From the very beginning the statistics have been sketchy. What right do I have to say this? Well I’ve been trained in statistics. So how can I show you easily. Simple! If we are being honest about statistics, we have to show both the number and percentage when discussing things. Imagine this: Breaking news! Coronavirus death rates are up 300% from yesterday! Instantly, there is a panic. 300% is a lot. Let’s say yesterday one person was listed as a covid death, then the next day, 3 people allegedly died from the virus. 4 people isn’t a lot for a pandemic, but with such high percentages, it sounds scary.
You should note that when they mention coronavirus, they are not necessarily referring to covid, as there are many strains of coronavirus, so with the statistical adaptions they made in order to skew this and take advantage of people’s fear, we have around 28 days from having any form of coronavirus infection, a person has died. Now this doesn’t even mean that they died from the coronavirus or from covid. What it means is that they died within 28 days of having any form of coronavirus. Is it even a contributing factor? Possibly not, but it’s still listed as a covid death statistic. When you consider how common coronaviruses are, the fact LFTs can pick up multiple strains and the media wanting to keep everyone in a mad state of panic, we have a massive fear campaign.
Do I think people have died of covid? Without a doubt. I’ve worked on the front lines during the pandemic and volunteered to work infected units due to my immunity. I know it can be dangerous.
Let’s break things down:
How do we know how someone has died? – We perform an autopsy. The autopsy or post-mortem is an analysis of the body after death to find out the cause of death. Ask yourself, how many autopsies have actually been done to come up with the numbers we see. If we do not know for sure, then numbers are just estimates. We cannot work with unreliable data, however everyone has been drinking unreliable data for the past few years, so they’re used to it.
Coronavirus or Covid? Covid is one form of coronavirus, known as SARS-COV-2. The other two dangerous forms of coronavirus are MERS-COV and SARS-COV. Then we have HCOV-OC43, HCOV-HKU1, HCOV-229E and HCOV-NL63. Covid deaths refers specifically to deaths from Covid, or SARS-COV-2, and Coronavirus deaths are defined as anyone who has died from any form of Coronavirus, which includes the other forms. If Covid numbers are high, then Covid is dangerous. If Coronavirus numbers are high, that’s normal. But we also have to take into account the extension of rules that allow for higher statistics and more public panic.
Numbers and statistics. I mentioned this earlier: You need a number and a percentage, and what’s more they need to be properly defined. “Today there have been 20 Covid deaths, up by 100% from yesterday where there were 10.” Is good definition, though if timeframes were properly included, we’d have it close to perfect. We know the numbers, we know the percentages and we know the comparison. As I mentioned earlier, if you just see a percentage or number, you are not getting the bigger picture, especially if it’s not defined. “Coronavirus deaths are up 247% from last week!” Could mean coronavirus deaths this week could be being added together from one specific day last week. We’re also talking coronavirus deaths not Covid deaths. So Covid might be down whereas coronavirus is up. The less definition, the more bogus the statistics.
Phrasing: If A reporter says, “138 more people died from Covid today than yesterday!” this can actually mean one of two things. Firstly that yesterday, there were 1000 Covid deaths, and today there have been 1138 Covid deaths, or this could also mean that yesterday there were 1000 covid deaths and today there have been 138 covid deaths, a drop of 862. But this statement will always sound like it was more, and you will have noticed this in the news.
We’ve been being exploited, lied to, and manipulated by a sick media and politicians for a long time. We have no accurate information on Covid or Coronavirus. Considering that LFT tests are not accurate, PCR testing can have issues, there are few autopsies and little evidence that Covid poses a real risk to people who have no co-morbidities. I can only think that this is not a pandemic, rather it is a test of public fear. If masks worked and were effective, Boris would not backtrack on them. He wouldn’t backtrack on them because it would not be in the public’s best interest. If this was a real pandemic, the army would be on the streets and the logistics corps would be delivering supplies.
I will leave you with information on a real pandemic. This is an article about The Black Death. It was one of the worst pandemics in known history, and bodies were piled high in the streets. People painted crosses on the doors of people with the plague in red or black. Carts would go by pushed by people calling out “Bring out your dead.” Families were devastated, friendships destroyed, everything in the world was ruin. In this time of the great, terrifying Covid-19 pandemic Politicians frolic maskless and drunk. Love him or hate him, Paul Joseph Watson gets it right. This nonsense has been going on, and we’ve all been played for fools…
If people had never questioned science, the human race would still believe in alchemy and the geocentric model of the universe. Nowadays, you’re not supposed to question science. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler all added to the knowledge of what we now see as the universe. Scientists opposed them, and despite holding the popular theories of the time, they were proven wrong… By science. There has been a mass shutdown of thought in which people are told that questioning scientists (most of whom cannot string together anything more complicated than “Covid’s bad, mkay?”) is a stupid thing to do.
In the future, people will look back on ‘the science’ of today and wonder how human beings could associate 6 different coronaviruses, of which some are very common as the same thing, which apparently results in a person having Covid. Covid is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 strain. The Wikipedia article is extended protected meaning that people cannot edit it in the normal fashion that they can with other articles. Other forms of coronavirus do not cause COVID-19. There are several types of LFT or Lateral Flow Test available, produced by a number of different companies. Some of these show up to 4 other types of coronavirus. On reporting that the test is positive, people must self isolate according to our government regulations until such a time has passed that they can safely go to work.
Until the Covid Pandemic, a large amount of medical organisations recommended not wearing a face mask over a long time. This is because, for cloth face masks, you can breathe droplets in through the mask and over time the mask will retain moisture and heat, allowing bacteria to multiply, which is repeatedly going in and out of your lungs. Other face masks are better, and disposables should be used and disposed of quickly. Prolonged use can lead to physical complications for the person’s face, ears, nose and mouth, which I have seen first hand as I work with these. A fellow co-worker who works a lot now has injuries to her ears because of this, other carers and hospital workers I know have experienced similar issues. If you think it’s fun and games try wearing one into work, then through work then all the way home to about 13.5 hours, and do that 5 days a week for a while. – This is after we take LFTs to ensure we don’t have Covid before going into the home. Which makes very little sense until you realise that the tests aren’t 100% reliable or accurate. Ergo the carers and hospital staff must suffer to ensure safety of individuals in their care. Face masks historically weren’t always regarded as ‘safe’ to use. Information like this is now really hard to find because the ‘new science’ and ‘fact checking websites’ now populate Google, and provide a politically motivated ‘scientific’ opinion on why they are really safe and that you must wear them.
