One more good use of attack words is to defame, demoralize, and destroy the opposition. Agreed though that they aren't effective for pursuading normalfags.
Exactly right. The leftist commies attempt to portray what they are not, being self-inconsistent deranged liars, and ethical (because "moral" is a bad word to them) high-ground is what they always try to get. They know we have virtue so they try word games to try to steal it, because they know virtue appeals to the masses. There is a difference between attack and virtue language, with different applications, and we must master both.
Reclaiming Language?
Jonathan Brown
Wyatt Hughes
Manslaughter = people-slaughter
Manipulation = peopulation
Lets take the negative words & change them as well
Carson Morales
Using softer language is extremely effective. You can get a lot of normalfags, especially women, to agree to virtually any NS policy in 15 minutes or less when you avoid using overly harsh language. The structure of what you say matters a lot, too. Not only can you sidestep the word "racist" by pointing out that it's just "anti-white" (probably the biggest win of all time for us), but using phrases and sentences to equivocate various things is effective (because muh equality). It's even more effective with those more desperate for it (i.e. cuckservatives). Equivocation can be combined with said sidestep at the same time, like Horus's classic "you're just saying that because I'm White. Anti-racism is just anti-white." Note the equivocation. Only people of higher worth want things segregated at this time. Lumpenprole do not.
It requires far too much discipline for the average idiot to separate ideas (which Zig Forumslacks are huge on, I have noticed).
Another good equivocation was the Trump phrase: "the Clintons are criminals." That's about as simple as it gets. A = B. And as we know, everyone tended to agree, and he won by a landslide. The enemy does it, too: "Richard Spencer is a rayciss literal not see!"
Another good note about language: conflicting ideas are armor piercers and good for knocking down the first layer of psychological defenses (i.e. hardened target). Example: "The Jews have literal Nazi Nuremberg Laws…in THEIR country." Notice how I would never use the N-word in any other context. That is a higher stakes, bolder move. The idea is to always put the opponent on the back foot if they are hostile. You should also set ideas up that way, even if you don't say any contradictions. This way, any opposition has to always wade upstream through a tangle of bullshit to argue with you–like they have to justify ethnonationalism and make the case for Hitler, or they have to look like a weak bitch who got told. Win/win.
David Myers
Spoken and written language are for supreme normalniggers. Why not develop your telepathy instead?
Landon Moore
English is basically pozzed at this point. Trying to argue the definition of words goes nowhere because (((leftists))) are so deeply embedded into academia that they inevitably invoke the "language is, like, subjective, man!" clause when confronted. Then they go and change definitions of words in dictionaries/etc to be able to come back and say "SEE ACTUALLY YOU'RE WRONG", completely reversing on the "language is subjective" standpoint. Best example would be "racism", although that was a made up word by trotsky anyway, it keeps shifting its goalposts.
The future of the English language is some garbage "fluid" structure that essentially relies on a sort of "wiki" style of dictionary, where anyone can add, edit, and make shit out of their ass. Thus, any semblance of structure and stability is lost, people retreat to their own small tribes of non-heritage, and phrases like "gibs me dat" are treated as acceptable and normal.
The only solution is to invent our own fucking language at this point.
Zachary Hughes
Although, the next best thing would probably be just to make our own dictionary instead, giving a big "fuck you" to leftists and allowing us to have a language that isn't permanently fucked with "newspeak".
sage for samefag
Brody Peterson
Fuck off with your slides, kike.
Aiden Martin
The coupling strategy seems like it would be powerful. Basically introducing a desired concept with one that they cannot refute without tearing themselves down. There is potential for an entire workshop on debunking common arguments and sentiments using actual historical analogues that way. Cool idea along with the rest.
What you are describing are living languages in general. This has always been the case, because a living language has the connotations and meanings of its words shifting with colloquial understandings of them. One of the nastiest and dangerous things that Marxists do today is that they rely on their fake definitions and their target's unwitting acceptance of the colloquial definition.
Case in point: "We can agree that racism is bad, right?" Now to the average person, racism is being unjustly prejudicial towards someone else merely because of their race. This is bad to them because they've been drilled to think it is bad since they were children at this point and thus say, "Yeah, racism is bad." But they are doing two things: assuming that both people are talking about the same thing definition-wise, and assuming the person they are talking to is honest. Both of these are wrong assumptions when dealing with the Marxist. That person only asks the question in order to employ consistency on their target while purposefully switching out the colloquial, commonly-accept definition of the common word with their blighted Marxist-filth definitions. The moment you let them define the word for you and take a stance on it, you've lost. They'll berate you for being inconsistent if you try to say it isn't what you mean or that it is illogical because you've already agreed in an extremely (((tricky))) manner to their premise.
There's a reason why formal debates always begin with a funny ritual of saying that they will pull their definitions of words from some fixed source, because this bullshit is important. The way you counteract the garden-variety Marxist is just to ask them up front what they mean by that word. This often will set them off immediately because they are not used to people playing outside of their framework. In fact, most of them have not been trained to anticipate it. They first will say, "Of course you know what racism means! Don't play dumb," or, when you persist, try to slip on to the rest of their argument. If you keep questioning their definitions and immediately hammering how retarded they are and never, ever agreeing to any definition but what you can draw from OLD dictionaries since you're worried about corruptions in the language, you will have neutered one of the most potent weapons of these demoralized fuckers. If you get one that is smart enough to recover from it to actually get into their ideological frameworks, you'll have free rein to rip down their many flawed assumptions without them pulling a consistency compliance trap on you.
The only reason why a language gets turned into Newspeak is because the virtuous allow themselves and the common folk around them to use that flawed language. Teach yourself and them not to use it and instead use proper language and you un-poz the language. Get out of this mindset of retreat - it's defeatist bullshit and won't work anyway.
Thomas Collins
The use of the altered language is not so much to attack you, and more to control their own mind. The things they say must be warped beyond recognition for them to be palatable to their own mind, otherwise their mind would reject the obvious nonsense they speak. This is also why they repeat themselves when confronted by their absurdities.
It's difficult to believe that everybody on campus is in danger of imminent rape. It's easy to believe the persistent problem of rape culture being prevalent on campus is caused by toxic masculinity deeply ingrained in western culture, and you sound smart while saying it. They reason it's easier to believe is because "the persistent problem of rape culture being prevalent on campus is caused by toxic masculinity deeply ingrained in western culture" is to be understood as "we're all going to get raped", but when challenged (by reality) will morph back into the actual words and so escape scrutiny. This use of language enables people to hold believes that are blatantly false.
Kayden Mitchell
Don't teach your enemy to stop making mistakes. If you force them to not use the language then you make them harder not to identify. Let them continue to use it and then destroy them for doing so when it benefits you.
If you're arguing with one then make them define terms like problematic. Force them to explain things they cannot and they look stupid.