Ridicule as Thought

The purpose of ridicule is two-fold. First it is used to cow the opponent: no one likes to be the object of laughter or derision. It becomes difficult to respond rationally to such irrational attacks. So it is a tool of aggression useful for stifling dissent. In this manner ridicule eliminates – as much as possible – intellectual independence in both the opposing viewpoint and any tendency toward independent thought in wayward subordinates.

Second, ridicule is used to deflect the argument off the path of a valid subject and onto the person or worldview of the opponent. Deflecting the conversation is a Red Herring fallacy.

Ridicule has long been a staple in the tool box of the Left, starting with the situation comedies of the 70’s such as “All In The Family”, which positioned the conservative as a buffoon. This methodology has ballooned until every TV show can be seen to have conservative fools and Leftist geniuses (or at least normal appearing folks). Christians invariably are portrayed as psychopathic. Ridicule is the predominant evangelizing tool for the Left.

Saul Alinski might just be the most influential unknown, dead person in the country today. Alinski wrote “Rules For Radicals”, the philosophy and methodology of agitation and organization. Alinski and his philosophy was the subject of Hillary Clinton’s Master’s Thesis. And Alinski and his philosophy was the subject that Barack Obama taught during his Chicago “community organizer” days.

Alinski proposed 13 rules in the “Tactics” section of his book. Rule 4 says,

”Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage”

Alinski also proposes an ethic, which he summed up,

”The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means”

But the “most potent weapon” can be disarmed, as it was in the recent debate between Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett and Alvin Plantinga. Dennett became overwrought and spouted ridicule; Plantinga remained calm and stuck to the subject. By not responding to the ridicule Plantinga actually gained the high ground of intellectual pursuit, and consequently the respect of at least some of the observers.

Sticking to the subject and not responding to ad Hominems or to other types of fallacies is not just disconcerting to those who reduce themselves to the use of ridicule; it spot lights themselves as being ridiculous, intellectually ineffective, and just basically wrong. Ridicule is not rational thought, it is verbal abuse.