It is currently policy for first aiders not to give rescue breaths, which will ultimately result in increased deaths from cardiac arrest and could lead to brain damage or death through lack of oxygen. People who are receiving CPR are at a higher level of risk due to Covid rules, and they are one small sub section of society. People with cancer find themselves unable to get treatment due to this pandemic, that relies on facts and figures skewed as never before seen. This will also affect people with heart disease and just about any other illness ever. Normally, one would have to establish the cause of death. It’s really weird that the window would be so large. It’s also important to note that Covid is more dangerous to people with comorbidities, which begs the question: “What is the actual medical cause of death? Covid, the complications from Covid, or the other issues?” If all are put down as Covid, just because someone had it at the time, or even after they no longer had it because they used to this is not scientifically accurate, because we do not know for sure. They could have died from anything else. Also when you consider how many times the word coronavirus is thrown around in statistics, you have to wonder if people are talking about SARS-CoV-2 or coronavirus in general, especially considering some LFTs pick up multiple forms.
Statistics are being used to spread fear and chaos, so when the numbers aren’t high, the papers will say: Coronavirus cases are up 33% in this area, even if that means 3 people had it and one more has become infected, causing mass panic. Not 33% more people dying, but just 33% more have it. Sadly the news article for this one has disappeared and is only there as a memory, so you’ll have to just trust me on this. There’s a lot of the whole mass panic thing going on at the moment, which is amusing. So petrol is a little short because of some delays and issues in supply. The news mentions it, everyone goes crazy and buy up all the petrol in existence, creating a mass panic, and an actual fuel crisis. Fearmongering is something I see as very creepy and it’s something that makes me question a lot of what’s actually going on. They keep talking about coronavirus statistics, however these are NOT specified as SARS-CoV-2, which is an important distinction as if we are just reporting the common cold deaths as a comorbidity death, this is really troubling. Thankfully, the Flu has retired though, so that’s good. After many years of hard work, it’s finally claiming it’s pension. I wonder sometimes if maybe, it’s all just… Well… The flu after a rebrand, but that’d be crazy, right?
In the UK, the Government has enforced a mandate which forces carers like myself to be vaccinated. Because we in the health sector are so worthless and expendable, we are being forcefully vaccinated or having to lose our jobs under, I might add, a GOVERNMENT REGULATION, which does not have the same weight as the ACTUAL LAW which states that Government regulations MAY NOT impose a vaccination on people. But let’s be honest, who gives a damn about this. I have had my first vaccination and it’s had a horrible effect on me. I’ve gone into hospital, which I never did with Covid, and my body and mind are screwed. I’ve got to have another one or lose my job. This is called being forced to do something under duress, which is coercion meaning that I cannot legally consent to it. Which in essence results in what they call in legal terms: battery. I know what you’re thinking… If you don’t want it, why did you make that choice? I didn’t. It was take the jab or lose my job. It’s not a choice, I have bills to pay and a family to support. Also fun fact, as we don’t know the long term effects of the vaccine (some vaccines have manifested results 20 YEARS after being jabbed) there can be NO INFORMED CONSENT, meaning that all the consent forms are useless.
To wrap it up. The very fact the science is unable to be challenged now and anyone who attempts to question the chosen science is regarded as a moronic Luddite is worrying. It shows a stupid and unscientific stagnancy that only an oppressor would put on the world, after all, if the science was solid, anything challenging it would be able to be refuted, rather than silenced. The fact the law no longer protects people from being forced into a clinical trial or lose their jobs is also worrying.
Welcome to 1984. It’s the beginning of a man stamping on a human face – happily ever after.
Part 1: Are The Regulations the Government proposes actually Legal?
The government has put in place a new regulation which states that it will be mandatory for care assistants to have two approved vaccines in order to work within a CQC regulated care home. This regulation appears to be in conflict with the Public Health Control of Disease Act 1984, which governs how such a regulation should be made, specifically stating that regulating such a mandate is not possible. This is being done supposedly with the “Intention that it is necessary to protect the lives of residents.” It is my belief that the regulation itself is completely illegal as it flies in the face of the legislation documented in the Public Health Control of Disease Act 1984 and therefore should be nullified by this act.
The government publications relating to the new regulations specify that they are indeed regulations, and also refer to them as operational guidance. Considering that these are regulations and guidance, and they are potentially unlawful, should they really be adhered to if they are in conflict with the Law?
The government also refers to the amendments to the social care act 2008 as being regulations and guidance. As regulations appear to be prohibited from mandating an invasive medical procedure such as a vaccine, are they really legally binding?
Concluding from the way the Public Health Control of Disease Act 1984 handles the ability to mandate a vaccine through regulations, I do not believe that enforcing such regulations is something companies should act upon.
Moreover I believe that the Health and Safety at work act 1974 would require as stated: “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees” due to the vaccines not having been around for long enough to know long term health effects of the vaccines, administration and enforcement of such mandates through regulations without scrutinising the legal side of things or attempting to look into health risks and side effects of these vaccines could potentially be a breach of this legislation.
The reasons for the regulations being made are that they are supposedly being made with the intention of protecting residents. This creates a coercion to adhere to morality when it comes to how carers interact with people in the outside world, and helps apply pressure to them to conform to government demands. Here is my counter to the argument that it is necessary to protect residents:
Currently care homes have several tests to ensure that the virus does not get into the care home. Staff are to take Lateral Flow Tests and PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests to ensure that they do not bring the virus into homes. These tests help to ensure the protection of residents in the care home.
The regulation states that friends and family of the residents who are visiting the care home do not need to be vaccinated. This is a potential risk to residents, in the case that the vaccination is actually useful or necessary which is debatable. This also applies to emergency services, maintenance people, private carers, persons under the age of 18. There is even the case for people being medically exempt. If this is the case, but vaccines are required for safety, with such volumes of unvaccinated traffic who do not always even know how to use PPE properly going through the care home every single day, it cannot be said that this mandate is being done to protect residents at all.
It must be stated that a vaccine does not prevent staff from carrying the virus, it just assists the body in creating an immune response, though global results for vaccines have varied, with serious cases in Israel for example skyrocketing after taking secondary vaccines and booster jabs.
Part 2 Intimidation and Coercion – Thoughts on Science, and intimidation and coercion of employees in the care sector.
At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat wearing skeptic, currently at the moment there is a worrying trend with science that it must not be challenged. This has been pushed forward by the government, the media and the most powerful social media platforms in the world. Science is something that has always been challenged.
