Ayn Rand and the "Argument from Intimidation"

Too many people allow themselves to be bullied and manipulated by others who are less worthy of respect than the stinking crap you scrape off the bottom of your shoes...

Sep 15, 2022

I see way too many people in life and online who succumb to the pressure from worthless scumbags to conform to and to cower before the Mob.

Ultimately, such capitulation is never worth the cost.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Learn to recognize when others are trying to manipulate you into compliance. Don’t be intimidated. Stand by your convictions. Without them, who are you?

The COVID-ites, the climate fascists, the advocates of “selflessness” and “sacrifice,” the anti-self-defense nutcases, the interventionists, the statists and collectivists who infest our society and our lives like unkillable cockroaches utilize this tactic with ruthless abandonment.

Don’t let them succeed in their subterfuge.

The Argument from Intimidation Fallacy is a subset of an Appeal to Force Fallacy. In the latter, opponents attempt to scare others into accepting their position. But force—even disguised force—is not an argument.

Government enforced censorship is an example: the State will punish you if you read or talk about X. The punishment never actually has to be delivered: “Do it my way or you’ll be grounded for a month [or I’ll punch you in the mouth; arrest you; and so on].”

Ultimately, the goal is to intimidate people into conformity. Ostracism and shunning are other examples.

The Argument from Intimidation Fallacy is designed to ridicule dissenters and garner their obedience and acceptance of what you say via moral disapproval. In essence, the fallacy says: If you do not believe X, you are (bad). (Or: If you believe X, you are (bad).)

“If you do not believe in the efficacy of masks/social distancing/“vaccines”/lockdowns/etc., you are a horrible person who wants to kill grandma and should be relegated to the edges of society where you will not be able to harm or annoy decent people who do believe in X/Y/Z. So there.”

(Compare this to its near kin, an Ad Hominem Fallacy: Person X is (bad), therefore what he/she says is wrong. Example: “He is a racist/liberal/conservative/white/male, therefore what he believes is wrong.”)

The evildoers of the world are experts in both these (and a plethora of other) fallacies and are unashamed to use them against you. Truth is not their goal. Control and the destruction of freedom is.

What these assholes cannot stand is anyone with an intransigent devotion to reality and the fearlessness to reject unwanted and undeserved guilt. Accepting unearned guilt is handing your enemies the key to your mind…and they will trash the latter without regret or remorse…

DO NOT COMPLY.

Argument from Intimidation Fallacy
“There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: ‘Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.’ … The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
“The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: ‘Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.’”
“…in private, day-by-day experience, it comes up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds conveying unstated implications. It relies, not on what is said, but on how it is said—not on content, but on tone of voice.
“The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity. ‘Surely you are not an advocate of [X], are you?’”
“If those vibrations [of disapproval] fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on—that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.”
“…the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.”
“How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.
“When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy’s sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one’s sole concern and sole criterion of judgment—not anyone’s approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite of one’s own.”
Ayn Rand, “The Argument from Intimidation”

Thank you for reading Russell Madden: Freedom, As If It Mattered. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Russell Madden: Freedom, As If It Mattered

Ayn Rand and the "Argument from Intimidation"

Too many people allow themselves to be bullied and manipulated by others who are less worthy of respect than the stinking crap you scrape off the bottom of your shoes...

DO NOT COMPLY.

Argument from Intimidation Fallacy

Twitter

Amazon

YouTube

Discussion about this post