Sam Harris, Identity Politics and Valid Argument

A white female commentator on Sam Harris's statements regarding identity politics had this to say:

I get very annoyed with Sam Harris whenever he speaks negatively about “identity politics.” Please understand that the suppression of what is thought of as “identity politics” is used to maintain the status quo of white supremacy and patriarchy. It mainly suits white men in power, and only works to silence and dismiss women and minorities further. 

Here is an example of what I’m talking about: In order to understand the serious problems of systemic racism and abuse within police departments, you have to listen to and validate the experiences of black people. You cannot simply value the data that is written down and reported, considering that it’s written down and reported by the police themselves, so it’s always biased in their favor. You should never simply assume that they are reporting every interaction objectively and honestly. If you assume that they are, you are incredibly naive. 

Additionally, think about everything that is never actually reported. Many black individuals describe a lifetime of being targeted and harassed by police officers, from the time they were young children. They often describe the disrespectful, rude manner in which many cops have spoken to them. There is no data that would describe this. But just imagine how a lifetime of being harassed and mistreated by rude cops might affect you and your reaction to the police. It would make sense to be a little angry and defensive with them, if you’re fed up with being harassed and mistreated. It also helps to paint a picture of the problem of systemic racism. 

The same can be applied to women as victims of sexual assault, rape, and sexual harassment. There is so much that we never report. The numbers don’t tell you the whole story. It’s far more common for women to be victimized by men than one might think.

When Sam Harris says in this video that speaking about your experiences related to your identity is “not the sign of clear thinking,” he is gaslighting minorities and women. He is making a judgment about their rationality and is implying that they’re somehow crazy and less rational than him. But this is easy for him, a white man, to say. He is speaking from a place of privilege. 

This is an example of white supremacy and patriarchy in action. Sam is not a bad person. He doesn’t realize he’s perpetuating white supremacy and patriarchy. But he absolutely is. He is in the dominant majority, so his experiences are in line with those of the people who overwhelmingly have power, write our laws, and make the rules throughout our society. 

Here is more gaslighting from Sam, painting women and minorities as crazy and irrational: 

“If you’re reasoning honestly about facts, then the color of your skin is irrelevant” —(Easy for a white person to say!) 

“Not being emotionally engaged usually improves a persons ability to reason about the facts.” — (But of course you’d be “emotionally engaged,” if you’re speaking of how you’ve been abused and victimized. That shouldn’t make your experiences any less valuable! He is dismissive because he doesn’t have to be emotionally engaged. He comes from a place of privilege, so he doesn’t feel the same emotions about these topics. He hasn’t experienced the abuse, discrimination, marginalization, etc firsthand.) 

“The color of your skin simply isn’t relevant information. Your life experience isn’t relevant information. And the fact that you think it might be is a problem.” — (This is a very privileged, white supremacist, heteronormative, cisnormative thing to say.)

Sam's views on identity politics that are being discussed here are outlined in the below video

I think what Harris is trying to say here comes down to this: Either there is or there is not systemic discrimination against minorities in America. Whether that's true or not does not depend on whether the person making the claim is white or black. Above, a white female commentator, is making the claim that there is systemic discrimination against minorities in America. This is a claim regarding the status of minorities in America. Is that claim rendered false by the fact that the commenter is white?

The answer is obviously no, and that's what Sam Harris is really saying here.

The irony of a white woman invoking identity in this manner to defend identity politics should not be lost on us. Were she to discount the claims made by Black Lives Matter activists regarding police treatment of minorities, her own logic allows for the invalidation of her claims on the basis of her race. So why wouldn't this be the case since she's agreeing with them? Ditto for male feminists who discount male critics of feminism on the basis of they're being male? Funny how identity only seems to matter when it's a defense of a feminist or critical race theory from criticism, but becomes suddenly irrelevant when those theories are being defended. This is precisely the kind of rhetorical slight of hand that has led Sam Harris and many others, myself included, to distrust identity politics.