If Galileo had not challenged science, we would know less about the universe today, and would still think that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Galileo was in his time labelled a heretic as he argued against the science of his day. Even now we know his heliocentric beliefs were incorrect as we have gathered more understanding of the innate nature of the universe. Today we know that the geocentric and heliocentric models of the universe are false, as are the classical elements, Earth, Air Fire and Water, Hollow Earth theory and many others. This is why alchemy has ceased to be a profession.
Science has to always be open to scepticism and questions, as if it cannot openly be challenged, it cannot be considered to be accurate or correct to a level where it is reliable. If a fact can be scientifically proven beyond all reasonable doubts it can be considered to have a high degree of accuracy, however if any attempts to question the science have to be shut down and ignored, or outright dismissed without scrutiny, this is proof that something is not right somewhere, as it should be easy using science to disprove skeptics and alternative theories. I do not believe the science to be accurate because of the global shutdown in what could be classified as wrongthink. It is very, very scary and highly intimidating.
A look at coercion and intimidation…
As it stands. The new government regulations coming into effect come into effect as of November the 11th to the best of my knowledge. This means they are not currently in effect, as far as I know. In order to understand where I am going it is important to define what coercion is.
Coercion is: the use of intimidation or threats to force (or prevent) someone doing something against their will.
So for example, any organisation threatening disciplinary action, unspecified meetings or punishment in the case that their staff do not comply with being vaccinated before such a time as they would be enforced by law would be guilty of coercion through intimidation. A clear breach or article 3 of the human rights act.
Due to the sheer level of phone calls, emails, letters and communications between care home staff and management regarding the mandate of vaccines and the threats of termination of employment if staff do not adhere to the government regulations, not to mention the incessant peer pressure from other staff, friends and family. It can only be classified as intimidation resulting in one message. Get the jabs or lose your jobs. Need I state again that I believe these regulations are not legal?
Informed Consent and Battery:
It should be legally possible for all employees to self declare a medical exemption for vaccination in common law based upon a case settled in: 2015 in which the Supreme Court recognised that denial of free and informed consent is a self certified medical reason. The case is Montgomery v Lanarkshire 2015 UKSC 11.
Despite arguing this point, I was denied this right by my company’s legal team, which I saw as being unfair. As I don’t know the long term effects of the vaccines, and no one else does, I cannot have informed consent.
Informed consent is defined within Montgomery v Lanarkshire is as follows:
1: That the patient is given sufficient information to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.
My statement is: As there is no information as to the long term effects of these vaccines and they are still approved for use only on the grounds of medical emergency. Sufficient information on long term effects does not exist. Ergo there can be no informed consent under these circumstances.
2: Sufficient information means informing the patient of other treatments and forms of testing.
3: That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking, the medical risks of taking, the medical information, and the material risks of declining it.
To conclude: As no long term information or data is available, any consent reached would not be informed consent.
If future information of possible side effects came to light after the patient gave consent, and there is a breach of informed consent, I believe that this would be classified as tort of battery and the medication would be unlawfully administered.
I am led to believe that the fundamental common law right to free and informed consent based on the ancient tort of battery is valid in all 16 Commonwealth realms and the Republic of Ireland and USA, that is, as far as I know.
In 2001, EWCA Civ 1545, I believe that Supreme Court President Lady Justice Hale confirmed that enforced medical procedures without informed consent may be sued in the ordinary way for the common law tort of battery.
Currently the vaccines have not been in circulation long enough for long term effects of these vaccines upon human beings to be known. Due to this fact, no staff member who consents to be vaccinated is doing so under the rules governing informed consent, which I believe constitutes battery in these cases, (as they are an invasive medical procedure) due to the fact that required long term information on health risks cannot actually be provided. In many cases, written consent to an invasive medical procedure is not given by the people being administered vaccines. Even if it was given, due to the long term effects not being known, it would not be informed consent and therefore would not protect a company who had coerced their employees or others into signing a consent form.
So what does this have to do with coercion and science? If the science cannot be questioned and the regulation cannot be questioned, yet both must be obeyed, then coercion is occurring because one is acting not on what they want but what is being demanded of them under threat of losing their job. I myself know many other carers who would not have taken their jabs if their jobs had not been threatened. If they had not been relentlessly pressured into this action. I certainly would not have.
Are the Vaccines Safe?
We do not know. We will not know for years, maybe decades to come whether or not these vaccinations are safe. It is interesting to see a world in which they are lauded as definitely safe, with very low chance of risk, when they have not been out for a sufficient time for this information to be correct or reliable. Even after years and years of vaccine development there are still health risks with vaccines that have been out a lot longer than these new vaccines monitored worldwide on systems like VAERS.
To say something is safe without knowing the long term effects is extremely dangerous and unscientific. It’s this kind of thinking that you have to look at the cases of thalidomide babies to understand, or maybe closer to home the effects of the 1976 H1N1 vaccine which resulted in a rare neurological condition, Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring in around 450 cases, or maybe the narcolepsy following the Pandemrix vaccines in Europe.
In the United States, CNN released this article in 2020 which covers some more cases.
To make a vaccine that has not been thoroughly tested to the point where we know the long term effects of it a mandatory requirement of working in a care home, despite the fact that vaccines do not stop someone carrying the virus into the care home cannot be considered reasonable. The government regulations that support this appear to be in conflict with the 1984 Public Health Control of Disease act.
Not everyone entering the care home or delivering personal care has to be vaccinated, which is proof that this is not in the best interest of residents, as all of the acceptable non vaccinated people are not subject to the same mandate. These people move throughout the care home which would clearly put other people at risk of infection – that is if vaccination even stopped someone from carrying the virus, which it does not.
This means that, from my interpretation, this is not being done in the interests of protecting residents or all people entering the care home would have to be vaccinated with no exceptions.
I hate you, because of the colour of your skin, because of your political beliefs, sexual identity, height, weight, and because you are reading this essay. You disgust me for all of these reasons and you should be ashamed of yourself.
None of that statement was fair, and yet every day, people are judged not for who they are as individuals, but for labels that are placed upon them. It is horrible when people do that. We are all, each our own individual selves. Not the colour of our skin, our gender, our sexual orientation or food preferences.
It’s very easy to label people, I myself do it all the time, and it is likely that you too do it, even if you do not really recognise it within your normal day to day life. I have been labelled as many things, and oftentimes, I do not fit the blanket statement that covers those things. This is without doubt infuriatingly annoying.
Are You How You Appear?
