If you try to argue with a modern, you will often find that he won’t engage your arguments logically. Most often, he just calls you names like “racist” or “homophobe” or “sexist” or some other ‘ist.’ If he’s a little more intelligent than most, he’ll explain to you why you or the source you cite has a clear and compelling interest in saying what you say. For instance, I remember once quoting Theodore Roosevelt’s assessment that class warfare is the downfall of all republics, only to receive the answer that, as Roosevelt was a rich man, he, of course, had a vested interest in maintaining the present system. There was no attempt to show that Roosevelt was wrong, only that one could, abstractly, explain why he would say that whether it was true or not (never mind that he was a highly atypical rich man who spent a large part of his life working alongside ordinary laborers and who spearheaded economic reform efforts: he was rich, hence anything he says about class can be safely dismissed).
I find that most of the defining movements of the hour are based entirely upon this mode of argument. I may be wrong, but I have never once heard any ‘Gay Rights’ advocates attempt to explain why homosexuality isn’t obviously contrary to the design of the human body, or explain why the myriad health problems attendant to it aren’t a reason to discourage it, or set out a clear explanation of why we should regard the most fickle, unreliable, and unstable of human emotions as an integral part of a person’s identity. They just tend to say variations of “if you don’t believe this, you must be a bigot.”
I’ve noted this phenomenon for years, privately calling it “assumed victory.” Prof. C.S. Lewis, however, gives it the name ‘Bulverism’ and, as often is the case, lays it bare with a clear, logical deconstruction. Watch and take notes: herein is the foundation of the twenty-first century mindset.
Key Quote: “You must first show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong.”