Roe v Wade: Perspective on Rhetorical Strategies of Conservatives (transcript)
Sorry for the bait-and-switch. Please stay. My dancing videos get more visibility than my talking, so I wanted to give this the best shot it had.
I don’t often directly discuss a lot of political issues on my social media because, to be honest, I am afraid of alienating people. As a dancer, I often wonder what business I have offering my perspective on certain issues. When I do share, I’m usually sharing things other more articulate, qualified people have said, especially pertaining to things where another white opinion isn’t necessary.
However, to withhold my thoughts in regards to the overturning of Roe v Wade feels cowardly.
Moreover, it’s not my intention to grieve in this video. I want you to be outraged and radicalized and mobilized in defense of reproductive freedom, but given that you are my audience—and I run with some pretty progressive, queer crowds—I’m going to talk to you as if we share the same baseline opinion that abortion is necessary health care, and that health care is a human right.
And if you are one of the few celebrating this tragedy, to quote Abigail Thorn, please see yourself out: the exit is to the Far Left.
I want you to take action, and I’ll get to that, but I first want to talk to you about rhetoric. By that, I mean the power of persuasive speech. I’m not qualified to tell you how you should argue and debate with people. I just want to share information I’ve accumulated over the years that might be useful when you’re trying to fight the good fight.
Let me start at the end and work backwards: If you are debating conservatives about their use of Biblical euphemisms and their ideological inconsistency, you are already losing.
What do I mean by “Biblical euphemism”? Oftentimes, conservatives and white supremacists use Biblical doctrine to legitimate (*legitimize? idk) their position. And you, the intelligent, critical progressive, see this invoking of the Bible and go “hey, that’s not right”. “The Bible doesn’t say that”. “That’s just an interpretation”. “That’s a really old version of the Bible”.
Alternatively—and often, in combination with—they will also claim a “pro-life” position claiming they want to “protect women and babies”. (Please note that women aren’t the only ones who can become pregnant, but that is what conservatives think.) But again, you’re thinking with your dipstick. You know that they don’t care about babies or the sanctity of human life, because if they did, they would pass gun control laws, universal pre-K, universal healthcare, increase mental health access, fund social programs that support single parents, etc.
They’re being hypocritical and inconsistent. They are not using sound logic.
I know it’s hard to let hypocrisy and misinformation go unchecked. I know dunking on conservatives when they get stuff wrong feels good. But it has gotten us nowhere, because their base does not care. While liberals were busy dunking on Trump, he took the White House.
It’s a trap.
All people hide behind euphemisms when they can’t directly say what they want. Often, conservatives and white supremacists do this with the Bible, they do it with claiming “pro-life”, among other things. Since it’s just a euphemism, it doesn’t have to be correct, and it doesn’t have to be consistent. They will contradict themselves 5 minutes later with a different defense to legitimate (*legitimize again? eh who cares [it’s me, I care]) their position, and they don’t care that it contradicts what they just said. Conservatives and white supremacists aren’t selling truth, they are selling conviction and certainty. And it works. And it keeps working.
So if conservatives and white supremacists are using euphemisms to conceal their true agenda, what is their true agenda?
Well, it’s white supremacy. It’s reproductive control. If they can control reproduction, they can control the working class. They can keep generating human fodder to run the cogs in their capitalist machines, keep the working class impoverished, and fill their military (*and their pockets). It’s to consolidate power and keep it as long as possible, by any means necessary. This is not an exhaustive list.
But they can’t come out and say that, for obvious reasons. So instead, they say:
“Time to pass laws to protect babies.”
— (Ryan T. Anderson 2022)
“To destroy the life of an unborn child is flagrantly to disregard the plans God has for that life. It robs the unborn person of the privilege of choosing to be an instrument of God’s design.”
— (“Fetal Homicide”)
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
— (Samuel Alito 2022)
But you’re very clever, and you know that these are riddled with falsities and bad interpretation and bias. These arguments are not sound. They are so easily debunked that it’s almost comical. But it does not matter how thoroughly you school them on their ignorance: they argue in a reality where factual evidence does not matter, so fighting them with facts is a losing battle. You are trying to battle certainty with truth, and they do a much better job of selling their base “certainty” than the Left sells “truth” (Innuendo Studios 2017, “Control The Conversation”).
In other words, they don’t care that their arguments are bad. They don’t care that they’re fallacious and easily disproved with a 3-second Google search. They do not care what the Bible says. They do not care about the “sanctity of life”. They know they don’t care. They are defending white supremacy and reproductive control, and Biblical euphemism is the language of their base.
So why am I imploring you not to debate people who use these tactics?
Because you are wasting your time. You are not going to convince their base that they are wrong by appealing to their intellectual side. Their agenda is actively anti-intellectual. Their base either cannot be convinced, or they do not care. You cannot debate with someone with the intent on arriving at the truth if they don’t care about the truth; they only care about winning and maintaining power, and they’ll sell whatever lie they can to do it.