An example of my being labelled and despised for it would be my political ideology. I see myself as a conservative. I do not support the conservative party of the UK. Because of the things I have said being maligned, sometimes purposefully and wilfully by others for their own political means, this has been used as a weapon to turn people who do not like the conservative party against me. Because I am conservative, I like the conservatives, they say. Well, no, I like to have a conservative ideology, but I might well think the entire party are a bunch of corrupt weasels. Something these people most likely believe themselves.
So where do I line up politically? I am right wing in that I believe in the inevitabilities of social hierarchies, and what’s more I think they are necessary. We can see this in governments, the idea of democracy, the fact that most people would rather happily work for an employer who will pay them less than they themselves earn.
I started my own business, and so do many others, but it is a rare thing where people are paid the same as their boss… If you run a business, do you take home equal wages to those who work for you? It is unlikely. I think it is nice we have a right wing structure that helps pay benefits in this country and supports the unemployed, the disabled and the people others refuse to help. A left wing society would instead state that it is society’s job as a whole to look after these people, but society doesn’t care enough to ensure that this would happen. As much as we would like to say we as human beings care, we do not. Otherwise these problems would not exist. It is only under a right wing hierarchy that these people can be looked after and protected.
Are these reasons to hate me? Of course! Because I am right wing, I am a fascist, socialist, racist, far right nazi with the urge to destroy society and everyone within it. All I yearn for is to watch the world burn… – Or so people would have others believe. This, of course, is not true. I can be a belligerent asshole at times though.
The left wing, according to every definition I have read, supports social equality and the idea that people are all equal morally and in terms of worth. It is in competition with the ideas of natural hierarchy, and I see it as being incredibly dangerous. This is because I see no evidence that anyone aspires for true social equality, because most that claim to engage in conflict with those that value social hierarchy, and you can bet your last dollar safely that they sure as hell won’t respect the opinions of others who have a different world view. Social equality also means social responsibility and most of those who claim to be left wing in their posts and arguments do little to support the needy, graciously relying on the right wing societal structures that help them so they don’t have to, whilst attacking them consistently. It is disappointing more than anything to see through the facade of these people who claim to care, yet do nothing to help their fellow man, attacking the very structures in place to protect them.
The issue is the muddiness of the water in the way both doctrines are perceived by the majority of people that espouse them. The majority of people on the vocal left will demean the right, for example, and claim moral superiority to them. This is an act of social hierarchy and would more typically fit the right wing ideology, which means that doing this is very hypocritical and not the kind of action one should generally expect of the left wing, at least according to its definition. I could comfortably say that most of the people who vocally assume their identity is left wing, or use the terminology to preach social justice are on the political right. Usually much further along than me to the point where I classify the, as far right extremists. The ones who want to change the world and alter the thought patterns of others and dominate through authoritarian means are the far right they fear so much. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
But what about the social justice we fight for? You might say… I shall quote the great Thomas Sowell: “Since this is an era when many people are concerned about ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice,’ what is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for.
Let the left work that out, as the right have already found the solution.
Let’s work out a mathematical equation:
Take the amount of money you give to charity per month, supporting anything from friends to organizations.
Then take the amount you spend on yourself for luxuries, new shoes, socks, holidays, wine, meals out, takeaways, tattoos, hair dye, hair gel, caramel lattes, or sweets and treats from the shops. Things you don’t need to survive.
Which of these numbers is ultimately greater? In most cases, it will be the second one. I have several vices myself. I am an avid lover of Coca Cola and Dr. Pepper. Now if I take the amount I drink per month, I’m looking at about £80.00 – £90.00 which I’m not spending on helping other people. I don’t really have many other vices. Overall they equate to around £125.00 per month according to my workings out.
This is less than I give to helping others and supporting charities. I work on average around 60-70 hours a week, sometimes doing as many as 80 hours. I support organizations like Greenpeace, the PDSA and similar charities. Outside of this, I provide free services for small businesses, and spend hours supporting them and helping them grow for no financial gain. I write music for people’s films and ask nothing in return, not because my music is without value, but because I want people to be able to use it for anything they like. I have worked on taking down the websites of white supremacists who incited violence against people of colour and who doxed them. Some of the money that I get in ad revenue on this site will be going to charity, so by reading this, and enduring the ads, I would like to thank you for helping me help people.
Does this mean I’m a good person? Not really. These are just some of the actions that I take that most would associate with the left wing. I support charities because it is the right thing to do and help businesses and film makers because I know how hard it is to start out in these areas. I help fight racism where it exists because I believe that we as a species should not fight each other based around petty differences.
Morality… Let’s Pretend.
Let’s look at things morally. I’ll start with a horrifying statement: “I do not care about the homeless.” Do I give money to the homeless? Absolutely! I also give recommendations for them to contact Emmaus, or advice if they want it. But do I actually care? No. I’ve never asked a homeless person to stay with me or tried to directly help them or try to personally fix anything in their life. That would be the action of someone who truly cared. So, with this in mind, I cannot pretend I truly care. Making a big racket about how I care all over social media would be pretty ridiculous if it is simply not the case. But I see this every day. “I’ve given a homeless person this! Look at me, I’m a good person.” Is it really you who has helped the person or has the homeless person helped you gain social favour. You have used your ‘charity’ to make yourself look good, ergo it’s not charity at all. That person has helped you look good and you have exploited them for public acclaim.
Every day, I see people who screamed Black Lives Matter when George Floyd died, yet not only did they not care about the death of David Dorn, but they were quick to drop Floyd the moment it was discovered he had a criminal past. He no longer fit the role that was needed, and quickly more names were brought forth that people could believe in and have something to be outraged about. I am still upset that George Floyd was murdered, regardless of who he was before it happened. He was still a human being, and it angers me how quickly people swept him under the rug. Even now, just a few months later as I write this, people have already forgotten.
When George Floyd was murdered, I was upset to learn a police officer had taken the life of someone. It didn’t make a difference to me what colour his skin was, nor, as I later found out, that he had been a criminal. What upset me was the unjust killing of someone at the hands of someone who should have been there as a protector.
The people who were quick to abandon George Floyd and cheer for the riots in the United States showed not a shred of care for David Dorn who lost his life in them, or the others who died. They endorsed the riots and supported them on social media, caring not a hoot for the lives the riots destroyed. Businesses of people of many different nationalities and skin colours utterly destroyed in sheer acts of incomprehensible hatred. So many people were part of it. So many people died because of it. So many people kept cheering through the bloodshed and had the gall to claim that these riots were peaceful protests. These people are idiots. Human beings lost their lives, businesses, friends and family, it’s not something to celebrate. Nothing good came out of it at all, other than more hate. The N word was trending higher than normal had on Google trends racial attacks and hatred were up. This situation did more damage than good and drove people apart.