That is a very different thing from saying that the voices of minorities should not be considered when determining whether such discrimination is occuring or not. I don't think that's what Harris is claiming. He does admit in this clip that there are times when a person's identity and experience can be useful in determining whether a claim pertinent to that identity is true or not, as his example of Catholic theology exemplifies.  To fail to take into consideration what feminist or BLM activists have to say regarding the status of their groups would ultimately be guilty of the same kind of fallacy as these activists themselves would be when they shoot down their opponents for being white males. It assumes a-priori that the arguer has a vested interest in their claim and uses this to discount the claim. While either or both sides may indeed have a vested interest, and that should be noted, that does not make the claims made true or false in and of themselves. 

Blacks either are or are not subject to a greater degree of police harassment than white people are. Women either are or are not subject to a greater degree of street harassment and workplace sexual harassment than males are. The truth of those claims does not depend on the identity of the person making the claim, though actually listening to the testimonials of blacks and women is essential to establishing those truths.

As such, I think we certainly should listen to what women, minorities and so forth are saying about the realities of being what they are in America at present. We should be mindful, however, that the dean of women's studies or black studies at Harvard may not be the best exemplars of the typical woman's or black person's experience. Quite often, the loudest purveyors of feminist and/or critical race theory are light years away from the typical experience of their respective demographics and do have an ongoing vested interest in the claims that they make being accepted entirely at face value by the broader society. I worry that a self appointed vanguard of quasi intellectual activists are going to exploit popular movements in order to seize institutional power (as we see in academia, in Silicon Valley, in a lot of media outlets, Hollywood, Disney and so on) and then use those positions of power to impose their will on the broader population and the postmodern academic ideologies they fabricate within the very privileged and cushioned walls of the ivory tower as legitimizing rationalizations for their own very real power and privilege. That's been happening a lot and is a major driver in the online backlash against social justice warriors. 

So we should be mindful of issues like that. The voices of women and minorities who do not uphold the oppression narratives cannot simply be dismissed. When concepts like false consciousness or internalized racism and/or misogyny get raised, that should raise red flags for critical readers and listeners. What's worse than actually arguing from identity consistently is cherry picking arguments from identity, and assuming them to be valid if and only if they conform to preexisting ideological narratives. This is quite obviously intellectually (and ultimately morally) dishonest.

But we should, if we want to reason honestly about the status of minorities in America, actually listen to what minorities are actually saying life is like for them and considering that when making the evaluation. Not all will say it's tougher being black - blacks have no way to know what it's like to be white so if identity is to be the basis of our arguments, it merely puts them back at square one for this reason. But many more blacks than whites, on a per-capita basis, will describe harsher treatment at the hands of police, I would suspect. I do think women and minorities face issues that white males do not, or face to a far lesser degree, and I do worry about the tendency to handwave their claims as mere SJW pearl clutching, and that tendency has grown online in the last few years. What's crucial to understand, though, is that their claims are true if and only if their claims are, in fact, true. Not merely because they belong to minority demographics. The distinction is subtle yet crucial.

Additional Commentary from the Alternative Left
Identity Politics: Pro Social Justice, Anti SJW
Socrates Talks Class and Identity
Why You Should Not be an Intersectional Feminist

Follow Ernest Everhard on these formats:

Ernest Everhard on Facebook.

Alternative Left on Facebook.

Ernest Everhard on Twitter.

Samizdat Broadcasts on YouTube.

Argumentative Styles of the SJWs and the Alt-Right

If you spend any length of time online at all, you will no doubt have heard references to the social justice warriors - SJWs, and the alt-right.  If you are reading this blog, it is likely you have more familiarity with both of these groups than most people.  It is easy to be dismissive of them since the bulk of their strength is on the internet.  This would be foolishly complacent.  For good or ill, the internet has become an important, and in some cases dominant medium of communication for many people.  We live in among the most revolutionary times in human history as far as media and communication are concerned.  The emergence of the internet and social media rival the emergence of the printing press in terms of importance.

