Years ago there was a syndicated radio show called His Side with Glenn Sacks. Sacks is a father’s rights advocate who hosted the show from California. He regularly brought on prominent feminists to debate men’s issues, primarily father’s rights. He also had people call into show and ask questions.
On one episode, he invited a newcomer feminist blogger named Amanda Marcotte to talk with him. Marcotte had made name for herself with her blistering diatribes and rants on her blog Pandagon. The vitriol that came from her digital mouth knew few limits. There was little she would not write in order to trash men, the men’s rights movement, and advocates like Glenn Sacks.
So as one would expect, when Marcotte appeared on the show she spoke in the most restrained, mousey voice humanly possible. She presented the complete opposite of her online personality, acting afraid and timid and barely speaking loud enough to be heard despite the microphone being inches from her face. When challenged by Sacks on the various charges she had made against him and other advocates, Marcotte had only soft spoken, non-committal remarks.
She proved the utter coward. In further demonstration of this, within hours of the interview Marcotte wrote a seething blog post attacking Sacks and his “hostile” environment on the show. The same person who could barely be heard now claimed that Sacks ambushed her and made her feel unsafe.
While every guest did not behave this way (Hugo Schwyzer continued his narcissistic arrogance and Barry Deutsch, aka Ampersand, became the quintessential jerk), all of them did come with preconceived notions about the topics at hand and would not concede any point no matter the evidence.
What made Sacks’s show so good is that he challenged feminists to their face. He forced them to defend their accusations not only against the father’s rights and men’s rights movements, but specifically their accusations against him. And every time, at least on the shows I listened to, none of them could defend their accusations.
The reason I think this is important is because this is one of the key ways you deal with the ideologues. You force them to reveal that they have no idea what they are talking about it. You let them make their point, and then you ask them to prove it. If they do anything other than present evidence supporting the specific claim they made, they reveal their bias. You can do it in the very polite way Sacks would do it. Or you can do it like Milo Yiannapoulos:
What I appreciate about Milo’s approach is that he gives the young man a fair chance to defend his accusation before Milo shuts him down with a well-deserved “Fuck you!”.
This is how you deal with a politically correct busybody. I do not think that this needs to be the approach every time, but I do think this needs to be mentality one should operate from. Allow them to speak and then ask them to prove what they say, especially when they launch into accusations about bigotry. Do not play their game in defending yourself because they will simply come up with a different accusation to get around their inability to defend the first.
Confront them head on and make them defend their point. No, they will not like you. This is why I get banned from most feminist spaces I participate in online. However, it is necessary in order to demonstrate that these people are the biggest cowards. They will say whatever they want when they think they have cover or support, yet they are unable to defend any of their claims. When challenged, they whine, they name-call, and they run back to their space safe to claim they were attacked.
The last thing they ever do is prove their narrative true.