What does this mean when insofar as social media is concerned?
It’s simple. George Floyd’s life was something to post about, something to get angry about, a reason to scream and argue and shout. Learning more about him, people no longer considered him a martyr, that would be unsafe. So they didn’t really care about him, his family, the situation or anything else. They looked for more “black” people who had been killed by police. They found Breonna Taylor. They used her for their own self grandeurization on social media as they had with George Floyd. They don’t care about her either.
Hate is Easy, Love is Hard
It’s very easy to be angry and it’s very easy to hate. To hate me for being a conservative, to hate the policeman that killed George Floyd for what he did, to hate George Floyd for being a criminal. For hating him because of his colour or his gender, for anything.
When someone says: This person is a “Label” it’s easy to think of the label as being the only thing that person can be. There are people I dislike because of the labels they have marred themselves with. As a father I am very opposed to pedophilia, as I think most sane people are. But in the normal context of day to day life, if you learn someone has a specific label, it doesn’t mean they fit the mould. Often people,not assume they understand the labels as we often see when it comes to left and right.
If someone has a belief, they can also be wrong and learn later on in life that they were wrong. I used to be a communist, believe it or not. Many might have hated me for that, but hatred only creates a bad reaction which can further spur someone down a dark path. It’s only by showing compassion to people and trying to show a different way of life that we can ever really find out what lies beneath a label. Now I would never say that communism is a good thing and I have had several hard arguments with friends about it. When we learn and study, we grow up and I’m glad I’m not the person I was 10 to 15 years ago.
In care work, we are taught to see the person first. This is part of dementia training and I think it is a very valuable lesson to teach. You see a person, they might be your friend, someone you’ve known for years, and they have a different thought – maybe something you might be opposed to. It doesn’t change who they are, and it is something that should be discussed with them. The next time you see someone with a different world view, try to understand where they are coming from. It’s only by trying to understand and being on the level with people that we can ever teach them and build a better world.
I originally had an interest in going on Gab because I wanted to write an article about the “Far Right platform.” I had head it was a white supremacist website populated by Christians, with a very different ideology to my own. Being involved in fighting racism on several occasions, I wanted to check it out and see if it was as terrible as I had heard. The site itself is represented as being populated by racists and radical far right people so I made an account and checked it out.
I was rather shocked to find out how truly liberal the platform was. Gab is no more Far Right than it is Left and centre. It is full of people who fit into just about every category imaginable. To say it is far right is a great disservice to the people who run and communicate on the platform. The person who runs Gab, Andrew Torba is what I would refer to as a zealous man. He has a very strong minded approach to free speech and whilst he differs from me in many opinions, he generally comes across as reasonable, likeable and he has been very welcoming to everyone using his platform as far as I have seen.
Gab is about freedom of speech, and it is probably for that reason other social media giants dislike the platform intently and it is maligned by the media. On other social media, terrorist attacks have been organised, as have rapes and murders. People have been bullied into suicide and yet the platforms still have their apps and are treated as though there is no issue anywhere. All social media platforms are full of alt/far left and alt/far right sociopaths and no one bats an eye, however the second a free speech platform sprouts up that challenges what has become known as Big Tech, it must be destroyed, abused and maligned.
It is nothing more than antitrust on a global scale and the deplatforming and attacks against Gab are vile, inaccurate and are frankly sinister. I have seen no reason in being on the platform over several years on and off that it is in any way more dangerous than Twitter or Facebook, and because of the welcoming side and the fact I have seen less bullying there, I believe it is a safer place to be. I’ve seen people fight on Gab and it’s different. It’s a lot more mature and features a lot less bullying in my experience than other platforms allow.
You must, as with everything I write, accept this as anecdotal evidence. What I am writing comes strictly from my own personal experience with social media and with platforms like Gab. I would always recommend looking into a platform like Gab before condemning it, even if there is significant evidence that there is a problem. I went in looking for a dust up with some white supremacists and found none on the platform. I have had several mature and adult arguments on Gab and they have been refreshing, compared to the childish alliances that sprout up on Facebook.
Gab has been horribly maligned as a far right platform when it is not actually so. What it is in truth is a place that allows the liberty of discussion. Gab features truths you cannot find anywhere else, conspiracy theorists, patriotism, a huge Christian following. Due to its accepting nature and freedoms allowed, I would say it is the most progressive and above all left wing platform out there at this time.
What I like from the majority of people I have interacted with on Gab, is that they are mostly friendly, which comes into stark contrast with the bloodthirsty hordes of far right and far left sociopaths on other networks. I had joined on my most recent account during the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, and tensions were high.
I communicated with a lot of people and occasionally noticed posts that other platforms might regard as Islamophobic made by some prominent Christian Gabbers. “Here we go.” I thought and decided to start a debate. I commented as a Sufi and raised some opinions, and rather than being met with ferocity, I was treated well by the majority of people who interacted with me. Others were just respectful and didn’t attack me or my beliefs. I finally joined the Christian group and thanked everyone for their welcome as someone outside the faith. This was met with a lot of support and positivity from the people of Gab. I was shocked at the friendliness of everyone I had expected to attack me.
On other platforms I have been attacked relentlessly, but not on Gab, though there is the potential for that kind of behaviour, as it is a free speech platform. I would say that Gab is a decent platform, a little laggy at times, but full of good people. Yes, there may be one or two bad apples, however I am confident in saying that I see a lot less of them there than on other, more popular social media platforms. Facebook and Twitter are both highly authoritarian and right wing by comparison. So I’m really rather confused as to why Gab has received this kind of attack. Still, I rather enjoy Gab, and I think the people are pretty decent.
In this essay I will go through the Social Justice Warriors explaining their specialised caste within their warped ideologies and provide insight into how to confront and deal with certain types of SJW. The best advice in the world is to ignore their existence. In order to live a happy and healthy life, it’s always best to avoid any form of conflict with people. If that is your chosen path, then you are far more sensible than me. You can skip this essay, but it will always be there if one finds you, and if you have any feelings or opinions at all about anything, you never know when an SJW can strike.
Before we begin, there are genuinely good people in the world, who believe they are helping others by talking on social media. Many of them actively try and promote good ideas and genuinely try to help people. These are not SJWs. These are good human beings and will not get involved in aggressively victimising people. The people we are looking at in this chapter are vindictive, hateful and narcissistic people who use a shield of faux morality in order to attack others, to make themselves look good and cause psychological harm to a person.
