The more I debated with Rekieta, the more familiar I became with his argumentative tactics. At the outset he counted upon the ignorance or short memory of his viewers, but when he got so entangled that he could not find a way out, he played the trick of acting as a casual drunk or a clown who couldn’t be expected to take things seriously. Should he fail, in spite of these antics, he would feign confusion, claim he didn’t understand the counter-arguments, and then bolt away into another digression—usually some irrelevant legal trivia or juvenile ranting about someone’s goo.
He would lay down truisms and legal platitudes; and, if you accepted these, he would apply them to other situations of an entirely different nature from the original point at issue. If you pointed this out, he would dodge again, never allowing himself to be pinned down to a single precise claim. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on him, one’s hand grasped only liquor-soaked bluster and half-jokes that slipped through the fingers and reassembled a moment later into a smug facade of certainty.
If, on occasion, he was forced to concede a point—because of pressure from others present—and if you thought, at last, some ground had been gained, a surprise awaited you the next stream. Rekieta would be utterly oblivious to what had happened before, repeating the same nonsense with even greater confidence. And if you reminded him of his prior defeat, he would pretend astonishment and swear that the opposite had been proven. He could remember nothing—nothing except that he had been right all along.
Sometimes I was left dumbfounded. I did not know what amazed me more—the endless tide of his verbiage or the clever way in which he dressed up falsehood as insight, corruption as charm. Gradually, I began to hate him.
Here are a few common Nick copes with subsequent analysis to complement your post:
"
What do you want from me?"
Nick says this to make people think he is engaging with them when he is actually looking to shift the focus off of himself and onto others. Nick then usually forces the idea that this person needs him to do something
("why do you need me to do this?") thereby imagining himself in a position of power. Nick can then deem them to be unreasonable, entitled, or just dismiss them out of hand.
"
Why do you need my approval?"
This comes up when Nick wants to disagree without providing/defending his position. He seems offended that someone would try and convince him of their position on a given subject or dare to ask him to defend his own position. Nick apparently decides that it must be because he is
so important and the other person must NEED him to agree. An egotistical loaded question similar to the one above designed to shift focus off of himself and onto others.
"
Why do you care?"
This is yet another way that Nick tries to shift the focus off of himself and onto someone else. Of course people are free to care about whatever they want, but Nick's goal is to place the person in a position where they think they need to explain themselves to him. Again, Nick can then deem them to be unreasonable, entitled, or just dismiss them out of hand.
"
I don't know what you/
anyone is talking about."
When backed into a corner, Nick will restart the conversation by either denying that there is a problem or feigning ignorance. He will ask for clarity ad nauseum so that
the conversation cannot progress to the point where Nick has to explain himself.
"
You can'
t know everything."
While true on it's own, Nick seems to use this
generalization to project ignorance onto others on a
specific topic (while usually exempting himself through implication). This is because Nick would rather engage with what someone
doesn't know than what they
do know (for obvious reasons).
"
All rumors are true,
especially the fake ones,
but seriously there'
s no point in defending yourself online because people are going to believe whatever they want to believe,
and it'
s a waste to try and change anyone'
s mind".
Nick likes to rig certain conversations from the outset so that he feels correct no matter how it goes; if they believe him then Nick is right in his own way, and if they don't believe him then Nick is right as well. Pathetic self-soothing of a passive-aggressive narcissist.
TL/
DR: Nick's primary tactic is to be as difficult to deal with as possible so as to induce incompetence in his opposition. He accomplishes this via narcissistic belligerence
(especially when he feels threatened), malicious compliance, sabotage, devising his own definitions/interpretations of words, and confusing delusion for reality
(Nick thinking that merely believing something is true makes it true).
All of these approaches are prone to backfire and either cultivate or reinforce a severe personality disorder. Nick's reliance on them is what makes him a top-tier lolcow. While Nick's spite and inability to learn from his mistakes make him not worth engaging with in a meaningful sense, he can at least make for a compelling dumpster fire.