What’s more, they know that we care about the truth, and they will use that against you by baiting you with bad, disprovable arguments, and insisting that you compromise, which only results in them gaining ground and winning another round for fascism. Furthermore, by distracting you with debunking their bad argument tactics, they are accessing your base and demographic. Their infection spreads to your following. As Ian Danskin said, a great way to get your opposition to talk about what you want them to talk about is to defend your position badly (Innuendo Studios 2017, “Control The Conversation”). And they don’t want to talk to you about white supremacy and reproductive control; they want you to focus on the Bible, and their agenda endures.
By being frugal with facts, they are distracting you with disproving their bad arguments. And this dance they’re doing makes them look like they’re winning to their audience, because they are the ones always in the dominant position: Making declarative statements. It doesn’t matter that they’re not going to win that argument; it only has to look like they’re winning.
“Regardless of what is said, he displays all the outward signs of winning. So, on a purely emotional level, he leaves the impression of being right… the Right has learned that, if you never look like you’re losing, you can convince a lot of people that you’re not. And, if you keep your statements short and punchy, people will remember what you said better than they remember the long explanation of why it’s untrue. If done correctly, you might even convince yourself you know what you’re talking about” (Innuendo Studios 2017, “Never Play Defense”).
By always accusing, and forcing you to constantly react to them, they look more powerful, and therefore, they look like the winner, and you look like the loser. And a winner is much more persuasive than a loser. And as stated before, they don’t debate to arrive at the truth; they debate to “win”, and that keeps winning them elections and stripping our rights.
This is a very fast and dirty overview, and I could go on and on about this kind of stuff, but I don’t want to be a broken record. What I want to communicate is this: Don’t get distracted by their attempts to waste your time. They don’t care about what the Bible says about abortion. They don’t care about “saving babies”. They don’t care about “upholding the Constitution”. They only care about reproductive control and maintaining power, full stop. When you’re directing your energy into an argument, I advise that you don’t waste your anger railing on their hypocrisy.
Focus on the goal: These people want to control reproduction so they can control the working class and keep themselves in power.
Finally, don’t have these debates with white supremacist sycophants. As I stated before, by arguing with them on Facebook or Twitter or whatever you use, you are only giving them access to your audience to spread their infection. You can still combat their rhetoric by speaking past them and directly to your own audience, whether that is a social media following, your family, etc. So instead of stitching them on TikTok, I advise addressing your audience directly, like I’m doing here. “Decide for yourself how your audience gets acquainted with a popular fiction, and never be too proud to delete a comment” (Innuendo Studios 2017, “Never Play Defense”).
I want to conclude by saying that I am probably not the most qualified person to tell you how you should argue. I’m not a rhetorician, I’m not a political scientist, I’m not a trained public speaker. I’m approaching this with the understanding that I am probably missing something, and that I definitely have an incomplete and inadequate understanding of it (Keating 2007). But like I said, to say nothing because I don’t know that I have the most perfectly crafted, bespoke take on it feels cowardly.
In regards to action, I’ve added a list of resources, both regional and national, that you can support and share, borrowed from the “fundabortionnotpolice” Instagram account. You’ll find the resources and citations in the video transcript, which is available through my website. You can find it through my Linktree in my bio.
In Texas, we are currently in an election year for governor, and our democratic candidate is Beto O’Rourke. So if you’d like to directly help Texans, please consider donating to his campaign. He nearly beat Ted Cruz for the senate seat a few years ago, and he can help stem the flow of fascism in Texas if he’s able to depose Greg Abbott. And yes, Texas is, of course, one of the states that has trigger laws going into effect pretty much immediately upon the overturning of Roe v Wade.
Thanks for listening.
“In this political climate, these debates have real impact on real people’s lives. So if someone tries to force you to play defense, you don’t have to play” (Innuendo Studios 2017, “Never Play Defense”, emphasis is mine).
Citations
Abigail Thorn. Philosophy Tube. youtube.com/c/thephilosophytube
AnaLouise Keating. 2007. “Teaching Transformation: Transcultural Classroom Dialogues”.
General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God. 1985. “A Biblical Perspective on Abortion: Fetal Homicide”. peopleforlife.org/asmg2.html
Ian Danskin. “The Alt-Right Playbook”. Innuendo Studios. youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
Ian Danskin. 2017. “Control The Conversation”. Innuendo Studios. youtu.be/CaPgDQkmqqM
Ian Danskin. 2017. “Never Play Defense”. Innuendo Studios. youtu.be/wmVkJvieaOA
Independent staff. 2022. “What is Roe v Wade and why was it overturned?”. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/roe-v-wade-overturned-abortion-supreme-court-b2108664.html
Ryan T. Anderson. 2022. Tweet. https://twitter.com/RyanTAnd/status/1466158166484393990?s=20&t=dQ1hKt1oDt8m-JnK_myV9A
Sam Dorman. 2022. “What does overturning Roe v. Wade mean? Supreme Court decision's implications”. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-does-overturning-roe-v-wade-mean-supreme-court-decision