So first of all: What is a Social Justice Warrior?
This is someone who promotes or expresses socially progressive views. Their main focus is equality of economic, political, social, sexual rights and opportunities, they also sometimes bring equity into their divisive politics. They take to social media, usually with a distinct lack of knowledge about the subjects they engage in more so to raise their own personal reputation than actually helping anyone, in a disgusting display of self aggrandizing and pseudo moral superiority. The majority of people who fit the term tend to be self-serving, narcissistic and with a general feeling of self importance that borders on the belligerent. Their stance is aggressively authoritarian and exceedingly vicious.
The Social Justice Warrior will generally share memes and articles in support of their chosen ideologies, attacking and attempting to eradicate anyone they see as being socially regressive. They are quick to use words like Racist, Nazi, Alt Right, Far Right, Misogynist, Homophobe and anything else that will quickly raise attention and armies against you. These blanket terminologies are great because they will draw in anyone who is politically aligned against these blanket ideologies and enable them to strike fast and incapacitate an inexperienced debater, often by unleashing a swarm of torrential hate against them. They can cost you friendships easily so they need to be shut down quickly and aggressively as possible.
The problem with SJWs is not what they believe in, if indeed they do genuinely believe it, but that they actively go out looking for a rumble, they are armed to the teeth and will generally attack anyone they can with little to no reason to do it other than self grandeurization, moral superiority and trying to ruin people’s lives. Their actions are malevolent, rather than helpful, as their focus is to use the ideologies they claim to support to attack, belittle and humiliate others.
Their goal is to find a Racist Homophobic Right Wing Nazi (that could be you, with no evidence, and at any point) and cut off their head publicly so they can wave it around and cheer: “Look, I slew a monster!” They are aggressive and use badly worded, poorly thought out strawmans and arguments – usually with little to no evidence – to try and harm anyone they don’t personally like much, or see as being moderately conservative. Sometimes, they even go for people who support their own ideologies, turning them into the enemy for little reason other than not liking or not understanding that person.
Basically the SJWs are the lowest form of scum looking to serve the heads of their old friends on silver platters so they can gain praise from peers that would happily turn on them in turn if it gave them greater social leverage.
The SJW is similar to a spider, though not quite as lethal. Their usual aim is to lure their prey into a battleground of their choice (so they have the advantage of being ‘informed’) rather than fighting their victims on their own turf, as challenging you where friends can help you, or in areas where you are informed is not good. If they draw you into their web, then it is easy for their friends to mob you and take you down. You will notice this when they tag in a tag team partner, usually because they can’t handle the argument alone.
You may have noticed people launching attacks on your ideology. “This ideology is bad.” “This is typical behaviour for people of this ideology.” “People who believe this do this reprehensible thing/are racist/want children to starve, etc.” If you are like me, this will not stand and you will find yourself in a massive online fracas.
Misinformation is rife throughout the internet, and sometimes you feel the incontrovertible need to argue against something that is simply not true. These attacks feel personal because they are. They are a targeted attack on YOU – not to highlight areas of social justice a person supports, but they are the actions of a predator looking for prey. It is best to ignore this and save yourself grief. Sadly this chapter is for people like me who will strike back, even if fighting these people is a foolish act. I should really know better by now…
Another way they draw in victims is by sharing specialised media in a way that provokes conflict. The media is rarely completely accurate, with most things having a political spin. I have found articles from the Guardian and Another Angry Voice, (whom I suspect is secretly an alt right troll, milking gullible ‘lefties’ of their hard earned sheckles,) particularly enticing.
Opinionated media is generally pretty vile as usually it is a moralistic piece that basically goads potential victims, in much the same way as similar posts you may have seen have triggered something deep within your soul. Just because someone has the right to post an opinion on a website or in a newspaper does not mean that opinion is right. This falls dangerously into the category of the argument from authority and often appears, in theory, to have more power than a direct personal statement, as news and well known websites are respected by the majority of normal people. If authority is always right, then Stalin was right, Hitler was right and so was Charles Manson, and heaven forbid, CNN. It’s tempting to respond to inaccurate opinionated articles, especially if they attack your beliefs personally. Avoid it for a happier life. The people sharing them are sharing to attack you and to look good, not because they care about the issues. Virtue signalling for likes. It’s quite sad really… If the amount of people who wanted issues fixed worked together, they could fix the problems through unity, but as we see, they would rather fight their brothers and sisters, drive away friends and then blame a lack of universal action by social gaps they caused rather than trying to bridge…
You also have, what I like to call: Questing Knights, who are somewhat a different breed. They usually come from a small army or ‘clan’ of SJWs who work together to hunt their prey. These knights know only the chivalry of the backstab and lynch mob as they generally only attack friends or friends of friends. They will attack you at the core on issues you are talking about, twisting the narrative of something you say in a way that makes you look bad and they, in turn, look good.
The best way to deal with this is to explain that they are misinformed publicly and ask them not to jump to conclusions about things that they don’t understand. They misrepresent on purpose and it should be pointed out and deflected, because any response other than a deflection will unleash a hornet’s nest of abuse, comments and summoning of the clan. They are bullying, cowardly pack animals and generally cruel people, and their behaviour should be watched. If you are attacked like this often by certain friends, you’re better off not knowing them, as they clearly don’t know you.
Types of Social Justice Warrior
In this section I will go into the types of SJW I have had the extreme misfortune to encounter, along with ways of defeating them in arguments or dealing with their nonsense and propaganda. The names and classifications are as much a joke as a sad reflection of what they actually are. I believe inherently that labels are bad, but sometimes they can be accurate.
Our incontrovertibly pickled Lemonbrain is typically bitter and set in their ways. The Lemonbrain likes to start arguments often associated with the things that they pretend to care about and champion most. They are often incapable of thinking outside the box, and they are generally so bitter and cynical that changing their mind falls just short of a miracle. They have a thick skin, but you can break through it with a little work.
Lemonbrains are hard opponents to fight because usually they will only stick to one area they know well. They have tough skin, like the lemon, and their thoughts are just as acidic. They often feel misplaced in an extremely oppressive world, and usually attack political ideologies to deal with personal life frustrations.
When arguing with the Lemonbrain, you will often find that they have a reasonable amount of arguments backed up by solid ‘facts’ from whatever political journals they read. They are generally not stupid and have experience in arguing their points. They are tenacious and will often attack ideologies using blanket statements to try and deflect any argument you present and will often be quick to associate you with evil to gain allies quickly.
