Darkstream: The Supreme Court and social justice rhetoric

From the transcript of the Darkstream:

Is calling an SJW a social justice terrorist good rhetoric?

No, it’s terrible, it’s absolutely terrible. The whole point of rhetoric is to instigate emotions. SJWs do consider themselves to be brave warriors for social justice, that’s why using SJW in a derogatory sense upsets them. They do not consider themselves to be terrorists, so you might as well call them social justice poopyheads, that’s not effective either. What you guys need to learn is it’s not about what YOU think.

You know I find this incredibly irritating. People are constantly saying “well, I call them social justice crybabies cuz I think they I think they cry and they’re babies.” First of all, no, you don’t call them that, nobody calls them that, you’ve never called them that. Second, it’s not about you, it’s not about what you think, it’s about what they think. That’s why rhetoric is effective. Rhetoric points to the truth, you know,  and they’re not terrorists, terrorists are actually scary and SJWs are not. That’s part of why they’re so successful, you know, because they’re not scary people who are taken seriously.

Yeah, alternatively use what they call you, mockingly, but use it not ironically,  that can also be effective. SJWs aren’t warriors and they don’t fight anything but caffeine and sugar addictions, diabetes, and obesity. That’s true, but they like to think that they are, and so when you’re calling them “warriors” they know that you’re mocking them,  that’s why it’s so effective. What is a good use of rhetoric to use against SJWS? They hate being called SJWs, it drives them crazy, they even try to claim that the Alt-Right invented it! No, the Alt-Right didn’t invent any of that, that’s what they actually call themselves and it was just such a lame, ridiculous term that it became a perjorative, a very effective one.

What would you call them to offend them? I just call them SJWs, that offends them every single time, they hate it. Don’t you understand the most effective rhetoric to use against something is that which upsets them the most? That’s why the whole “Democrats are the real racists” doesn’t work at all, because they don’t regard themselves as being racist, they’re too clueless and hypocritical to make the abstract leap that is required to connect their paternalistic attitude towards minorities with racism and understand that it is actually racist. Again,  you’re delving into the realm of dialectic, as soon as you have to start explaining something you are in the realm of dialectic. If you are applying logic to it you’re in the realm of dialectic. Whatever you use has to inflict emotional pain on them.

To which I later added in the comments:

For the benefit of those of you who are too stupid to understand either my books or Aristotle’s, I will dumb the concept down to the maximum extent possible:

Rhetoric is NOT about YOU. It is not about what you think, it is not about what makes sense to you, it is not about what you think sounds cool, clever, witty, funny, or will “cause heads to explode”. Rhetoric is about what observably causes emotional pain and distress to its target.

If you think calling the Left, which has supported every terrorist movement since the Irgun, the IRA, and the PLO, “terrorists”, is going to cause them any emotional pain at all, then you are even dumber than I already think you are.