Certain styles of communication are better suited to certain mediums than others.  You may want to read this blog's previous entry on "The Medium is the Message" to get a better idea of how and why this is.  The swift emergence of the SJW and alt-right movements are due, in part, to their successful adoption of new media.  Most online communication is not face to face, and so the anonymity enables a higher degree of raw visceralness that is not typical of more town hall style politics.  It will be important going forward, therefore, to be aware of how these movements work and how they propagate their messages.

What follows is a comparison and contrast of the ideological and argumentative styles of the Social Justice Warriors and the Alt-Right.  Bear in mind before you proceed, dear reader, that we are all fallible human beings and that even the best of us can fall into the use of these tactics from time to time.  Also there are times when the use of a tactic listed below may well be appropriate.  Anger is a perfectly justifiable response to the advocacy of some particularly odious points of view.  But with SJWs and Alt-Rightists, these lapses are not occasional, and are quite often intrinsic to their whole belief system.

Manichean World View and Paranoid Style
SJWs and the Alt-Right see politics in terms of an all or nothing struggle between forces of pure good and ultimate evil, and perceive themselves as the victims of and last line of resistance against a supremely powerful and malignant conspiracy or monolithic system of oppression.  White supremacy or white genocide, patriarchy or gynocentrism.  The problem isn't so much that there are no conspiracies or systems of inequality in the real world.  The problem is that SJWs and Alt-Rightists tend to view conspiracy and oppression as being all encompassing - as "the motive force in historical events" as Richard Hofstadter put it in his essay on the Paranoid Style in American politics.  This allows for no middle ground, no neutrality and no shades of grey.  You are either with them or you're against them, and they will treat you accordingly.

Ends Justifying the Means and Double Standards
Because SJWs and the Alt-Right perceive the world in such stark, good vs evil terms, they're inclined to think that any action taken to defeat the "evil" side is justified.  Even if those actions would otherwise be seen as evil themselves.  Both judge themselves by their intentions, which are usually (in their minds, at least) good, while judging others by the real-world outcomes of their actions and favored policies.  Sometimes this goes as far as the entire moral compass of the Alt-Rightist or SJW being attuned to whether or not it advances their cause.  Some belief systems are explicit in their view that it is acceptable to lie in order to advance their cause.  This causes bewildering and disarming cognitive dissonance to the uninitiated.  Rational people perceive the gap between the stated good intentions and the often ugly actions taken to achieve them, especially with SJWs, and can experience paralyzing confusion, and may even wonder if it is not themselves who are in the wrong somehow.

Argument From Intimidation and Character Assassination
Both the SWJs and the Alt-Right frame their arguments in such a way as to impugn the character of anyone who doesn't agree unconditionally.  It is implied that only a racist, a bigot, a cuck or a degenerate would hold another point of view.  SJWs and the Alt-Right often assume a dominating posture and take on a shrill and belligerent tone, in order to put their opponents on the defensive, disincentivize disagreement and frame the debate.  This is a common, go-to strategy to derail a conversation and cause opponents to spend so much of their efforts defending themselves from what are usually overblown allegations that very little time is spent pursuing their actual argument.

Emotional Reasoning
SJWs and Alt-Rightists can put on absolutely Oscar winning displays of anger, offense and outrage so as to create a tense and awkward situation that distracts from the substance of the arguments.  The emotional impact of an argument is privileged over its congruence with the facts and logical consistency.  Skillful ideologues have a knack for getting upset at precisely those arguments that are most threatening to their positions, and their opponents become reluctant to use what would otherwise be the best arguments in their arsenal for fear of being ridiculed or dealing with an angry tirade.  This is especially effective with SJWs, who exploit the natural sympathy that people have for victims of oppression and injustice to stigmatize and silence their opponents.