It is unlikely you will be able to change the mind of the Lemonbrain, so confrontation is generally a waste of your time. The only problem is if the Lemonbrain is gathering Lemon Cultists around them and launching personal attacks against individuals, spreading their toxic lemony bitterness and creating problems within communities, damaging reputations and ganging up on people, bullying them into submission.
These groups of Lemon Cultists tend to grow quickly and massage each other’s egos, constantly supporting each other’s statements, making arguments very complicated and hard.
The solution to fighting a group of these vile creatures is to pick out a weak Cultist who lacks the ability to think for themself, call them out by name and respond only to them. You make the weakest member of the Lemon Cult their mouthpiece. The others will try and help, so just ignore them. Pluck the squealing lemon from it’s herd and ask it for evidence, usually it will be supplied by others, but you can ignore them.
Make them fight and don’t let them leave. This sounds cruel and it is, but these Cultists make their fun out of hunting prey, and mass bully people into leaving social media, and potentially even into suicide as we have seen on many occasions. They are remorseless individuals who don’t care about the people they hurt and live only for self grandeurization and the fickle respect of their cult leader and friends.
On their own the Lemonbrain is generally toxic, though well practiced in their chosen field. Usually it is not worth an argument, but if you have to, the key is to find a common ground on a moral level. Look at the ideology they support, and show how your ideology supports it. Most of the time this will be ignored and you will be called a troll, however there is usually a way to prove that their opinion is wrong pretty easily in the arguments they provide. If they link articles, give them a little time and read them, then ask how the article is relevant or address things within the article showing how they reflect your views, if possible. You can also point out that the article is propaganda, misinformation or incorrect if it is. This will usually result in a win. That is, if that’s the intended goal.
Overall I wouldn’t recommend arguing with the Lemonbrain as it is a titanic waste of time. Only engage if they are actively bullying others. Point out that they are bullying people and say they are being unfair or misrepresenting someone and disregard their evidence as being insubstantial. Lemonbrains hate being the bad guy as it pickles their ideology and makes them question themselves.
Glorytrolls are aggressive and barbaric sociopaths that invade people’s posts on social media in the hope of showing the world how fantastic they are as people. Vain, narcissistic and petty, they use a variety of cruel devices to achieve their goals. The Glorytroll looks to wound their opponent’s ideology and uses a variety of different techniques to make their opponent look bad and them look morally superior.
These people use a very sinister cocktail of attacks to achieve their goals, demonising the poster’s ideology and attacking them personally, using blanket statements, lying and gaslighting in order to make a person seem horrible. They often accuse people of things that aren’t true, followed by the reason it makes a person immoral as an opener to their arguments. This is used to turn friends against each other and make out that the Glorytroll is a force for good, and the poster is evil.
They are narcissistic, hateful people who use their warped vision of morality to justify their actions. These are the same kinds of people that victim blame, and they attack remorselessly, changing topics if they are proven wrong on any subject, ignoring any evidence as fake, or politically biased. They like to take photos of their arguments to share with friends and gain allies against their enemies.
As with all SJWs, it’s pointless arguing against a Glorytroll. Usually any evidence they have is under-researched, misinformed, or opinion posts. They are well practised in changing the topic of conversation to attack in every way possible distracting you from being able to hold one argument. The best method of dealing with these people is a good old fashioned block. Friends and people who know you will know what you really stand for. People who don’t are just toxic, and will wound your relationships with those people who know you for their own sick pleasure.
Tag Team Textwarriors
Every once in a while you will find yourself arguing against a particularly curdled Lemonbrain that is sadly unable to think or fight for itself, terrified, it squawks to the void for assistance using the @ key and a friend’s name to summon their ally to the battle. The Tag Team Textwarrior is a seasoned pro at fighting for all things Justice online but most likely has never actually done anything to help anyone in the physical world. These people are dangerous and usually use dirty tricks like abusing moral concepts to argue with you.
There is one rule to follow when dealing with this kind of e-vermin. Ignore them! Block them or ignore the things they say, nothing saddens the Textwarrior like being ignored. Continue to respond to anyone else in the discussion and completely ignore anything being said by a summoned ally. It’s effective and leads to extreme outbursts of rage in most cases. By never responding to anything they personally say, you remove their power by not acknowledging them. Don’t respect an opponent that doesn’t respect or know you.
The Silent Support is a particularly nasty version of the Social Justice Warrior. These are people who cannot be reasoned with because they don’t directly engage in the battle. Their role is simple: Sit on the sidelines like brain dead gargoyles firing likes at the comments of anyone that they agree with. It is very easy to deal with the silent support. There are two options available that will lead to maximum effectiveness in your arguments.
1: Contact the person directly in a private message, try to ascertain what their actual opinion is. Most of the time they don’t know what they are talking about and will flake if challenged. Explain that you are being misrepresented or that your opponent does not know what they are talking about and provide evidence… or you could take the easy route.
2: Block them. Blocking is a great way to reduce an enemy’s support count to zero, if they can’t see what you are writing they can’t realistically support the enemy or respond to anything you write, and liking mindless spam gets boring fast. Whilst it doesn’t always work, as they can still stick around, you will reduce a lot of your opponent’s support by blocking the crowd of trolls and making the person look like they’re screaming at thin air. Glorious.
The Chaplain is well-meaning and usually tries to break up fights, rather than allowing them to go on. They usually end up being hated by both parties involved in the argument and any parties that happen to see the argument, not through any fault of their own but just through their yearning for peace. Very often the Chaplain is a Voice of Reason and the voice of sensibility and should really be listened to by both parties. They are usually ignored and attacked by everyone. They will usually end up alienating all of their friends and sadly become hated for trying to help out in a horrible situation.
You should never turn on a Chaplain or attack them; it only makes you look like a horrible person and that will be used against you. Moreover, you should openly support their ideas towards peace. Sending them a message agreeing that peace would be better, but that you need to fight for what is right can turn a Chaplain into a powerful ally in battle. If you are aiming for peace but your opponent is pushing for war, the Chaplain will often side with you and keep trying to de-escalate the situation.
The Arsenal of the SJW:
The SJW has a series of weapons it uses to harm others. These are some of the ones I have come across along with a few ways of handling them.
