Sophistry is part and parcel to the Left. Leftists make discussions of certain topics socially costly and then pretend to misinterpret what you mean when you use a euphemism for an un-PC concept. Multiculturalism is a good example. "Multiculturalism" is really a euphemism for multiracialism. People use the term Multiculturalism because speaking about race and racial differences and the idea of different racial groups as not having totally aligned interests are all verboten topics. That is not to say that actual multiculturalism (read: White countries with multiple White linguocultural groups) does not present some problems: Anglophone Canada’s tension with French-speaking Quebec, Spain’s experience with Basque separatist terrorism, and Scotland’s recent flirtation with secession from the UK all come to mind. But this is not what most people mean when they speak out against “multiculturalism”, especially in light of Europe’s ongoing ghettoization by Islamic hordes. Multiculturalism puts assimilation-resistant Bavarians on the same plane of evil as Arab Muslims targeting white women for rape and sexual slavery. It certainly is not what you mean—so why not speak in a way that clarifies, rather than obscures, the issue? In other words, learn to use better framing.
What is framing? Framing is choosing one’s language to define the parameters of debate. Frames can do much more than just curate political discourse; they also play a role in cognition. Frames can influence the outcome of a political contest by limiting what vocabulary and metaphor may be used. Words are the scaffolding of thought, so if you can determine what words can or cannot be used, you can influence the thoughts and emotional responses people will have. Research shows that if you use the right frame, you can radically alter your subject’s response, making them more amenable to your views. The Left has long understood the importance of framing: “undocumented Americans” rather than illegal immigrants, “DREAMer” rather than anchor baby, “marriage equality” vs. gay marriage, etc. This is a big part of why they have been so successful recently.
What ends up happening when you use the wrong frame is that you end up playing into the leftist’s (rubbing) hands, and some of the cleverer ones will take advantage of this and try to dance around your real argument. For example, argue that multiculturalism never works, and a leftist may bring up a country like Switzerland and try to claim that as a successful example of multiculturalism and therefore flooding Europe with Muslims is no big deal goy :^). Instead of engaging in good faith with what you are trying to say, they will take what you said, interpret it literally, almost like an autist, and argue against that premise instead, rather than engage with the implied message. This has the effect of muddying the waters for any unconverted onlookers, who may not be aware of what the true issue is that the term multiculturalism speaks to (race), and may find this sort of glibness sufficient to quiet any cognitive dissonance they may have been experiencing. It also has the effect of tiring you out by forcing you to respond to red herrings. If you are arguing with a liberal you need to stop saying the former and start saying the latter so as to draw the liberals out of their sophistic word games and force them to fight you on your ground. Falling into their trap can be avoided with good framing.
One other area where we could be doing better on framing is on the current “refugee crisis”. Of course, the issue of migrants vs. refugees is itself an example of framing, and the Right has chosen the relatively stronger frame in calling them “economic migrants”, but focusing too much on this current wave of migrants opens us up to the risk of losing the forest for the trees. For instance, some leftists have implied that the Paris attacks don't have any salience for the issue of Islamic migrants because most of them were not migrants and were actually born in European countries. Similarly they are now starting to do this in the wake of the San Bernardino attack as well. Therefore "Belgians" and "Americans" are just as likely to be terrorists as foreign-born Muslims. Focusing too much on the current migrants risks setting up a false distinction between “normal” Muslim immigrants and those from the currently ongoing wave of migrants, confusing the issue. Moreover, putting the focus on their immigration status allows them to decouple race from nation, making Abdelhamid Abaaoud just as "Belgian" as any Georges or Louis. Instead of attacking these current migrants, you need to make clear that the problem is Islamic immigration as a whole. Otherwise, you'll just find yourself wasting energy and time on red herrings. I have seen some on the alt-right using the term “invaders” in regard to the ongoing wave of migrants. This is good and more effectively communicates the danger of Islam in general, rather than the relatively anodyne “migrants”. We should keep using this but also apply it to Islamic immigration more generally.
These euphemisms and evasions that we find ourselves resorting to tend to trap us into the Left’s frame, where we cannot effectively advocate for our interests. Focusing on the current “refugees” tends to distract from the real debate, which is Islam’s presence in the West. These particular migrants are from Syria, Afghanistan, and other places, but we are not against them for being from those particular countries. We are opposed to their presence because they are an alien group that, like all groups, seeks to expand itself and can only do this at the expense of ours. This is what the issue ultimately boils down to: Islam is a hostile force that seeks our destruction.
It is important to clarify here that while Islam is not a race per-say, it certainly does have a racial element to it, being that the majority of its adherents (though not all; see Chechnya and Bosnia) are brown. Thus, leftists are actually not totally wrong when they accuse our opposition to Islam of being “racist”, since we do not want the races which generally represent Islam to be let into our society. However, Islam as a doctrine seems to bring out the worst impulses in adherents by sanctioning and encouraging all sorts of anti-social behavior. So it is fair to say: 1. Yes, Islam is not a race, but there is a racial element to it 2. Islam makes its adherents more violent than they might otherwise be.
One potential objection to this strategy I am advocating may be that it is too dangerous to lay one’s cards on the table and speak so bluntly. For those whose employment is contingent on not expressing crimethink, or who are currently in university, I understand that there may at times be a need to speak with euphemisms. But for those of you who are self-employed, online, or otherwise not vulnerable to reprisals, I think it is necessary that we use more precise and honest language. A large part of why the Left has been so successful is due to their understanding of framing. We need to do likewise. The recent success of #cuckservative is a prominent example of successful alt-right framing. We need to do more of that.
Fight the leftist on your terms, not his. Don't let the leftist curate language. Playing by his rules means you can only lose.