Signalling and Groupthink
Regressives of all kinds systematically ignore opposing arguments in favor of rhetorical gimmicks such as slogans, buzzwords and portmanteaus intended to demonstrate virtue and cleverness to their ideological allies.  SJWs accuse their opponents of mansplaining or whitesplaining, as examples.  Alt-Rightists use memes in much the same way.  Pepe the Frog throwing a commie out of a helicopter, or the like.  Both of these movements prioritize in-group loyalty and solidarity at the expense of independent perception and judgement of facts, conflicting evidence or disquieting observations that would call into question group beliefs.  Much of their presentation is done with this in mind.

Ad Hominem Attacks
This involves a direct attack upon the person holding an opposing view: insults, personalized hostility, ridicule and so forth.  Saul Alinsky once observed that ridicule is man's most potent weapon, for there is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.  SJWs and the Alt-Right are aware of this and exploit it to the hilt.  They are, in fact, aware of much of what is in Rules for Radicals.  But they sometimes go further: relishing and gloating over personal misfortunes, doxing, threatening family or employment and so on.  Strong internet security and privacy are worth investing in if you are serious about opposing either the Alt-Right or SJWs.

Deconstruction and Reframing
These are high level tactics and their use indicates a skilled rhetorician and political thinker.  Essentially, they constitute a reframing of their opponents arguments to make them more controversial and less defensible.  To do this, they focus in on a single aspect of their opponent's arguments, right down to a few words even, and present them out of their original context.  Conversely, if confronted on a less savory aspect of their own platform, they reframe and reword their position to make it appear more palatable and moderate.  Employing these methods, and defending against them, takes awareness and practice.

Sexism and Sexual Repression
Both of these movements have strong undertones of gender preference.  The preference being for women for the SJWs and men for the Alt-Right.  This could not have been better personified than by the rival candidates for the US 2016 presidential elections.  SJWs and Alt-rightists come across as having "mommy" or "daddy" issues.  The SJWs are preoccupied with tearing down traditional notions of masculinity and femininity while the Alt-Right is preoccupied with upholding them.  And not just for themselves personally, but for the whole society.  This infuses the whole language of both causes.  SJWs denounce "toxic masculinity" while the Alt-Right insults its opponents by calling them "cucks", which are, by definition, unmanly.  Freudian concepts such as penis envy and castration anxiety seem to apply in spades to both sides.

As a corollary, notice that people in both of these movements attack a lack of sexual experience and prowess in their opponents.  Sooner or later, an exchange between the two boils down to people living in their parent's basements and being unable to get laid.

Finally, both sides advocate a high level of sexual control over society, and would regulate consensual sexual behaviors if it were in their power to do so.  The alt-right would suppress homosexuality and miscegenation and tend to prefer a male-initiator and passive female model of courtship.  The SWJs are especially distrustful of male heterosexuality, as they view it is paramount in the objectification of women.  A more recent preoccupation of the SJWs is the abolition of the gender binary all together.

Racism, Fundamentalism and Irrationality
Express disdain for specific racial groups.  This may be rationalized by alleged genetic superiority or by an appeal to alleged historical and/or contemporary privilege enjoyed by the disliked racial group.  Suffice it to say, a preference for whites over PoC is paramount on the Alt-Right, the reverse is true for the SJWs.

Religion serves as an effective corollary to race, often standing in for race among both SJWs and the Alt-Right.  Christianity is coded white while Islam is coded brown and/or black.  This results in paradoxical stances towards Islam in particular by both movements.  SJWs embrace Islam due to their white guilt and the Alt-Right deplores it due to their white supremacy, despite the strongly conservative stance towards women's rights and LGBT rights taken in Shari'a law.

As a related phenomenon, both the SJWs and the Alt-Right are skeptical of the enlightenment, liberalism, rationalism and universal concepts of human experience.  This is expressed on the alt-right through a dark enlightenment or neo-reaction, while the SJWs do so through postmodernism and poststructuralism.  Culture and identity are the order of the day for both.  As such, they seem impractical as actual philosophies for governance.  While the alt-right is anti-communist and the SJWs are usually, though not always, anti-capitalist, both have little time for the empirical and formulaic discipline of economics.

