Ideologues Ruin Everything

Ideologues destroy honest debate. When debating them, an ever present wall materializes if you happen to issue forth a triggering word. Ideologues prefer to define labels on their own terms, and if another ideologue protests the label put on him, the definer generally cries out loud and strong, “No True Scotsman Fallacy!” Ideologues love to cry “fallacy!” when they’re losing a debate. They are apt at filtering the world primarily from their own experiences, and secondarily from their ideologies, but are equally apt at spotting solipsism in others.

Ideologues are always right. This is, perhaps, the most disturbing trait of the type. They debate to convince others of their own rightness, and not to better their own understanding or learn something new. You will never hear the words, “Hmm, I’ll have to think about that,” with ideologues, unless they also believe in an utterly lame ideology of social politeness, which they very well might, because they tend to be tribal folk. If they feel they’re losing a debate, they’ll back out, but not because they’re wrong. It is simply easier for them to slink back to their own tribe, where their fellow ideologues will lick their wounds with their healing, pink ideological tongues.

Ideologues love memes that capture who they are at core, such as this gem of liberal ideology: “What’s science, Dad? Son, we’re Republicans. We don’t believe in science.” On a surface level, ideologues expect that words couched in clever rhetoric will actually change the world. On a deeper level, they know they’re only preaching to the choir, which will strengthen the bulwark against their defined enemies. Often, after the bulwark is strong, they will collectively chant mantras to ward away the evils of open discussion. Some popular ones include “Correlation doesn’t prove causation!” and “Received text only!” and “Let’s just all get along!” and “Ideologies, everybody has one!” But there are numerous other, workable mantras for them to use if the spell isn’t working.

I’m frankly tired of ideologues in any camp. And you’re probably tired of reading the word repeated ad nauseum. Thankfully, there are a number of people in this world who couldn’t be classified as such. Those who aren’t fall into two main camps: those who are passive, cynical, and/or silent; and those who pretend to care about issues by muttering soft words pertaining to the equality of the human race and all of God’s creatures, and/or writing science fiction that’s, in truth, fantasy, owing to its emphasis on fantastical projections. Sometimes, this projection is figurative (i.e. deriving from the emotional state of the writer), but most often it involves people of all ages, genders, races, and creeds projecting themselves through the cosmos, their hot air flowing behind them. Everybody is powerful, and everybody wins. Therefore, ideologies aren’t necessary. Causation has been proven, text received.

Peace out, Rocket Friends. This ideological hater of ideologies is going to bed.

Share

15 comments

      1. Vox Day is an ideologue, no doubt about that. His novel is a generic fantasy with no stylistic flourishes or anything to set it apart from any other generic fantasy, except for maybe the worst scene I’ve ever god damn read, in which an elf disproves evolution by asking “were you there?” and then squeeeeeeees over a dragon eating one of them.

        1. Will, you’re just making me laugh now. For a start, I don’t remember any squeeing, nor anybody disproving evolution or even attempting to. But, ultimately, it doesn’t matter. I read the book months ago and enjoyed it. What do you want me to do now–denounce my review?

          As far as the term ideologue, I’m going to say that some of his responses fit that of an ideologue, but if you were to create a venn diagram, he would be more solidly in the iconoclast circle. But, come on, you’re hurting my pride. My writing must really suck if you can’t find anything to talk about but Vox Day and his book.

          Buy my book and tell the world how it’s 50% worse than Throne of Bones! That would satisfy my pride. 🙂

          1. I’m not going to buy it but I’m 95% convinced it’s better than A Throne of Bones.

            I have screenshots of the evolution debate in A Throne of Bones. To be fair, I’m sure you can’t remember, it is 800 pages of very little happening.

            1. Hey, you can’ t blame me for trying to sell my book.

              I honestly think I would remember a discussion of our modern concept of evolution in a book set in [a fantastical] ancient Rome. It would stick out like a sore thumb. You’ve got me curious, though. What section is it in?

            2. And yet you have the time to come to my blog in order to convince me that it’s a terrible book. I do remember this scene, now that I see it again. Having read a lot of history, I didn’t see it as an attempt to disprove evolution, but a philosophical conceit in the style of the time. A scene such as that is neither here nor there for me. It isn’t bad writing. It just reveals the author’s world view, which most authors will unwittingly do.

            3. A Throne of Bones is over 800 pages.

              (and that was one of the most stunningly bad things I’ve ever read, by the way)

  1. Ideologues (and language police) suck!

    Will is a consummate ANTI-salesman with one product: “DON’T buy this book!”

    Unfortunately, generating controversy around a book or film *usually* results in MORE sales, not LESS…

    1. What’s controversial about it? It’s poorly written and incredibly dull. The only reason people are actually reading it is because Vox Day wrote it.

      1. Trust me, I didn’t read it because Vox Day wrote it. I read it thinking I would trash it because VD’s writing (in my experience) isn’t as intelligent as the man claims to be. But then I liked it. Say what you like, but I did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Me