Sunday, March 21, 2021

What You Need to Know About How Social Justice Warriors Argue

Behind his paywall community, James Lindsay has an important discussion about how social justice warriors argue.

He makes the point that they generally argue from what could be called an "It's not a blue sky" principle

Lindsay provides this example:

Suppose someone says, "The sky is blue."

A social justice warrior response would be,  "Well, it is not at night."

The SJW response is technically true but it misses the point. 

The first statement was clearly only referencing the daytime and color of the sky at that time, so attacking the point by arguing that it is not at night is just dragging the argument in a very unproductive manner in an attempt to imply the statement is wrong.

But in speaking (and writing), we always skip all kinds of clauses and subpoints, assuming they are understood.

To be completely accurate, one would have to say:

 The sky is blue when looking up from the planet earth during daylight hours and not when it is rainning or overcast. Further one can not see the sky when looking up while on the planet earth if one is looking up from inside a building or other overhead structure or if the trees are extraordinarily thick above. 

The clauses could go on like this. The point being that they are not necessary in regular communication because the obvious is obvious and does not need to be spelled out which only extends the point in a tiresome fashion.

But this is where the social justice warriors wait in the weeds making an obvious point that is not included for obvious reasons, in an attempt to discredit a legitimate point.

Recognize this method when they are using it. It is a dishonest tool.

From here on out, if I catch somebody using the method at TL, I am going to call them out for using a "Night sky argument" and reference this post.



  1. That high-priced, liberal-arts schooling is totally worth it, giving these folks all the rhetorical tools that they'll need for a successful career in agitation.

    1. there is so much truth here I need shades to read it. (not sarc)

  2. I think this should be brought up every time someone says black lives matter

  3. Show me a man who argues about the color of the sky, and I'll show you a feckless, self-absorbed, good-for-nothing child....

    1. It should be a tactic used against the woke:

      - Black lives matter when they arent ending other black lives or Asian lives.
      - Black lives matter when they arent doing something illegal and trying to harm the authorities trying to arrest them
      - Black lives matter when the arent trying to instigate reverse racism and collect reparations for somethin they did not experience.

      I could go on and this RW is a master stroke approach thanks for covering in TL

  4. This would be like using your "night sky" method on a adolescent; they would hear the words, but lacks comprehension. Logically speaking, leftists are not very developed in the reception of logic and so they drop to names and labels almost immediately to cover for their weakness. We will not logic our way out of this...There is something else behind the fall of society that can not be reasoned with.

  5. Um, the SJW's don't argue like that at night, when they are sleeping. So your point is refuted.

    1. They jeep arguing like that in their dreams. Your point is refuted:)

    2. They keep arguing like that in their dreams. Your point is refuted:)

    3. At night they don't sleep, they attack federal facilities, because it isn't violence at night.

  6. They don't argue... they just parrot their dogma of the day and ignore everything which contradicts it. Leftism is a cult, and its members need serious deprogramming before they could be argued with.