Conclusion
Both the SJWs and the Alt-Right are "feelings based" rather than "evidence based" movements, though selective use of evidence and even scientific process may be employed when it serves their aims. They do not like, and are seldom amenable to, serious scrutiny of their claims and views.  At heart, I think both represent a fusion of the personal and the political.  Often, SJWs and Alt-Rightists have personal axes to grind, or are attempting to rationalize an otherwise very self serving set of positions by appealing to ideology.

Often, but not always.  People in either movement may be sincere in their goals and may be genuinely well intended.  Likewise, even the most sensible and sober conservative, liberal or social democrat may have personal hang-ups that they project onto their view of the world order.  The idea here is not to idealize an impossibly cold and perfectly logical standard that even Mr. Spock would fail to measure up to.  But rather, it is important to emphasise that SJWs and the Alt-Right do not place the kind of premium on formal logic, the scientific method and empirical evidence that their skeptic community opponents tend to prize.  Adjust your expectations of engagements with SJWs and the Alt-Right accordingly.

It is also important that opponents of SJWs or Alt-Rightists not rely on any of the above alone to refute SJW or Alt-Right claims.  Their claims, no more or less than anyone else's, stand or fall on the basis of the evidence for them.  The fact that their positions are poorly argued and reinforced does not itself make their positions wrong. The ideological and argumentative styles listed above are not presented to refute the positions of SJWs and the Alt-Right, but rather to warn of the battery of rhetorical and ideological devices that they use to circumvent opponents who rely on sound logic and evidence as a basis for their own beliefs and as a means of challenging others.  Rationalists should not expect a fight on their terms when engaging SJWs or the Alt-Right.  Be warned.

The Means and Limitations of Argument

An important article appeared in Current Affairs on March 16, 2017 entitled "Debate vs. Persuasion" written by Nathan J. Robinson.  I say important because it reveals important facts about ideological competition that anti-regressive political forces need to be aware of.

The most important thing anybody could ever understand about political debate is contained within the first paragraph.

"A common argument on the left runs as follows: one should not have an excessive confidence in the power of “rational debate” to solve political disagreements. There is, after all, no reasoning with some people. They are beyond argument, and thinking that you can reason with them is delusional. Any attempt to do so is likely to hurt your political fortunes, because it misunderstands how power works. Politics is not a university debating society, in which each side offers its premises and conclusions and the team with the tightest logic wins. It is “war by other means,” a clash of interests that is won by gaining the ability to push your agenda through, not by showing the other side how reasonable you are."

It has been bolded and the font changed for emphasis.  Read that again.  And again.  And again.  The only thing I'll add is that this kind of thinking isn't really unique to the left.  The Tea Party, for instance, was prone to thinking that way.  Obama, the Muslim Nazi communist antichrist that he was, simply could not be reasoned with.  Total obstruction was the only option open to congressional Republicans in the Obama era who had angry and vocal Tea Partiers - convinced that FEMA camps were just around the corner - to answer to back home.  

But it does come naturally to leftists, who have a tendency to see politics in the Manichean terms described in the last sentence of the paragraph.  This has been especially true since Trump's win, who while not a communist or a Muslim (obviously) is also a Nazi, as well as a whole basket of other deplorables besides. One out of four ain't bad, I guess.  And while he's not the antichrist in the minds of his Women's March opponents - all together too Christian and hence Republican and hence white male for the Women's Marchers, the concept of the antichrist is, he is likened to Lord Voldemort of Harry Potter legendary, who I surmise is the next worst thing.

Whichever dark lord happens to sit in the oval office at any given time (I seem to recall frequent comparisons of George W. Bush to Sauron, for example, or Anakin Skywalker after his fall to the dark side) the important thing is that reference to mythological imagery and archetype is indispensable to the creation of a political movement aspiring to long term success.  If the movement does not cast its enemies in the role of evil villains, how can its supporters be, or at least feel, heroic?  The problem with demonizing your opponents, though, is that it becomes harder to reason with them and maintain your credibility.  Hence the perception of politics as a "war by other means" rather than as a "university debating society."

