodomy are not equal.

If we want to use logical arguments, we can't let leftists dictate our language.