Steelmen and Inconsistencies

Examine their presupps

There is often a profound lack of logic at the bottom of posts and podcasts by progressives, and they often are pretty blatant. But I must say I think they usually do a better job of disguising it than this!

I was reading a post from a progressive blogger about the law and he was quite upset at a far-right group. They had written:

A tweet from a far-right group led by former Trump senior advisor Stephen Miller advertised on Twitter over the weekend that “racial preferences” are “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” — while also revealing the group’s racial preference for “Asian” people to contact the group if they’ve faced discrimination in the workplace.

Stephen Miller's group sought to fight "racial preferences" with ... a racial preference

Now I would encourage all of my readers to read the entire article and please, if I have somehow misread it, to explain in the comments section.

The article goes on into fuller explanation, stating:

Miller’s America First Legal was one of those groups. Since the ruling, the group has been trawling the web for new clients to challenge diversity programs. In one of the videos posted to Twitter, an animated Miller explained that he is fighting the “poisonous, woke ideology” that “crushes the human spirit.”

So here the author points out that the legal group was looking for clients because they (the legal group, not the author) were opposed to discrimination based on race. And, to be fair, he then goes on to post that the group is in opposition to ‘equity mandates’.

He then goes on to explain his objection with:

In the advertised tweet in question, which is dated July 5 but was viewed by Law Dork on July 23 as a promoted tweet, America First Legal stated that “racial preferences … violate the CONSTITUTION.” In the accompanying image, however, the organization expressed a racial preference, stating, “If you’re Asian, and were denied a job, promotion, or professional opportunity because of your skin color, call AMERICA FIRST LEGAL today ….”

Let’s talk for a second about what the word ‘racial preference’ means, shall we? If you are like me you have seen signs all over the place with lawyers advertising something like this:

If you have been injured by a semi-truck, call my office at 555-1212! We get the highest jury awards!!

Or  some such. Now apparently our author would read this as a lawyer that is giving ‘preference’ to those injured by semi-trucks. Even worse, one could read this as a lawyer who is prejudiced against semi-trucks. And their drivers!! How horrible!!!

Gal 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

In the world of reality, however, we all know what is happening here. Little cars, like most of us drive, can at times come into collision with those huge, intimidating rigs. During those collisions, most of the time, it is the small car which comes out the worse. These semi-trucks often are driving for large companies… which might have large pockets… so suing them is a profitable industry.

In the time after a Supreme Court decision which said that certain colleges had been discriminating against Asians, and the adoption of multiple corporations of DEI policies that discriminate against straight, white or Asian, males… it makes perfect sense for a law firm to ‘trawl’ for people who believe that they have been discriminated against. And it makes no sense to suggest that Blacks or lesbians call their law firm because the evidence they already have in hand suggests that they benefited from that discrimination. It is not particularly prejudicial to suggest that Asians do so.

And, one is sure, if any other client were to come forward with evidence that they had been prejudiced against (or run off the road by a semi-truck) then one has no real doubt that the law firm would gleefully accept them.

Pro 14:12  There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

We all do it

Now, lest anyone think I am taking advantage of a particularly illogical bit of writing by a progressive… well, no, ok, I am doing that. But in addition to doing that I am going to point out something that we all do, and encourage us to avoid doing it. (And encourage my readers to point out where they think I am doing that.)

We all look at what other people do and point out things that seem like inconsistencies from our point of view. The trick, assuming we actually wish to understand what is going on and not merely poke fun, is to look at the thing from their point of view and see whether or not it is an inconsistency.

Among Christians, one of the most egregious examples of this is the baptism debate. A day hardly ever goes by when I don’t see some straw man post about baptism, and most of them involve a variety of this kind of thing. “Well, according to Presbyterian logic, babies should be preaching in their churches!” or some such.

And Christians themselves are frequent targets of this from progressives. “If you are so pro-life, why are you in favour of guns (or the death penalty, or capitalism).” is one of my favourites.

Steelman

Our job as believers (or anyone interested in truly winning important arguments) should be to steelman our opponents. To understand them so well that we can use their own logic against them. Their actual logic, not some perversion of our own invention.

One marvellous example is this speech by KK. (Warning Language) In it he takes on a value that his opponents hold (or, at least, pretend to hold) and uses it to attack policies that they are promoting. Brilliant!

Act 17:22-24 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Conclusion

We are all tempted to spend our time finding inconsistencies in our opponents, to take cheap shots and live in our little bubbles creating cute memes. But if we are serious about what we believe, if we think it is important, if we think it is life-changing… then that won’t cut it. We need to understand what our opponents think and be prepared to attack them there.

If you are arguing on the side of truth, then you have nothing to fear from your opponents’ position. Understanding it will make your own views stronger, better reasoned, and better argued.

I love comments, especially intelligent comments. And I’m always open to a letter exchange.