Here it is again, just in case you missed it.

"It is “war by other means,” a clash of interests that is won by gaining the ability to push your agenda through, not by showing the other side how reasonable you are."

This cannot be emphasized enough.  Political factions characterized by a high degree of rationalism, usually indicated by a tendency to not regard their political opponents as fantasy novel villains, and the alt-left is such a movement, too often fail to realize this.  This leads to exchanges between alt-leftists and tea partiers or intersectional feminists being frustrating exercises in futility.  Why won't they listen to reason?

This is where Nathan J. Robinson's excellent article continues to deliver.

"It’s important, in considering these questions, to clear up what “debate” is to begin with. Many of the criticisms of “debating” people seem to assume a narrow definition of debate: they criticize those who think pure logic can successfully counter right-wing [or regressive left] political points. The idea here is that “debate” consists of rational argumentation: I present my points, with evidence, you present counterpoints with evidence, I rebut your counterpoints, you parry my rebuttal with some more evidence, and one of us wins through superior logic."

I hope you're making a note of that.  Because formal logic does have an important place in rhetoric (notice that term), it is be no means the total extent of what debate is.  Believing that logic, facts and reason are all debate comes down to is a very common mistake made by otherwise bright young people who rightly prize reason and factuality as being of crucial importance in deciding political differences.  It's a mistake I've made many times.

"In making the decision as to whether to debate someone, and how, it’s that effect on the audience question that should be crucial. It’s all about the audience; you’re never going to persuade your opponent, your job is to persuade the person watching." [emphasis mine]

This is crucial.  I've all but given up on internet flame wars for this reason.  When engaging in a flame war, ask yourself who are you trying to convince?  I really do hope by now that we're all well past believing that paleo-cons or intersectional feminists can be persuaded.   But sometimes there's an audience - a younger brother or other family member at a family gathering, a friend on Facebook who's kind of on the fence between going SJW and going Alt-Left, an alt-right guy on YouTube who's seriously wondering if social safety nets aren't necessary after all, and in the not too distant future, perhaps, a university auditorium or lecture hall.  It's worth it then.

TIP: The best way to "win" a debate is to have said debate before an audience of your own choosing.  Taking the fight to /pol/ on 4chan or the comments sections on Everyday Feminism's Facebook page is a good way to get dogpiled, no matter how sound your arguments.  Unless it's your intent to troll, of course.  Sometimes it's impossible to resist.  

Robinson then harkens back to Aristotle, who defined successful rhetoric as consisting of three components, of which pure logic was but one, called logos.  There were also pathos and ethos, meaning emotion and character.  Let's consider each briefly.

Logos, as mentioned above, logical soundness.  The law of non-contradiction rules here: a thing cannot both be X and not be X.  Prove that your opponent commits logical flaws that result in this kind of fundamental contradiction, and you should have the argument in the bag.  You'd be surprised at how effective that isn't against dug-in regressive opponents.  But remember, it's not about your opponent, it's about the audience.  Show them that your logic is sound, or at least that opponent's logic is more fundamentally flawed than yours and the battle is one third won.

TIP: It's useful to brush up on your logical fallacies regularly if you wish to be successful at this.  There's a good list of them here, and you an even download a PDF poster of logical fallacies from the site for free!  What are you waiting for?  Wikipedia has a good list also.

Knowledge of logical fallacies is a good way to prevent yourself from being fooled, and if you can score points with your audience by using fallacies successfully (be careful when doing this, mind you), have at 'er.  You don't want to have the wool pulled over your eyes by an SJW or a tea bagger, don't you?  No, you don't.

TIP: logos goes beyond simple logical cohesion.  Word choice is crucial.  Use of language to frame issues in ways that favor your side is an art form worth studying, for it can well pay off.  It is vital that you know your audience and, at least to some degree, speak their language.  Meaning their turns of phrase and, importantly, their values and the words that best capture those values.  Use them, and make damn good and sure that it is you and not your opponent that best embodies those values.

