Conservapedia:RobS's Idiot's Grin Stratagem

From RationalWiki

At some point in your debating career you may find yourself having to use deceit in order to defend your position. Typically, this is frowned upon, unless you are Conservative of course. Using completely falsified, forged, or irrelevant facts, statistics, or statements is helpful in proving your justified position. Unfortunately, sometimes the Liberals may become aware of this, and ask for some sort of citation. Of course the Liberals will not understand that deceit is OK for us to use, so do not bother explaining this.

The best way to deal with Liberal citation mongers is to use the Idiot's Grin Strategem. As demonstrated below, pretending that you are of below average intelligence, or somehow confused about everything going on will hopefully make the Liberals unsure how to continue.

1 Example for Study
2 Conclusion
3 Further Examples
4 See Also

[edit] Example for Study

In the Example below, a Defender of the Faith has supported his position by stating that a particular term is "common knowledge", and this draws the fury of the Liberal "source police".

"Contract on America was a spoof? Really? Seems common knowledge spoofed New Dealers for 70 years and they didn't even know it. Must be more evidence that they did not know everything afterall, huh?"--RobS 11:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

The liberal may ask you to cease being sarcastic, and continue to ask for a source. Stay strong, don't quit now:

"It's been common knowledge for decades."--RobS 11:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Very good. The Idiot'sGrin seems to be working, but those Liberals don't give up easy. They are still hounding you for something called a "source". Hmm..not sure what to do about that..Let's blame something:

"Well of course, given censorship, oppression, and the Fairness Doctrine for 50 years."--RobS 12:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Well Done! Of course you cannot find a source, they have all been censored by the evil Liberals. At this time your opponents will invariably say claim that you are not being censored now, and continue to ask for a source. Keep grinning, you can do it:

"I beleive I've answered several times."--RobS 12:27, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you haven't answered anything yet, this is an attempt to confuse the Liberal hyenas. Hopefully, they will not stop to scratch their heads, scroll back up and read the section over again. Of course this may not work against the more wily specimens. I know your facial muscles are burning, but just hold that grin a little longer:

"It also survives in oral histories."--RobS 12:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Very Good! Oral histories cannot be properly sourced. The Liberals will be truly stumped now. Uh oh. Looks like the Liberal has realized that oral histories are regularly recorded and sourced. Don't Worry, you are in the last lap...stretch that grin out wide:

"Well duh, what does oral mean?"--RobS 12:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Brilliant! Of course. My what a large Grin...Wait, they still aren't satisfied? Well maybe a small accident will solve this problem:

"Why did you revert my edit and remove my comment? I repeat: many oral histories have transcribed into printed form/ Can you direct me to a few where I might see this term used?"--Franklin 12:42, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, hit the wrong button (meant to hit mark as patrolled)." RobS 12:45, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:New_Ordeal"

[edit] Conclusion

As you can see, the Idiot'sGrin Strategem is almost unbeatable. Eventually the Liberals will become tired and give up, leaving you with a sore face, but without the odium of defeat.

[edit] Further Examples

As may be seen here, the Idiot'sGrin Stratagem is not only useful against external critics, but your fellow sysops as well. In this example, a massively misguided response to criticism is defended by simply wearing a large grin and pretending that the initial criticism never happened, any objection the response is therefore nullified, at least in the mind of the user. Note how each attempt to use logic is rebuffed with a simple refusal to understand, followed by repeated unsubstantiated assumptions. This prolongs the conversation to the point where the objection to your original response has largely faded in a sea of irrelevancies.