I have discussed earlier some of the ways the SJW will try to lure you into their spider’s web. Usually they poke, prod and goad by calling out specific ideologies, or try to throw a twist into your conversation that purposefully misrepresents you. They may say: “You believe this, so you must believe that”, or they may try and gaslight the people around you by throwing purposeful misrepresentations of your character into the mix. An example was that someone called me a Trump supporter around the time of the 2020 elections to gain favour with the demographic of my friends who don’t like Trump. I however was much more so aligned with the Libertarian party which I had actively worked with overseas through one of the companies I work with.
This person used a previous statement I had made to try and prove their point, which whilst relatively meaningless got some negative reactions from friends who hadn’t kept up with me politically. This is very dangerous, and should be called out publicly as soon as possible. “Just because I made this statement does not mean that I have this other belief.” Is a great way to handle misrepresentation. “If you would like to discuss this further, please get your facts right.” Is a nice aggressive follow up. It reduces their power and makes you appear stronger, whilst making them seem ill informed. Above all else, you don’t ever want to be misrepresented by anyone.
I have mentioned these earlier as one of the goading tactics people use, and they are a really nasty weapon. “People of this ideology are all bad, or all believe this or all want that.” We can step back a little as well and say that they can accuse you of being right wing, homophobic, mysoginistic, a Nazi or a Trump supporter, as though that represents your argument. You can actually be all of these things, and they can still be wrong about your argument.
A blanket statement completely ignores any points you make within your argument, or ultimately labels it in such a way that it’s dismissible outright. It’s a lazy way to fight effortlessly as it avoids the responsibility of having to formulate a counter argument. The only way to argue against this is to ask them to directly address your points and call them out on being evasive, not responding to your argument, purposefully misrepresenting you, or not understanding your argument. It’s messy but it tends to work as people like to have the last word, especially the aggressive SJW variety. You can point out that people are using blanket statements and explain what they are and why they are being used to beat back opponents nicely. That is, if anyone has the brain cells to listen to you.
Projection of Aggression
Have you ever been baited into an argument with someone who has been talking in an aggressive and injurious way about a subject you feel close to heart? Often their opinions are maladjusted and lack any understanding and you just couldn’t let it go? Your retaliation may well be called out as aggressive.
Projection is especially sinister because it makes you seem like the bad guy when in fact you’re not. you are not the person who made the original statement. You are not the person who’s got the wrong opinion, and yes you actually have a right to be upset if somebody says something wrong about something you believe in, so projection of aggression is very very disturbing.
Let’s say someone says: “All conservatives are bad.” Or my favorite, “Never trust a Tory.” This is aggressive towards conservatives. If I respond by saying, “That’s not correct!” This is marked out as an act of aggression. “How dare you challenge me, you brute!” Comes the reply, the offender projecting their own aggressive stance on you. They take no responsibility for their original statement that was provocational, or the fact they’ve hurt your feelings.
The way to handle this is to say: “I am responding to your inaccurate statement that doesn’t represent my views. This statement is aggressive and untrue for these reasons.” Usually you will be met with abuse, but at least you point the finger back at them, revealing who the aggressor truly is. The important thing is letting everyone reading it know that you are the one being attacked, and that you are only defending yourself. It is the other person who is the aggressor.
Changing the Subject
You’ve scored a point, and it can’t be beaten, so your opponent switches tactics. They will try and drag you into a battlefield they are more comfortable with, usually related. As Mark Twain says, “an idiot will drag you to their level and beat you with experience.”
I sometimes give in and argue in the new battlefield, win enough of them and you will win the war, and usually people who argue like this will only have so many battlefields in the Inception of Incompetence their arguments can become, however the best advice I can give is to say: “This is irrelevant, as we are talking about the subject we are talking about, not about this.” The opponent will usually try to drag you into their new battlefield a few times. The best way to handle this is to play to the narcissist within the SJW mind and say: “If you can’t even argue about what we are talking about, you are simply not worth my time. We can move onto less important matters later.” This will usually trigger vitriol within your opponent and force them to stay on topic.
Attacking/Belittling Your Achievements
Let’s say you’ve made some accomplishments in your life. I’m a composer, actor, film maker and I ran my own company. I am now terrible at making music, a trash actor, my films suck, and my company now has bad reviews from someone I didn’t work with. I’m also incredibly ugly, and believe it or not I’m going bald! (Something I’m well aware of!)
It starts with an attack on your achievements. Usually this comes from a lack of achievement from the person who attacks you. This brings you down to being human, rather than the overarching demigod that you actually are, and as Dutch said in Predator: “If it bleeds, we can kill it.” Then you just get insults afterwards.
The best response is to say: “I know, how is this relevant to our conversation?” This very much annoys people. They hate it when you don’t care about their opinion. It’s their aim to hurt you. If you don’t let it show, and don’t rise to it, you will be fine.
“We are supposed to be friends!” “I thought you were my friend!” “I thought I could trust you!” Or my favourite: “I thought you were a good person!” Are quite commonly used by people attempting to assert emotional and psychological control over you. It’s particularly malignant. “I thought you were a good person!” Or words to that effect are particularly nasty as it implies you are actually a bad person and it’s a secret jab at you, also implying they are good and wouldn’t normally associate with a bad person like you. These people really are sick. This is emotional blackmail, designed to make you look bad and make observers hate you.
The best way to fight this is to say: “You drew me in by attacking me directly/indirectly, you misrepresented me/my beliefs/my friends, why are you doing this? I thought we were friends too…” This reality check will usually work because sometimes bringing people down to ground is necessary. Not everyone is purposefully aggressive and sometimes it can lead to peace. At other times it can lead to you being blocked and smeared. Lovely stuff. That’s not a friend you will miss.
Demeaning, Name Calling and Demonisation
How often have you found yourself called an idiot, a moron or attacked for being ugly? I get this a lot from people, it’s one of the many advantages of being an idiotic ugly moron. Simply your enemies in this scenario don’t have an argument to use against you. They will revert to toxicity and blanket statements calling you alt right, Tory scum, a terrorist, pathetic, little, Nazi etc. I usually ask these people to try and remain on topic and not snarl at me like some sort of beast, but a kinder approach is to ignore it and try and get them to focus on the argument.
Spelling Mistakes and Grammar
If they point out spelling mistakes and grammar, you’ve already won. I like to ask people if they could kindly address my points rather than trying to distract from their inability to argue against them. Hold these people to account for their own weaknesses.
War is Pointless
At the end of the day, there is only one thing to realise and this is that war is absolutely pointless and fighting these people is a waste of time. If, like me, you feel inevitably drawn into these involuntary conflicts with these people, maybe this will help, but the best technique is always to ignore these people and walk away. It’ll lead to a happier, more successful life.