Pathos refers to emotion, and appeals to emotion in rhetoric.  This strikes many as cheating, especially since I just mentioned logos and knowing your logical fallacies, of which appeal to emotion is one.  Don't believe it.  Your opponents are going to make all kinds of emotional appeals, and the audience - remember, it's all about the audience - is much more likely to be moved by appeals to emotion plus otherwise sound logic than they will by sound logic alone.  Rouse sympathy towards yourself by portraying your points as fair and just, while rousing disdain and anger towards your opponent's. 

It's also not easy to do well.  Be too flagrant and obvious in your appeal to emotion and you will come across as maudlin or emotionally manipulative and end up falling flat.  Again, knowing your audience is crucial.  If you don't know your audience at first, stick to logos until you do. Also be aware of external factors that can make an audience more susceptible to emotional appeal.  The mere existence of an audience is one such factor: crowd psychology can augment an emotion aroused by a skilled rhetorician.  Political rallies are full of this, quite intentionally.

Ethos refers to character and reputation.  This is about you appearing to be competent and having integrity.  Or your opponent appearing incompetent and lacking in integrity.  If you can't exactly win, at least try not to lose.  Remember what I've said about knowing your audience, and especially knowing what your audience values?  This is all about portraying your side as being the better exemplar of those values.  Subcategories of ethos include:

• Decorum: Represent yourself as being in alignment with your audience's expectations of leadership and competence.
• Virtue:  Represent yourself as being in alignment with your audience's values.
• Practical Wisdom: Represent yourself as pragmatic, practical, mindful and in possession of common sense.
• Disinterest:  Important.  Showing yourself as having minimal personal vested interest in your position.  You take the stance you do because it is demonstrably right, not because you will benefit from it personally.

Of course, you will want to do your best to make sure that your opponent's position fails in any or all of the above regards.  Be careful about making personal attacks upon or impugning the character of your opponent, however.  It is usually best to regard your opponent as well meaning but misguided or misinformed.   Most audiences frown upon personal attacks, unless you have smoking-gun evidence to back such attacks up, or your audience actually likes to see people of particular political stripes get a good roasting.  I wouldn't recommend respecting intersectional antifa protesters as well intended but just a tad bit off the mark on an anti SJW page.  

Am I suggesting you fight dirty, so to speak?  I would suggest that you lie and cheat at your peril, and at peril to the cause you represent.  If you feel the need to misrepresent yourself or misrepresent your beliefs in any exchange with a political or ideological opponent, I'd suggest that you reevaluate the stance you're taking.  If it's worth advocating and defending, you won't need to be dishonest to do it.

Do not expect to convince an opponent, though it could happen.

Using ethos and pathos as well as logos to persuade an audience isn't lying or deception of any kind.  Rather, it's appealing to the whole human character of your audience rather than just their minds.  Respecting their intellect through solid, but not overly pretentious reasoning is important.  But human nature is driven much more by values - or by the ego stroking that professing good values gives people - than by pure logic alone.  The conclusion of Robinson's article puts it succinctly, and I present here in slightly altered form for my own ideological purposes:

"The other side understands this. Conservatives and regressive leftists know how to appeal to people’s guts, to their feelings of bitterness, suspicion, and fear. If the alt-left is going to respond, it needs a message of equal power. Not mere facts, though of course we want those. But something that appeals to the nobler emotions: to solidarity, and joy, and the spirit of human kinship. We have effective emotional appeals, we just need to use them. 

There’s nothing inherently shameful about political rhetoric. In fact, it’s essential. You should be appealing to the heart as well as the brain. You should have a character people can trust, not just arguments they can agree with. And it’s the only way you’ll win."

Convince your audience that they are good people who value good things, and that your proposals better represent those good values than your opponent's proposals, "well intended as they are" and you will go far.