How to Be Right
I haven’t read it or talked to a single person who has, but this new book by Greg Gutfield sounds interesting.
It’s called How To Be Right, and it’s about persuasive techniques for arguing with liberals.
Now, Gutfield is a smart and funny guy. Perhaps his book is mainly jokes and funny one-liners, or perhaps it’s truly substantive. I do know that we can use all the help we can get in that arena, so I think it’s worth a look. Read the comments at Amazon and decide for yourself.
Well, if you read the material available from the “Look Inside” pages it seems clear that just spinningout one liners isn’t his primary purpose.
He did a Prager University video on the topic which was based on the premise of his book:
http://youtu.be/eW3Vo-XvFoI
Beth:
Thanks for the tip. I’ll take a look when I have a chance.
I often watch “The Five” on Fox News where Greg Gutfield is a regular panelist. He is clearly the sharpest one on the show, although he does do a considerable bit of verbal mugging for the camera. He has a talent for going right for the quick of an issue. I have read another of his books and will order this one ASAP.
It really seems rather pointless to try and have a rational discussion with people who don’t believe in reason.
I’ve just read the sample on Kindle. “How to Be Right” looks good and I’m going to order it.
Just a reminder to everyone… Anything you order from Amazon, order through the link on Neo’s blog.
snopercod:
There are liberals who believe in reason. I know some. And I was one.
I’ve listened to the audio book, and it was so useful I had to buy a physical copy as well.
Honestly, it should be mandatory reading for those of us on the right. I learned a lot from the book, as well as had a few good laughs.
Mandatory reading doesn’t do anything in and of itself, since reading doesn’t allow people to acquire skills.
I like Gutfeld and will read it. I would also recommend “SJWs Always Lie” by Vox Day.
People are quite divided on the man but there is no denying the use of the book.
snopercod: “It really seems rather pointless to try and have a rational discussion with people who don’t believe in reason.”
In a public setting, including social media, you’re talking to an audience, not just the person you’re talking with.
I don’t know what Gutfield says, so my recommendation may fit his recommendation:
Think in terms of narrative and counter-narrative like an advocate arguing in front of a jury. Lay the foundation with premises and set the frame and then take to direct argument on the issue.
Litigators aren’t trying to convince each other. They’re competing to convince a jury.
Litigators aren’t trying to convince each other. They’re competing to convince a jury.
In America before 1860, lawyers who ended up losing arguments, could always take offense and challenge the other lawyer to a duel. It had a certain effect.