Over at Facebook I often post news items (from X) that people won’t see if they get their “news” from legacy outlets. In response, many people have tried to belittle me with many flavors of ad hominem attacks. It’s amazing to see grown adults resort to such tactics. They also use many other tactics, most of which are described in an excellent book by Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott: The Canceling of the American Mind.

I asked Grok 3 to summarize the tactics often used by people on the political far Left against anyone who disagrees, including people like me who had for many years voted for Democrats. No longer. I don’t recognize the current Democratic Party and I abhor many of their positions, such as pro-war, pro-censorship, race-essentialism and advocating for confused teenagers to undergo permanent life-changing surgeries and sterilization through cross-sex hormones and so-called “puberty blockers.”

When I criticize these positions on social media it doesn’t take long for the attacks to start. Many of these attacks have been described in Chapter 6 of The Canceling, “The Perfect Rhetorical Fortress.” These are not attempts to communicate. Rather, they are attempts to shut people up, to cancel them. I asked Grok to summarize these “barricades.” Here’s Grok’s response (which I reviewed for accuracy):

These tactics are described as “barricades” that form an impregnable fortress, protecting the user from having to address arguments on their merits. Below is a summary of the 11 barricades as presented in the chapter, based on the book’s framework:

Fasco-Casting
This barricade involves labeling someone as “conservative,” “right-wing,” “far-right,” “fascist,” or even “neo-confederate,” regardless of their actual beliefs. By associating the speaker with a negatively perceived ideology, their arguments can be dismissed outright as inherently bad or unworthy of consideration.

Are You a Man or a Woman?
This tactic questions whether the speaker’s gender disqualifies them from speaking on certain issues. For example, men might be told they can’t discuss women’s issues, creating a barrier based on identity rather than the argument’s validity.

Are You Straight or Gay?
Sexual orientation is weaponized here to determine if someone is “allowed” to speak. Straight individuals might be dismissed from discussions on LGBTQ+ matters, while gay individuals with dissenting views might still be excluded if their opinions don’t align with the accepted narrative.

Are You Cis or Trans?
This barricade limits who can speak on transgender issues, often restricting it to trans individuals. However, even trans people can be dismissed if their views deviate from the dominant ideology, making it a selective filter based on identity conformity.

What’s Your Race?
Race is used to silence speakers, such as claiming white individuals can’t discuss racial issues due to privilege, or that people of color must align with specific perspectives to be heard. It shrinks the pool of “legitimate” voices based on immutable traits.

Are You a Boomer or Zoomer?
Age becomes a disqualifier, with older generations (e.g., Boomers) dismissed as out-of-touch, or younger ones (e.g., Zoomers) as too inexperienced. This tactic avoids engaging with the argument by focusing on the speaker’s generational context.

Who’s Your Employer? Who Are Your Friends?
This barricade uses guilt-by-association, suggesting that a speaker’s job, affiliations, or social connections taint their credibility. If they’ve ever worked for or been linked to a “bad” entity or person, their arguments are discarded.

Did the Speaker Lose Their Cool?
Known as the “don’t get angry” barricade, this tactic deems a speaker’s argument invalid if they show frustration or emotion. Given the provocative nature of the other barricades, this often traps opponents into a no-win situation.

Are You a Victim?
This questions whether the speaker has sufficient personal victimhood to weigh in on an issue. Those deemed insufficiently oppressed may be told they lack the lived experience to participate, regardless of their reasoning.

Are You Educated Enough?
Lack of formal credentials (e.g., a degree) can be used to dismiss a speaker, even if their argument is sound. Conversely, overeducated individuals might be accused of elitism, making this a flexible tool to exclude based on perceived intellectual status.

Is Your Concern Just a Personal Grudge?
This final barricade reduces a speaker’s argument to a petty, subjective complaint rather than a legitimate critique. By framing their position as emotionally driven or trivial, it sidesteps the need to address the substance of their point.

These 11 “barricades” substitute identity, affiliations, and emotional presentation for attempts to engage in discussion. These tactics enable users to avoid substantive debate, effectively canceling dissent without ever engaging with it.

This same book also lists tactics more often used by those on the political right. I will discuss them further in a future article.